04 Jul 10
Originally posted by r99pawn77That holds what view? That homosexuality is a result of development in the womb? I thought that was the mainstream view.
clearly sounds like junk science promoted by someone with an agenda.
I don't think there is a single mainstream scientist who holds this view.
What is the mainstream view in your opinion?
I certainly remember seeing a program on tv about how hormones in the womb affect our characters (and the proportion between the length of our middle finger and third finger.) including making some women have a preference for traditionally male jobs.
04 Jul 10
Originally posted by sonhouseThose are largely a result of genes, so it would probably need gene therapy or embryo selection. but what would be your objections if it were possible?
For one thing, if this worked and it eliminated homosexuality completely, what would be next? Black skin? Blue eyes? red hair? Short people?
Also, I don't buy into the 'slippery slope' argument.
04 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you are ok with the entire field of eugenics? It would be alright with you for blacks to be declared an undesirable genetic trait? Blue eyes pronounced illegal? Red hair to be shunned and genetically bred out of the human race?
Those are largely a result of genes, so it would probably need gene therapy or embryo selection. but what would be your objections if it were possible?
Also, I don't buy into the 'slippery slope' argument.
04 Jul 10
Originally posted by sonhouseIt depends what that entails.
So you are ok with the entire field of eugenics?
It would be alright with you for blacks to be declared an undesirable genetic trait?
No. Thats not the same thing at all. What does Eugenics have to do with declarations? If people chose not to have black children, then obviously they already believe it to be an undesirable genetic trait. You seem to be suggesting that giving people choice will result in government control. how does that follow?
Blue eyes pronounced illegal? Red hair to be shunned and genetically bred out of the human race?
What has law got to do with it? As I said, I don't buy the slippery slope argument.
Answer this question:
If you could choose your child's eye color, what arguments do you have for not doing so?
What argument do you have for preventing everyone else from having such choice?
05 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhitehead[i]Gender-related behaviors, namely childhood play, peer association, career and leisure time preferences in adolescence and adulthood, maternalism, aggression, and sexual orientation become masculinized in 46,XX girls and women with 21OHD deficiency [CAH]. These abnormalities have been attributed to
But was that a quote from the researchers, or was it what the scientists said?
Also, lets suppose there is a treatment that will prevent tomboyism. What word would you use to describe it? Would "cure" be wrong simply because it is wrong to label tomboyism as undesirable?
The same questions apply to homosexuality.
I certainly believe that if such a ...[text shortened]... ve that it would be quite popular, and I cant think of a good argument for preventing its use.
Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140#ixzz0sp58lFUy
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe biggie: Genetic diversity. It's what has kept us relatively safe, one step ahead of the microbe predators. When you genetically mod some food plant and it all becomes one clone genetically speaking, if a microbe of some kind kills one, it soon spreads and kills the whole plantation. So if everyone wanted say, dark skin, and that became the norm, it would mean genetic diversity would go down and the microbes would start winning and engendering yet another medicine V microbe battle that never would have taken place if our original genetic diversity had been left alone.
It depends what that entails.
[b]It would be alright with you for blacks to be declared an undesirable genetic trait?
No. Thats not the same thing at all. What does Eugenics have to do with declarations? If people chose not to have black children, then obviously they already believe it to be an undesirable genetic trait. You seem to be suggesting ...[text shortened]... not doing so?
What argument do you have for preventing everyone else from having such choice?[/b]
That good enough?
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by sonhouseAlthough I don't agree with "curing" homosexuality, you have to be careful with slippery slope arguments.
For one thing, if this worked and it eliminated homosexuality completely, what would be next? Black skin? Blue eyes? red hair? Short people?
It is like the argument against allowing softer drugs will lead onto harder drugs. "When hash isn't available, they will be taking cocaine". Using that argument, you might as well also ban caffeine.
"Slippery slope" arguments have their place, but you need to analyse the probability of one step leading onto the other.
For example, let's say that it is argued that step 1 leads to step 2, step 2 leads to step 3, up to step 10. If there is a 10% probability between steps then it will be a 0.0000001% probability of going from step 1 to step 10.
A lot of slippery slope arguments implies that certain things almost definitely leads to another, when this almost certainly is rarely the case.
Having said that, I will emphasise that I do not agree with this research, as if homosexuality is "wrong".
Let's look at the argument again, shall we?
If we find a gene that is, by itself, is responsible for homosexuality, what will we do with this new knowledge?
