New 'cure' for homosexuality?:

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets suppose we can create a number of embryos from a couples sperm and eggs. We can also read out their full DNA sequence. We also know what chemicals / drugs / hormones affect development in the womb and beyond.
This would theoretically allow a parent to choose some of their child's characteristics including:
1. Appearance such as eye color, hair colo fe if he/she is more intelligent? What if we think the same applies if he/she is heterosexual?

What's with the recurrent mentioning of tomboyism? Isn't Cameron Diaz sexier because she's a tomboy? I definitely think so!

I see what you're saying, if people can choose their children not to be discriminated then they might choose heterosexuality, even if they don't think homosexuality is "worse" by itself. If anything, it says more about our society than homosexuality. It also doesn't solve the problem of already-born homosexuals being discriminated today.

A possible argument against such a procedure is that it adds to the stigma of homosexuals who are already living. If newborns are genetically modified not to be homosexuals, then one car argue it can be interpreted in the homophobic view that there is an element of inferiority about it. Since this might worsen the lives of those who are already homosexual, then there is an argument for not allowing this type of choice.

Originally posted by sh76
I live in New York (not the city, but close enough). It's plenty gay-friendly.

Neither of us knows what goes on in a person's mind, but did you ever discuss with them the awkwardness they might have faced when they were younger and at other various stages in their lives and whether they would have liked to have avoided those tribulations?

Yes. The awkwardness seems to vary individually, much as with any other adolescents. Adolescence is a turbulent time, plenty of kids want to die, be someone else, change genders, according to their emotional flux ...

Originally posted by sh76
Neither of us knows what goes on in a person's mind, but did you ever discuss with them the awkwardness they might have faced when they were younger and at other various stages in their lives and whether they would have liked to have avoided those tribulations?

Why is that not a product of the clash between what society is saying he should be like and what he is like?

I don't see why you interpret it as sexuality genes clashing with homophobic genes.

Originally posted by Palynka
What's with the recurrent mentioning of tomboyism?

The original article suggested that it could be 'cured'. The questions the are whether or not that would be desirable and whether or not a parent should be allowed to make the choice. Specifically, if the question is less politically sensitive than homosexuality, is the answer different?
One of my sisters is a tomboy and to some extent my mother. She played football as a child, fixes cars, got medals in Judo and otherwise engages in traditionally male activities. I see nothing wrong with it.
I do think she experienced a bit of discrimination as a result, but probably not nearly as much as homosexuals experience. We probably all (I and my siblings) experienced more discrimination for our skin color than for our behavior - not all of it negative.

A possible argument against such a procedure is that it adds to the stigma of homosexuals who are already living. If newborns are genetically modified not to be homosexuals, then one car argue it can be interpreted in the homophobic view that there is an element of inferiority about it. Since this might worsen the lives of those who are already homosexual, then there is an argument for not allowing this type of choice.
And what about genetic diseases that are known to negatively affect intelligence. Does the same argument not apply to them?
Who gets to decide what is a disease / abnormality, and what is OK? Society? Parents?

I am not arguing that parents should be given the choice, I just disagree that the issue is obviously black and white with one group saying homosexuality is a disease that must be cured and another group saying it is normal and nobody should be allowed to interfere.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The original article suggested that it could be 'cured'. The questions the are whether or not that would be desirable and whether or not a parent should be allowed to make the choice. Specifically, if the question is less politically sensitive than homosexuality, is the answer different?
One of my sisters is a tomboy and to some extent my mother. She pla ...[text shortened]... must be cured and another group saying it is normal and nobody should be allowed to interfere.

Well, I suppose the same kind of people decide. Most people agree that cancer is bad, so curing cancer is good. Consequently disactivating a gene that causes cancer would be seen as good by most. Currently it's not an accepted medical practise to "cure" homosexuality so I suppose they won't remove a "gay gene" if it should exist.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I suppose the same kind of people decide. Most people agree that cancer is bad, so curing cancer is good. Consequently disactivating a gene that causes cancer would be seen as good by most. Currently it's not an accepted medical practise to "cure" homosexuality so I suppose they won't remove a "gay gene" if it should exist.

