[Unsound]

I actually agree with Bart, the implications and the questions he asks are fascinating. Another one, getting away from abortion, what if a simple hormone pill taken during pregnancy could prevent the gay? Would it be ethical? how many people would do it anyways?

[xerxes]

Unsound Unsound:

I actually agree with Bart, the implications and the questions he asks are fascinating. Another one, getting away from abortion, what if a simple hormone pill taken during pregnancy could prevent the gay? Would it be ethical? how many people would do it anyways?

That's only if you accept that homosexuality is a disease akin to Down's, ALS, or other diseases and conditions that are genetic. And if we go by the definition of "disease", that is, a condition that impairs the human body causing pain and possibly death, then Homosexuality can't be considered as such.

Now I'm all for finding a way to make sure there's no more Down's, ALS, et al,but homosexuality doesn't fit the definition.

[raydan]

xerxes xerxes:

Now I'm all for finding a way to make sure there's no more Down's, ALS, et al,but homosexuality doesn't fit the definition.

Sadly, it probably does for some people.

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

I think it would be safe to assume that if there is a gay gene, then the majority of people who would be distressed by that are the religious type. And then they'll have to decide which is worse: brining a creature of inherent sin into the world, or aborting a fetus. Let them decide that and let everyone else go on an live their lives.

I agree that the majority that would be distressed by the finding of a hypothetical gay indicator in their baby would be religious types. The fascinating thing to see in this case will be if the ardently pro-life fundies change their minds if they know with certainty that their baby absolutely will not agree with their total worldview as they reach adulthood.

What might end up being a win for the pro-abortion argument would then be a loss to the gay population.

I think it's also reasonable to contemplate the mostly secular majority who might nonchalantly elect to abort a gay baby in favor of trying again for a baby that isn't gay (for whatever reason).

Lots of secular 'manly men' are likely to encourage their wives/partners to abort a gay baby especially if the baby was to be a boy. The macho types have a real identity crisis when they have a gay son who isn't interested in hog hunting, driving pickumup trucks, or hanging out at Hooters to ogle the waitresses.

I know the Jewish and black communities are struggling with similar ethical issues these days now that Tay Sachs and sickle cell can be detected in unborn babies. There are people in both groups who believe that children afflicted with these genetic issues are unique to their races and therefore worthy of preserving solely for their unique racial qualities.

Self-selecting those qualities out of existence is to some of these folks a form of self-imposed genocide.

Likewise, the potential for a test for sexual orientation opens up the possibility of heterosexuals selecting the gay population into statistical irrelevancy.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

xerxes xerxes:

Now I'm all for finding a way to make sure there's no more Down's, ALS, et al,but homosexuality doesn't fit the definition.

Sadly, it probably does for some people.

Given that the Asians abort for sex selection I'd figure that they'd probably be first to widely abort for sexual preference selection. No Asian culture has a strong pro-life component to it so it's reasonable to calculate that such a thing would show up in Asia first.

In the West the feminist insistence on abortion-on-demand policies sets the stage for women to select for whatever reason they want, thus at least some of this is going to be inevitable if a test comes up for this.

Just to be clear, while I am discussing these questions I remain fervently pro-life. I'd knowingly adopt a dozen gay babies and raise them knowing they'd be gay if it would save their lives. I think a lot of other ardent pro-lifers would do the same.

[xerxes]

$1:

Lots of secular 'manly men' are likely to encourage their wives/partners to abort a gay baby especially if the baby was to be a boy. The macho types have a real identity crisis when they have a gay son who isn't interested in hog hunting, driving pickumup trucks, or hanging out at Hooters to ogle the waitresses.

Then they don't qualify as real men if they can't love their kids unconditionally.

$1:

Likewise, the potential for a test for sexual orientation opens up the possibility of heterosexuals selecting the gay population into statistical irrelevancy.

Aren't they already? People who identify as LGBT are what, less than 5% of the population?

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

$1:

Lots of secular 'manly men' are likely to encourage their wives/partners to abort a gay baby especially if the baby was to be a boy. The macho types have a real identity crisis when they have a gay son who isn't interested in hog hunting, driving pickumup trucks, or hanging out at Hooters to ogle the waitresses.

Then they don't qualify as real men if they can't love their kids unconditionally.

I agree with you. At the same time these kind of puppy-kicking troglodytes still exist.

xerxes xerxes:

$1:

Likewise, the potential for a test for sexual orientation opens up the possibility of heterosexuals selecting the gay population into statistical irrelevancy.

Aren't they already? People who identify as LGBT are what, less than 5% of the population?

True, but given that they just lobbied, politicked, donated, and protested their argument through the Supreme Court they are most definitely not statistically irrelevant. But at some level of diminished population they will also have a diminished influence.

One of our posters put up a statistical study on islamic populations and showed ranges of populations numbers that also closely correspond with influence and power. Below a currently unknown percentage of the population the political power of the LGBT community will become effectively irrelevant.

[xerxes]

$1:

True, but given that they just lobbied, politicked, donated, and protested their argument through the Supreme Court they are most definitely not statistically irrelevant. But at some level of diminished population they will also have a diminished influence.

That's different though. That's a case of a minority fighting for equal rights under the law. Every time a group, no matter how great or small, is discriminated against, democracy suffers.

[Brenda]

Hey, obesity is a disease! Can't we just give obese parents an abortion pill, so they won't make obese children?

Considering the fact that life causes death, shouldn't we just make pregnancy illegal? I mean, there will always be people who bitch about others. What about if there just ARE no others anymore?

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

I actually agree with Bart, the implications and the questions he asks are fascinating. Another one, getting away from abortion, what if a simple hormone pill taken during pregnancy could prevent the gay? Would it be ethical? how many people would do it anyways?

