Now that genetic manipulation of the human population is nearing I've seen plenty of discussion of ethics as it applies in this area. The general feel I get is that most people would agree to the elimination of many traits considered unwanted like retardation and alcoholism. What about homosexuality?

From a realist's standpoint, it's wrong and leads to a weakening of the species. Would it be prudent do eliminate this trait?

Not that I'm like a homophobe or anything, but I think we could live without the fagets.

when was it proven that homosexuality was governed by genes? i think theres always been a debate, nature vs. nurture, whether it was your genes or your experiences growing up which determined your traits. i think the truth lies in the middle here. to eliminate homosexuality would take much more than a shot during incubation. it would take wide scale reprogramming. a serious breach of human rights, but then when did i ever care about that?

Evil, stick to the topic please. I never said anything beyond genetics. It is widely accepted(widely enough, at least) to assume, for this discussion, that there is a genetic component in gender roles. I never said eliminate HOMOSEXULAITY, merely the trait for it.

And a faggot is a bundle of straw. Where did that come from? I'm talking about gay people.

BTW, that whole nature vs nurture debate was effectively eliminated by the early 80's. We now understand the role genes play in the development of biological life. You're right that both have an effect to varying degrees. While forms of retardation and alcoholism - like homosexuality - can be inherited, they can also be brought about by events in a subject's life.

It seems to me that anyone with the wherewithall to actively participate in genetic engineering would be the one to make
those types of descisions w/ regard to a specific project. Are you asking logistical
questions about how the populace in general would feel about the specifics of what amounts to re-engineering itself? If so , I think that it's a little premature because until the day comes when this sort of thing is done on such a large scale as to be able to accomodate the populace as a whole's opinion, wait, why would it ever do that? If the opinion of the populace as a whole was to be considered valid as a tool of guidance in such an area , why then would there be such an area at all????? I can see no logical progression of events that would lead to it mattering what the preferance of the masses was regarding cloning. It seems more like the
people who could afford to play around with it would decide and that turns it right back into an individual matter of preferance and beliefs. So Z3m, if I see a red-haired stepchild cruising around in a bmw late at night and I pull him over and say "Hey!, if you could be in charge of a genetic engineering problem and have full creative control over what traits were to be eliminated or augmented in the subjects of your creative endeavor, what is your opinion of the homosesxuality in humans being retained?" What would you say?

While I see no reason Parents shoulfd not be able to have their child custom tailored to fit their needs I think we must not mandate such things, and besides, if a gay couple wants a gay child then they can have one made that way. It goes both ways folks.


Z3M: Yes, a faggot is a bundle of straw. According to a gay friend of mine the term comes from the fact that during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries when a witch was burned at the stake, often times the local homosexuals were bound and placed amid the logs and tinder to be burned.

I'm asking, "Would the elimination of homosexuality, to help the species, be ETHICAL?"

How would the elimination of homosexuality be helpful to the species?

i am inclined to think that, like depression, homosexuality is a sort of brain disorder. while other creatures are bi-sexual there are no homosexual creatures other than man that i am aware of.

and like depression nothing some good drugs couldn't take care of.

I don't think homosexuality's genetic. If it were, then how come it isn't reoccuring in famalies?

I agree, but Zag man, they are homosexual how would they reproduce to see if it is genetic?

quote:

---

How would the elimination of homosexuality be helpful to the species?

---

I'm sure there are many ways I've not thought of. Homosexuality limits the gene pool. Homosexuals become a sort of genetic dead end. It also leads to obvious divisions in society which will always remain no matter how many parades. Homosexuality, which affects ~2-3% of the population, is a disorder of sexual function. Eliminating a disorder is never a bad thing.

Plus, I can't think of a reason NOT to do it. That's what I was hoping one of you could offer me.

quote:

---

and like depression nothing some good drugs couldn't take care of.

---

I've seen no mechanism for that. In reality, it's more likely caused by a hormonal imbalance early in development which leads to a more feminine brain in an otherwise male body and viseversa. No known drug treatments can cure the disorder.

quote:

---

I don't think homosexuality's genetic. If it were, then how come it isn't reoccuring in famalies?

---

Why do you think it doesn't? In fact, it does. Read on.

quote:

---

I agree, but Zag man, they are homosexual how would they reproduce to see if it is genetic?

---

Homosexuality is a recessive trait. Not to mention the many homosexuals who feel pressured to conform to the expected roles of wife or husband.

So... Is there any reason not to? Too bad there aren't any vocal homosexuals on this board. I'd really like to resolve this issue for myself.

