Fighting overpopulation by homosexuality

[Loppan Torkel]

Premise of the thread (true or false in real life doesn't matter, though you're free to discuss it as long as it doesn't become the focal point):
1. The world is getting overpopulated with serious suffering as consequence
2. Homosexuals are equally good as parents as heterosexuals
3. It's possible to determine and guide a foetus future sexual orientation
4. Using the above technology systematically on a global scale would curb the population significantly

Rules:
1. No homophobic rhetoric or accusations
2. No personal (direct or indirect) attacks


If homosexuality is a tool of nature to fight overpopulation (Yes, I know the nature can't use tools or fight..) - is there any issue in speeding the process up to prevent suffering?
Since women have a moral right over the foetus' life and death - Is there any moral issue in guiding the sexual preference of the foetus?
Would you be okay with a government sanctioned intervention to prevent overpopulation, in actively increasing the incidence of homosexuality in your nation?

 

[Narz]

Since women have a moral right over the foetus' life and death - Is there any moral issue in guiding the sexual preference of the foetus?

Not IMO.

Would you be okay with a government sanctioned intervention to prevent overpopulation, in actively increasing the incidence of homosexuality in your nation?

Sure, why not? Governments even acknowledging this taboo topic would be a step in the right direction.

 

[BasketCase]

Would you be okay with a government sanctioned intervention to prevent overpopulation

Many Third World nations (not just the governments, this is the citizens themselves talking) would answer this with an empatic "no". In Third World nations, where infant mortality rates are very high, the only way to preserve the family line to have lots of children, to maximize the chance that some survive to adulthood.

No, I'm not talking hypothetically. Forced birth control in Third World nations has already been proposed before, and the citizens in such nations simply won't have it. They react violently at the mere proposal. The only way to impose forced homosexuality would be at the point of a gun.....and after everything Afghanistan- and Iraq-related that's been happening in the last ten years or so, I know how most people in CFC would feel about that.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Better idea: Birth Control.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Better idea: Birth Control.

This thread isn't about birth control in general. Other methods of fighting overpopulation is off topic. This topic is about the hypothetical described above.

Many Third World nations (not just the governments, this is the citizens themselves talking) would answer this with an empatic "no". In Third World nations, where infant mortality rates are very high, the only way to preserve the family line to have lots of children, to maximize the chance that some survive to adulthood.

No, I'm not talking hypothetically. Forced birth control in Third World nations has already been proposed before, and the citizens in such nations simply won't have it. They react violently at the mere proposal. The only way to impose forced homosexuality would be at the point of a gun.....and after everything Afghanistan- and Iraq-related that's been happening in the last ten years or so, I know how most people in CFC would feel about that.

"Third World nations"?? I'm asking you for your own nation. You may disregard the fact that your government and perhaps yourself at the moment have no perceived issue with overpopulation in your own nation.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

This thread isn't about birth control in general. Other methods of fighting overpopulation is off topic. This topic is about the hypothetical described above.

"Third World nations"?? I'm asking you for your own nation. You may disregard the fact that your government and perhaps yourself at the moment have no perceived issue with overpopulation in your own nation.

You're a tough taskmaster Loppan !

 

[Leoreth]

Wait. Do you propose to pre-select foeti according to their sexual orientation?

If so, I'm against it. The moment abortion becomes a tool for selective breeding I become pro-life, and the whole argument "if abortion, then eugenics" is really just opening the doors for anti-choice strawmen.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Wait. Do you propose to pre-select foeti according to their sexual orientation?

If so, I'm against it. The moment abortion becomes a tool for selective breeding I become pro-life, and the whole argument "if abortion, then eugenics" is really just opening the doors for anti-choice strawmen.

No, no. No eugenics, just a little additive to the water supply

You're a tough taskmaster Loppan !

Side stepping the questions only dilutes the thread. Narz is at least answering the questions in an honest manner.

 

[Cutlass]

The developed nations where this might be possible don't have a population growth problem....

 

[GhostWriter16]

Since women have a moral right over the foetus' life and death - Is there any moral issue in guiding the sexual preference of the foetus?

Your premise here, in my opinion, is false, thus throwing out the entire debate. The answer to the question is yes, there is a moral issue.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Seems to me that it's far easier to fight overpopulation by simply using contraception.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well since the developed parts of the world do not have much trouble with overpopulation it would suggest that we need to increase living standard all around the globe rather then go nuts...