What is it about homosexuality do you find that is comparable to say, Down Syndrome or any other degenerative life shortening, life ruining disease that you think ought to be fixed with a pill. How do you find the two in any way comparable? And since you appear to agree with the altering of genetic makeup that determines personality, sexual orientation, etc, what else would you agree with should be on the table for genetic manipulation? Hair colour? Sex? I'm curious.

I must admit, I think I find this post from you even more disgusting than Bart's usual pedestrian stuff.

[Teikiatsu]

xerxes xerxes:

I think it would be safe to assume that if there is a gay gene, then the majority of people who would be distressed by that are the religious type. And then they'll have to decide which is worse: brining a creature of inherent sin into the world, or aborting a fetus. Let them decide that and let everyone else go on an live their lives.

If there were a gay gene, it would be self-selecting against itself.

Honestly, it makes no sense. DNA's ultimate chemical nature is to promote self-replication. A strand of DNA that discourages attraction to the opposite gender is effectively suicidal to the point of extinction.

The sibling theory has potential. Scientists have found that the blood-barrier in the womb is not 100% secure; in fact hormones and antigens from the child will enter the mother's bloodstream and can have impact on the subsequent offspring. It could be argued that early in man's development when resources were scarce and suitable mates were limited that a natural mechanism to reduce competition within one family could occur. DNA wants to replicates and wants survival advantage. Since older siblings tended to be stronger (ie alphas) they were more suited to find mates and procreate. The younger siblings (betas and omegas) were more likely to find themselves in supporting roles. If the children of the eldest sibling had a strong family support structure and less competiton for resources it was more likely to succeed and the DNA be passed on. Population Biology would describe this as altruistic advantage from the siblings.

Again, it's just a theory. As with most things in biology such abnormalities are usually caused by a combination of factors (genetic, hormonal, environmental, etc.) If multiple same-sex siblings were the only reason for homosexuality I'd think there would be more than the 2% occurence we have observed, and as mentioned above the religious cultures which promoted procreation would have been inundated with homosexuals in their ranks. Since subsequent siblings were more likely to be clerics and scribes while the elders were more likely to be warriors, by this theory's logic the gays would have been preaching against themselves.

[Teikiatsu]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Unsound Unsound:

I actually agree with Bart, the implications and the questions he asks are fascinating. Another one, getting away from abortion, what if a simple hormone pill taken during pregnancy could prevent the gay? Would it be ethical? how many people would do it anyways?

What is it about homosexuality do you find that is comparable to say, Down Syndrome or any other degenerative life shortening, life ruining disease that you think ought to be fixed with a pill. How do you find the two in any way comparable? And since you appear to agree with the altering of genetic makeup that determines personality, sexual orientation, etc, what else would you agree with should be on the table for genetic manipulation? Hair colour? Sex? I'm curious.

I must admit, I think I find this post from you even more disgusting than Bart's usual pedestrian stuff.

Comparing it to Down's Syndrome, Dwarfism or Albinism isn't correct if we're talking about abnormal fetal development. Better to compare it to something involving dvelopmental abnormalities like Synesthesia (neural pathways in the brain mistakenly link the five senses oddly so people see colors with numbers, or feel textures when they hear music), birthmarks, extra-webbed fingers, cleft pallete, spina bifida, hydroencephalitis, holes in the heart, etc.

EDIT: back to the original moral quandry... if homosexuality *is* a developmental anomaly like the above then there are no ethical issues with correcting developmental problems in a baby. Mothers ingest folic acid to help prevent developmental defects. Mothers are advised to avoid a host of medicines that can lead to physical and mental defects in the womb. Are there ethical issues with that?

[Gunnair]

Teikiatsu Teikiatsu:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Unsound Unsound:

I actually agree with Bart, the implications and the questions he asks are fascinating. Another one, getting away from abortion, what if a simple hormone pill taken during pregnancy could prevent the gay? Would it be ethical? how many people would do it anyways?

What is it about homosexuality do you find that is comparable to say, Down Syndrome or any other degenerative life shortening, life ruining disease that you think ought to be fixed with a pill. How do you find the two in any way comparable? And since you appear to agree with the altering of genetic makeup that determines personality, sexual orientation, etc, what else would you agree with should be on the table for genetic manipulation? Hair colour? Sex? I'm curious.

I must admit, I think I find this post from you even more disgusting than Bart's usual pedestrian stuff.

Comparing it to Down's Syndrome, Dwarfism or Albinism isn't correct if we're talking about abnormal fetal development. Better to compare it to something involving dvelopmental abnormalities like Synesthesia (neural pathways in the brain mistakenly link the five senses oddly so people see colors with numbers, or feel textures when they hear music), birthmarks, extra-webbed fingers, cleft pallete, spina bifida, hydroencephalitis, holes in the heart, etc.

EDIT: back to the original moral quandry... if homosexuality *is* a developmental anomaly like the above then there are no ethical issues with correcting developmental problems in a baby. Mothers ingest folic acid to help prevent developmental defects. Mothers are advised to avoid a host of medicines that can lead to physical and mental defects in the womb. Are there ethical issues with that?

Alright, we'll go with those examples you gave. The issues you provide can have physically debilitating issues. Homosexuality usually has debilitating issues because of social bigotry. Remove the bigotry and what is debilitating about homosexuality?

[raydan]

If we actually accepted them as they are and equal to everybody else, we wouldn't even be looking for causes and cure. Besides, has anybody here ever asked someone who was gay if he/she wanted to be cured?


This whole conversation is starting to make me sick.

[Gunnair]

raydan raydan:

If we actually accepted them as they are and equal to everybody else, we wouldn't even be looking for causes and cure. Besides, has anybody here ever asked someone who was gay if he/she wanted to be cured?


This whole conversation is starting to make me sick.

Agreed. It's rather telling as well.