Any way that less humans are born, the better I feel. That's why I compltetely support lesbians. Guys being gay just creeps me out. Ew!

i don't think you can have sex without penetration, lesbians just more or less play doctor.

Are we genetically eliminating all homosexuality....or just the gay males? Gay male sex is just gross, but c`mon who here doesn`t enjoy the lesbians of the world....especially the hot ones....

What good is a lesbian to us guys? it's not like they want a dick dammit! In the real world lesbians are ass ugly for fucks sake. The ones you see in porn are bein paid. They aren't lesbians, they are just comfortable doing what they do to make money. i could care less if the world had no lesbians.

GOD DAMNIT. I hate fucking sweeping generalisations. All lesbians are not ugly, just as they are not all beautiful. Please don't make such stupid statements, because I get really pissed off, and then people realise that I'm not actually as nice as they think I am, and my reputation as a totse elite will be down the drain before you know it.

Ok rant over. Here's ya arguments against eliminating homosexuality (me playing devil's advocate here)

Ok, for one, if you could eliminate it, why should you, or should you not take that action?. Well for one, if you eliminate homosexuality, you may be eliminating other aspects of that other than the purely sexual. Let me explain. Think about all the gay entertainers the world has known, great ones, ones who've hidden their sexuality, ones who haven't. Maybe their sexuality impacts their lives in a way you can't quantify, and leads them to greater and higher artistry.. or greater depth of emotions on which to base their talents.. For example, if you've seen Sir Ian McKellen's portrayal of Richard III on film, personally, I think it's masterful.. He's gay, openly so, and his sexuality is as much a part of him as any other aspect of his personality. (note, my argument is generic, I just picked entertainers as easily visible examples).. You could say that had the same entertainers been manipulated before birth to become straight, they would have achieved the same heights, but since we can't observe the effects of having or not having such an attribute, we cannot say with any certainty. Since we as humans are a product of the base of our genes, combined with the sum total of our experiences, a denial of an attribute, could lead from greatness to mediocrity.. Should we be the ones to decide what any aspect of a person is worth? I don't think so.

Next, for the good of the species? Would that be a worthy goal? To eliminate homosexuality to remove genetic dead ends? To remove a social schism?..

Lets see, from the perspective of genetics, I doubt that if the 2-3 % of people who were gay (I'm using Z's figures here) were suddenly to breed, there would be any significant advantage to the species.. Actually, eliminating our imaginary (or not) homosexuality gene would be worse for the species. Remember, not every gay person is a genetic dead end. For one thing, they have brothers and sisters and parents and other relatives, with the same genes recombined.. I doubt that statistically, gay people have the effect of reducing the gene pool even slightly. Since we are all fundamentally related to each other, the gene pool, while diverse, is not such that the loss of one person without breeding affects it in a significant way. Many people die without breeding after all, should we make children reproduce as soon as possible for the sake of the gene pool? No, because our gene pool has multiple redundancy. With the current population of the earth in billions, our gene pool is not at risk. Practicality suggests that more people to breed is actually a bad thing for us, since we're running out of the space and resources to support ourselves as we are, and adding a few more people to breed can't be good. Eliminating a gene in total however, by eliminating the homosexuality gene, would be bad, because then no humans anywhere would have that gene, which could at some point in time, become necessary for the continuance of our species.

For social schism's sake then? Gay people will never be accepted?.. hmm.. ok, if we take the supposition that that is true, they will never be accepted, and eliminating the disorder eliminates a tension or division in our society... Lets look at the arguments against that. For one thing, the world would hardly rise up in unanimous voice to proclaim all homosexuals should be eliminated. Violence, demonstrations, more, would be the reaction of many people, even straight people, at this news. No calmness and peace with that course. If the work were done in secret then? Maybe, maybe it would wokr, but the chances of doing that would be near to impossible. Every pregnant woman subjected to gene therapy? Hardly easy to keep a secret. But even given that, should we? Why stop at one trait that causes social schism and tension? Why not eliminate black people? Or white people? Make everyone the same color? Morally, I doubt many could condone either action for that reason alone.
We don't even really have any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a disorder or mutation. It could be a facet of our species that we have yet to understand, a higher state of our species. Every aspect of our genetic code has some use, redundant, unwanted or not. Violence is bad, but at the same time it is a necessary evil that has enabled our species to survive at some points in the distant past.. Homosexuality could just be something we haven't found the real use for yet.

But anyway, more later, those are thoughts to be thinking about..

While I agree that man sex is gross and girl sex is good, I'm talking about all homosexuality brought about by genetics.