To add some new poop to the game, this just in, knock out a gene in the mouse genome and a female basically turns lesbian:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708071619.htm

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I suppose the same kind of people decide. Most people agree that cancer is bad, so curing cancer is good. Consequently disactivating a gene that causes cancer would be seen as good by most.

My understanding was that gay marriage was banned in many countries. Can we not take this as evidence that if not most then at least a significant proportion of the worlds population seems to think homosexuality is bad?
What percentage should be acceptable?

Currently it's not an accepted medical practise to "cure" homosexuality so I suppose they won't remove a "gay gene" if it should exist.
I notice that you change your rule to 'accepted medical practice'. Is this because medical practitioners are on average more liberal regarding homosexuality?
Besides your comment is misleading as there is no available "cure" so no stance has been taken on the matter by the medical community.
The thread is about a study which claims to have found such a "cure" and has been using it. Since they have established the precedent, should they go ahead?
Are you saying the doctors should decide?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The original article suggested that it could be 'cured'. The questions the are whether or not that would be desirable and whether or not a parent should be allowed to make the choice. Specifically, if the question is less politically sensitive than homosexuality, is the answer different?
One of my sisters is a tomboy and to some extent my mother. She pla ...[text shortened]... must be cured and another group saying it is normal and nobody should be allowed to interfere.

Again, the key is whether homosexuality is by itself negative or if it only has negative effects if society is homophobic. I believe it's likely to be the latter and so I don't think any medical definition of disease would fit if it is so.

Genetic diseases that are known to negatively affect intelligence do so irrespective of how society treats those who have them. Then its easy to fit a standard definition of disease to such cases. And, in this case, even if society doesn't discriminate against people who have it, it is still always desirable that newborns do not have them.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Do you know any homosexual?

Of course I do. Who doesn't?

My mother's sister, for starters.

Originally posted by Palynka
Again, the key is whether homosexuality is by itself negative or if it only has negative effects if society is homophobic. I believe it's likely to be the latter and so I don't think any medical definition of disease would fit if it is so.

Let's assume the latter (though a case could be made for the former... many people want to have children without having to resort to unorthodox means). Even if it is only the former, isn't that enough to make it rational for a person to choose not to have to deal with it, if it can be avoided?

Originally posted by Palynka
Why is that not a product of the clash between what society is saying he should be like and what he is like?

I don't see why you interpret it as sexuality genes clashing with homophobic genes.

I never said anything about homophobic genes.

People are initially adverse to most paraphilias. The same discussion could be made with regard to most paraphilias.

Originally posted by sh76
I never said anything about homophobic genes.

People are initially adverse to most paraphilias. The same discussion could be made with regard to most paraphilias.

Well, you talked about innate dislike for homosexuality. How is something innate if not genetic? 😕

Homosexuality is not considered a paraphilia.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Of course he does. There are a lots of them. Perhaps even his brother or sister is one. But he/she is afraid of thelling him because of the coming reaction.

In every full bus, there is one (statistically).
In every large school class, there is one (statistically).
In every church during communion ceremony, there are a few (statistically).
Why don't they show themselves? Are they afraid? Of the reaction? Yes, probably.

That is completely ridiculous. Nobody is afraid to tell me anything. I don't judge people and I couldn't care less what their sexual orientation or desires are. My aunt is openly gay. That doesn't affect our relationship one iota.

It's nice and convenient for you and Adam to paint me as homophobic because it's an easy way to dismiss my point without actually addressing it. The same sort of smear PC tactics are used all the time in public debates involving sensitive issues. But, if you think I'm a homophobe then you're clueless. I'm not going to play along with your smear tactics and back down to avoid baseless nonsensical accusations. So, why don't you address my point rather than resorting to mindless slander?

Originally posted by sh76
Let's assume the latter (though a case could be made for the former... many people want to have children without having to resort to unorthodox means). Even if it is only the former, isn't that enough to make it rational for a person to choose not to have to deal with it, if it can be avoided?

Yes, but then the other argument kicks in. If you impose a negative externality on the already living homosexuals then there is a legitimate argument in not allowing that choice.

Originally posted by Palynka
Homosexuality is not considered a paraphilia.

Of course not. But in this context it has the same effect as one.