But this thread seems to be rather sort of joke so let me play the ball:
Why dont we try to increase the percantage of people who tend to commit suicide?

 

[de Maistre]

Am I missing something or don't homosexual couples want to be parents too? It wouldn't take away the desire to have children, merely the means to have children of their own. Better to just forcibly sterilize them, at least then they couldn't hook up with a homosexual couple of the opposite sex and give each other the children they want, and it could have the added benefit of ensuring that biological dregs don't reproduce.

 

[kochman]

The developed nations where this might be possible don't have a population growth problem....

Exactly right...

Not to mention, it is completely wrong, IMO, to alter the fetus if not for the health of the fetus.

You mess with the sexual preference, who knows how bad you might screw someone up. They wanted to be hetero, were going to be, you switch a gene or two around, but there were other factors not dealt with... combination = sandwich...

If someone is gay, cool... to force someone to be gay? Totally not cool.

 

[Winner]

Since it's women who produce extra children, and lesbians are perfectly capable of having children, the overall effect would be negligible (besides making a few Y-chromosome lines become extinct). The proposition makes no rational sense, besides being morally questionable.

 

[BasketCase]

"Third World nations"?? I'm asking you for your own nation.

I could be living in a Third World nation. This is the Internet, dude. I could be anybody, anywhere. So there's no real point in asking the above.

However, now that I think about it, the idea of forced birth control has been raised--and shot down--in the United States and other First World nations as well. It's considered a wholesale violation of human rights.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Seems to me that it's far easier to fight overpopulation by simply using contraception.

But this doesn't make for a very interesting topic. I saw the case for homosexuality as being caused naturally to prevent overpopulation, in C_H now locked thread about homophobia. If it is, the questions asked in this thread seem fairly valid.

Am I missing something or don't homosexual couples want to be parents too? It wouldn't take away the desire to have children, merely the means to have children of their own. Better to just forcibly sterilize them, at least then they couldn't hook up with a homosexual couple of the opposite sex and give each other the children they want, and it could have the added benefit of ensuring that biological dregs don't reproduce.

Adopting could be more encouraged and be a natural solution.

Well since the developed parts of the world do not have much trouble with overpopulation it would suggest that we need to increase living standard all around the globe rather then go nuts...

But this thread seems to be rather sort of joke so let me play the ball:
Why dont we try to increase the percantage of people who tend to commit suicide?

You're not playing ball. If you did, you'd consider the questions asked rather than comparing promotion of homosexuality to promotion of suicide. Is it that bad in your opinion?

I could be living in a Third World nation. This is the Internet, dude. I could be anybody, anywhere. So there's no real point in asking the above.

However, now that I think about it, the idea of forced birth control has been raised--and shot down--in the United States and other First World nations as well. It's considered a wholesale violation of human rights.

You could be, but I don't think you are. Also, this isn't really forced birth control, it's just an alteration of the foetus, perhaps encouraged by the state, but here you have the choice.

 

[Disgustipated]

There is no way to increase homosexuality, so the only purpose of this thread would be for hypothetical scenario. Homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it cannot be coerced.

So hypothetically I oppose it on moral grounds. It's not right to force people into a certain lifestyle (It's not better than expecting gays to be straight). As for overpopulation you just have to let nature run its course through disease and famine.

 

[Glassfan]

Better idea: Birth Control.

Seems to me that it's far easier to fight overpopulation by simply using contraception.

Agreed. Reproductive education and contraception are the obvious answers to overpopulation. Promoting homosexuality as birth control would be problematic, given that "most" of us are heterosexual.

Women have a legal right to terminate their fetus, not a moral right. It's obviously not moral to kill your baby. It was once legal to own slaves - it was never moral.

Government intervention ought to focus on things like tax incentives for smaller families. Forcing birth control would be shot down in the Supreme Court.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

There is no way to increase homosexuality, so the only purpose of this thread would be for hypothetical scenario. Homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it cannot be coerced.

So hypothetically I oppose it on moral grounds. It's not right to force people into a certain lifestyle (It's not better than expecting gays to be straight). As for overpopulation you just have to let nature run its course through disease and famine.

First, I believe there's a good chance that there will be a way to increase and decrease homosexuality in a population over time, with further knowledge and if it was to become desirable to do so. This unless you believe that it's the souls that contain the preferences.

Secondly, you wouldn't be forcing any people. It's the mother and father deciding the fate of a foetus.