Its all about diversity. Of course homosexuality is a mutation or some genetic change. But all changes are good. The example is with our blood cells. Some people have a gene that makes some of their blood cells sickle shaped, instead of the nice disk like shape. Malaria (spelling again) which attacks the blood easily goes through normal cells, but for my lack of remembering why, they can't go through the sickle cell. Now it may be seen as a deformity, becuase it impedes blood flow, but it was nessaccary for us as a species to have this genetic "attribute". Homosexuality is also interesting because of it being recessive can't be passed on one generation and come to a dead stop the other.

Morally sound i dont think so, governments do not have the right. No one should ever be able to tell you what genes your kid should and shouldn't have. Besides elimation of a whole gene from the whole gene pool would be insane. We would lose our diversity! I may not agree with how homosexuals feel, but i dont think that gives anyone the right to treat them sub-human. I think that genetics done selectivly will help us achieve more diversity.

<kinda off topic rant>

Money is kinda now our evolutionary driver. Just think about it: We can change your looks, get food and other services, and soon change the actual genetic makeup.

</rant>

Almost forgot about the importance of destruction of a gene. Genes much be destroyed at random and through natural selection. Keeping a bad design in major usage is not a good idea. So good designs will be imbraced and others will still be there recessive or some minor percentage of the gene pool.

Minor changes insure our survival, major changes insure our destruction. Diversity is the key to life, and destruction assures no weak genes.

Oh, my other point I never got to make because I was interrupted in the midst of making my huge ass post, was that while today it may be a problem for society, society's views tend to change more rapidly than we think.. Think of Oscar Wilde, and the hard labor he was put to in prison, just for being gay... One of the most popular people of his time.. Can you imagine a similar situation now? Less than a hundred years later? No, it's unheard of.. To say that homosexuals will never be accepted is unrealistic, Who knows, society may come to embrace homosexual love for new reasons, love, no matter what denomination, can't be bad, and on an overcrowded earth, may be a viable solution for many.

Create a gay boy band, with the right publicity, right attitudes and right kind of atmosphere, and I can almost guarantee that homosexuality would become more popular, or at least more accepted by the younger masses..

There are too many factors to consider to ever be sure that elimination of a major trait of 2-3% of the future population would be a good idea..

If naught else, it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.. Can you imagine any government paying for that?

I have more thoughts on this matter, but they need to germinate for a bit

Is removing posts a common practice here?

It's ok Suzie. I never thought you were nice.

quote:

---

Well for one, if you eliminate homosexuality, you may be eliminating other aspects of that other than the purely sexual.

---

This becomes a nonissue in the sense that you could replace homosexulatiy in this sinerio with anything from brain damage to chronic fatigue syndrom. Creative minds will flow no matter. Their situations will alter the stream. It's like saying that people who are poor and artists should remain poor as it contributes to their creative drive.

quote:

---

Actually, eliminating our imaginary (or not) homosexuality gene would be worse for the species.

---

You have yet to really prove this thesis. I see the point that eradicating a certain trait is a bad thing but, when that trait interferes with the propagation of several arguably more important traits, I think the gooder good should be applied.

quote:

---

hey have brothers and sisters and parents and other relatives, with the same genes recombined..

---

For one thing, statistically, the recesive traits carried by the homosexual are less likely to be passed on. Like lefthandedness, for example - a trait common with gays.

quote:

---

Eliminating a gene in total however, by eliminating the homosexuality gene, would be bad, because then no humans anywhere would have that gene, which could at some point in time, become necessary for the continuance of our species.

---

That doesn't follow. How would homosexuality benefit the species?

quote:

---

For one thing, the world would hardly rise up in unanimous voice to proclaim all homosexuals should be eliminated.

---

I'm not saying they should be eliminated. I'm only saying there should not be any more produced.

quote:

---

Why not eliminate black people? Or white people?

---

Because being black or white does not impede the genetic diversity of the species. In fact, it promots it. My position as stated is, if anything, anti-gay and pro-black.

quote:

---

We don't even really have any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a disorder or mutation.

---

More evidence shows it is than not. Besides, we have only recently mapped the genes of humans. We can't find the gene yet so this isn't really a valid argument.

And actually(not to be anal or anything) homosexuality is, be definition of sexual action, a disorder.

quote:

---

It could be a facet of our species that we have yet to understand, a higher state of our species.

---

What? A higher state that makes procreation difficult? I doubt it.

quote:

---

Violence is bad, but at the same time it is a necessary evil that has enabled our species to survive at some points in the distant past..