(1) Can we use this knowledge to cure homosexuality? And if so, then we will turn heterosexuals into homosexuality too, right?
Think of it - what would you think about making love with another man (or if you are a woman, to another woman)? Repulsive? That's what a homo will feel about the thought of making love with a woman in the future. Would they want to be hetero? No, I don't think so. Are they happy now (and they are) then they wouldn't like to change their suxual prefernce, no not at all.
To turn a homo into a hetero by some sort of cure feels unhuman. Would we force him to turn preference?
And what about bisexuals? Or S&M's? Or non-sexuals? What will we do to all that not fit into the norm of what phobians thinks should be the norm?
(2) What if abortion would be legal, or preferenced, by those faetuses who have this homo-gene?
Would we abort them and let the parents try once more? If they are born, are they to be concidered less humans? Bad humans? Defect human beings?
I say everyone should be accepted regardless of their sexual preference, if they are not hurting any other being. Phobians have to learn to live with the thought that we are a whole diversity of people of this world. That the phobians themselves are the problems, and not their hate-objects.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasCouldn't have said it better myself. Rec'd.
Let's look at the argument again, shall we?
If we find a gene that is, by itself, is responsible for homosexuality, what will we do with this new knowledge?
(1) Can we use this knowledge to cure homosexuality? And if so, then we will turn heterosexuals into homosexuality too, right?
Think of it - what would you think about making love with another ...[text shortened]... e of this world. That the phobians themselves are the problems, and not their hate-objects.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI can see a new Island of Dr Moreau: He is determined to right the wrongs of the gene moguls who have now cured homosexuality, there are no more homosexuals, bi's, tri's or any of that, only hetro's now on the planet.
Let's look at the argument again, shall we?
If we find a gene that is, by itself, is responsible for homosexuality, what will we do with this new knowledge?
(1) Can we use this knowledge to cure homosexuality? And if so, then we will turn heterosexuals into homosexuality too, right?
Think of it - what would you think about making love with another ...[text shortened]... e of this world. That the phobians themselves are the problems, and not their hate-objects.
Dr. Moreau is determined to correct that situation and has made an entire race of homosexuals. The mainliners find out, chaos ensues.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasRec'd!
Let's look at the argument again, shall we?
If we find a gene that is, by itself, is responsible for homosexuality, what will we do with this new knowledge?
(1) Can we use this knowledge to cure homosexuality? And if so, then we will turn heterosexuals into homosexuality too, right?
Think of it - what would you think about making love with another ...[text shortened]... e of this world. That the phobians themselves are the problems, and not their hate-objects.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by sonhouseI thought "The Time Machine" was better. 😉
I can see a new Island of Dr Moreau: He is determined to right the wrongs of the gene moguls who have now cured homosexuality, there are no more homosexuals, bi's, tri's or any of that, only hetro's now on the planet.
Dr. Moreau is determined to correct that situation and has made an entire race of homosexuals. The mainliners find out, chaos ensues.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have no data, but I'd guess probably most of them.
How many homosexuals would like to be hetero?
How many of them want a treatment even if one worked?
Wouldn't it be better to invent a treatment against homophobia?
Same
They both would be great; but my guess is that most homosexuals would prefer the former.
08 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasEven if all forms of homophobia were purged from official society so that no gay person were ever discriminated against, straight people just don't feel very comfortable about the topic of homosexuality. Straight people tend to look at gay people with a little disdain or contempt. Even if they've overcome it to the point that they're totally accepting, that doesn't change the initial reaction and the initial discomfort.
Let's look at the argument again, shall we?
If we find a gene that is, by itself, is responsible for homosexuality, what will we do with this new knowledge?
(1) Can we use this knowledge to cure homosexuality? And if so, then we will turn heterosexuals into homosexuality too, right?
Think of it - what would you think about making love with another now (and they are) then they wouldn't like to change their suxual prefernce, no not at all.
Even among kids, "gay" is a synonym for "bad" or "loser" and that's pretty much everywhere.
Some gay people may have adjusted well to the point that they're as happy as they can be, but if you don't think most gay people would trade in their homosexuality for an equally strong attraction to women, you're almost certainly wrong.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76Speaking out of experience or your ass?
Some gay people may have adjusted well to the point that they're as happy as they can be, but if you don't think most gay people would trade in their homosexuality for an equally strong attraction to women, you're almost certainly wrong.