---

First of all, you're making a moral judgment here that violence is bad, which is false. I believe that any action that ensures the survival of an organism is right and justified. I don't even know what you were trying to show with this statement, anywho.

quote:

---

There are too many factors to consider to ever be sure that elimination of a major trait of 2-3% of the future population would be a good idea..

---

So, by your reasoning, mental retardation is also a good thing.

quote:

---

If naught else, it would be prohibitively expensive to do so..

---

We're not debating legistics of implimentation.
soullace,

quote:

---

But all changes are good.

---

That's not true. Prove that.

Your example of malaria is silly. Just because a disorder that leads to death can sometimes defeat a disease does not justify the disorder. It does much more harm than good.

quote:

---

it was nessaccary for us as a species to have this genetic "attribute".

---

Rediculous. This is a recesive trait that has yet to be eliminated. If it were dominant, the entire population with it would be dead, hense, no population with those dominant genes.

quote:

---

Homosexuality is also interesting because of it being recessive can't be passed on one generation and come to a dead stop the other.

---

Actually, most people carry the gene. Because it is recesive, it doesn't show up in most circumstances. It is still there unless a couple with the recesive trait in one partner only reproduce once and the child happens to not have the trait. In reality, and statistically, this isn't likely.

quote:

---

Besides elimation of a whole gene from the whole gene pool would be insane. We would lose our diversity!

---

No. We'd only lose a deformity.

quote:

---

Genes much be destroyed at random and through natural selection. Keeping a bad design in major usage is not a good idea. So good designs will be imbraced and others will still be there recessive or some minor percentage of the gene pool.

---

First, humans have removed themselves from the sphere of natural selection. Second, recesive genes are inherited and passed on even if the host is not affected by it. A homosexual may not pass on the trait but his/her straight brother may.

DiabolikSlim, what do you mean?

Sorry for the spelling but I'm too tired to work the spellchecker.

Yeah i finally get picked on! Okay z3m here is my reponse.

quote:

---

We're not debating legistics of implimentation. soullace,
Quote:
"But all changes are good."

That's not true. Prove that.

---

Okay sorry. Good and bad are defined by which context they are used. If a "Bad" change occurs, in the context of a certain process, evolution will cut that change out of the major population (or be recessive) meaning a very small percentage of certain genetic code will be in existance. Now if for some reason something changes in which this trait is favorable again, it can repropagate. So having the information even in the glove box, can be better than not having the info at all. As far as homosexuality goes I dont know how this could benefit us at all.

quote:

---

Your example of malaria is silly. Just because a disorder that leads to death can sometimes defeat a disease does not justify the disorder. It does much more harm than good.
Quote:
"it was nessaccary for us as a species to have this genetic "attribute"."

Rediculous. This is a recesive trait that has yet to be eliminated. If it were dominant, the entire population with it would be dead, hense, no population with those dominant genes.

---

Yet again another problem with context. My example of malaria is with populations that had to live in high areas of malaria consentration. If they had this "defect" they could live long enough to reproduce. This gave the people in this situation a longer life span. So in the context of this population it is good, but in a place like the US it is bad.

quote:

---

Quote:
"Homosexuality is also interesting because of it being recessive can't be passed on one generation and come to a dead stop the other."

Actually, most people carry the gene. Because it is recesive, it doesn't show up in most cicrcumstances. It is still there unless a couple with the recesive trait in one partner only reproduce once and the child happens to not have the trait. In reality, and statistically, this isn't likely.

---

My bad, i was typing like a maniac. I meant basically what you said in your comment.

quote:

---

Homosexuality is also interesting because of it being recessive can't be passed on one generation and come to a dead stop the other.

---

should be this:
Homosexuality is also interesting becuase of it being recessive it can be passed on one generation and come to a dead stop in an other.

quote:

---

Quote:
"Besides elimation of a whole gene from the whole gene pool would be insane. We would lose our diversity!"

No. We'd only lose a deformity.

---

Deformity is a matter of opinion.
Well not that im an expert it is most probable that many genes contribute to the sexual preference trait. And we still dont know wtf we are doing who knows how modifying that gene will affect a person.

quote:

---

Quote:
"Genes much be destroyed at random and through natural selection. Keeping a bad design in major usage is not a good idea. So good designs will be imbraced and others will still be there recessive or some minor percentage of the gene pool."
First, humans have removed themselves from the sphere of natural selection.

---

I disagree i feel we still follow the basic princapals of natural selection. Prove to me this isn't the case.

quote:

---

Second, recesive genes are inherited and passed on even if the host is not affected by it. A homosexual may not pass on the trait but his/her straight brother may.

---

Your right, no argument here. i think i messed you up when i typed my don't when i meant did(sorry).

Any other clarifications just flame me!

[This message has been edited by soullace (edited 09-26-2000).]

umm.. I'll reply later.. my brain isn't in gear yet..

If homosexuality is caused by genes then realy the problem will take take of itself. Being that homsexuals cant reproduce to pass on the gene. Except in cases of artificial insimintaion which eventualy over time would most likely weed out the gene as well. However if homosexuality is caused by enviornment and life experiences (which i think is more likely)then theres realy nothing that can ethicaly be done about it short of genocide, so long as there are homos out there converting minds of those who posses a weak will or are just plain curious and unsure of themselves. My advice to the coming generations of potential homos is "know thyself"

You're a dumbass.

Quote "the gooder good should be aplied" (z3m) cant blame that gramatical error on your spell checker dumbass ;> and as far as this goes what i wrote before is just an opinion. The way you write your replies leads me to believe you take all your opinions as truth ( because your reply to me was so cocky obviously if you think im so dumb and wrong then you most likely believe your right)what i wrote was offered as an opinion not a fact that doesnt make me dumb, maybe ignorant of some facts but not dumb look up the words theres a difference im sure you already knew that though which makes your mistake that much funnier anyway bro im not trying to be rude but get your big self righteous ego filled head out of the clouds :> much luv VE

No, I use creative grammar, biznatch.

I called you dumb because you didn't read the thread. What you said was already covered.

And, FYI, I think smart people base their opinions on facts. I'd never claim to believe something if I didn't have good reason to think it's true.

*cuts your last leg*

Gay people aren't characterized by genes, thats bullshit. I know people that used to be gay but went straight,and vica versa.Did they break "genetic law"? No! It is just simply psychological preferance. Now bi's on the other hand, everythings all good to them it seems.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 26-10-2000).]

Um........ Read the thread, dork.

Ok, Ii fixed it asshole.

Fixed what? Don't DO THAT. Now how the hell is anyone supposed to know what you mean?!

Besides, you still need to read the thread.

What the fuck?

I can't even believe this is an issue. How about we just make the fucking pure Aryan race huh? Get rid of all the traits that we don't approve of? Ever hear of diversity people? The things that make this world a better place is because there are people who are different, whether it be because of their sexual preferences, tastes in music, ideas of how to have a good time... I used to have quite abit of respect for alot've ya but this threads made that slide quite abit... like FUCK... who do you guys think ya are?

Chrome.
(sorry... but this shit just makes me angry.)

And you've proven yourself a fool. Taste in music and ideas of how to have a good time have no relation at all to sexual preference. I made my point that it is a problem akin to anemia. I think I made too good a point, actually.

Not that anyone(I was the only one speaking for this idea) actually said they want this sort of thing to be implimented. If intellectual discussion upsets you, you should GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS BOARD AND FINISH PRESCHOOL.

...because kindergarden seems a little advanced for you, simplton.

Sorry but this sort of stupidity makes me angry.

Dumbass.

No Z3m, musical taste and ways to have a good time have nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with diversity... try reading my post instead of just looking at it.

Chrome.

Um... I should say the same but I suppose you haven't the mental wearwithall to understand how they have no relation and, hence, should not be compared. The point thereabouts being, your point is nogood!@

Dont worry about it...

It's obviously futile argueing with you...

Chrome.

quote:

---

I made my point that it is a problem akin to anemia.

---

And how do they compare? The only problem that the gay people that i know experience with being gay is other people imposing their own beliefs onto them... so maybe we should get rid of the gene for bigotry before we get rid of the one for homosexuality.

Chrome.

OMG!! I made the point that it is bad for the species. You seem to think I mean to alienate homosexuals... Duh. Read the thread more carefully paying close attention to where these issues were already brought up. Then, if you have an actual issue, bring it up specifically and I will answer.

Remember though, that I brought this all up so someone could find a problem with my argument so I'm more than open to other opinions. Just as long as they make sense...

BTW, bigotry is learned. There's probably no single trait we can identify.

My issue is that homosexuality is not a problem. I guess it depends on what you are really trying to achieve... futhering the species or furthering society.

Chrome.

"homosexuality is not a problem."

HOW?!

Wow... i used to think this board was full of some pretty open-minded people...

People who are gay don't have any problem with it. The probelem is straight people not accepting gays.

Chrome.

*Z3m realizes the void left by Suzie and weeps for the future of &TOTSE*