Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

I suppose eugenics is a loadedword. Now they use other terms ("genetic engineering" and such) but its basically the same thing.

Anyway, what's thepoint of every life form on earth? To live and reproduce. Simply that. I suppose you cangetinto some moral thing about why are we here but basically every lifeform on this planet is doing its bestto have offspring. And the fittest survive.

Along comes us, humans, and we know a thing or two about genetics (this next part hasn't happened, but will happen, within our lifetimes). We play with things and eventually figure out how to make any zygote anything. We can make everyone better faster stronger smarter, whatever you desire for your child. We can remove dabilitating genetic diseases from ever appearing. We've also figured out where the multiple genes are for sexual orientation.

Now, if we're here to carry on the line of humans, wouldn't it make sense to well, "cure" people of their homosexuality before birth? Isn't homosexuality a genetic defect, given the purpose of life on earth? Wouldn't, therefore, not "curing" the child of the dabilitating genetic disorder that makes the child unwilling to form a sexual union with a member of the oppisite sex and thus bringing about a child -- wouldn't that be knowingly allowing the child to grow up to suffer with a defect and be a sin of ommision to allowsuch a thing to happen if it was in one's power to stop it? Isn't that child endangerment to allow harm to come to your child and you do nothing to stop it when it isin your power to do so?

But I digress. With some form of GATTACAesque world, would homosexuality be even less existant than it istoday (i'm talking less than .05%, a bit more than 1% of what it is today). And would it be a good thing? Why or why not? Do you think uponthe advent of this engineering the "gay community" will start leaving in droves from the left to the conservatives, many of which would be against genetic engineering as against "God's plan"?

[Anjire2]

John Galt wrote: I suppose eugenics is a loadedword. Now they use other terms ("genetic engineering" and such) but its basically the same thing.

Anyway, what's thepoint of every life form on earth? To live and reproduce. Simply that. I suppose you cangetinto some moral thing about why are we here but basically every lifeform on this planet is doing its bestto have offspring. And the fittest survive.

Along comes us, humans, and we know a thing or two about genetics (this next part hasn't happened, but will happen, within our lifetimes). We play with things and eventually figure out how to make any zygote anything. We can make everyone better faster stronger smarter, whatever you desire for your child. We can remove dabilitating genetic diseases from ever appearing. We've also figured out where the multiple genes are for sexual orientation.

Now, if we're here to carry on the line of humans, wouldn't it make sense to well, "cure" people of their homosexuality before birth? Isn't homosexuality a genetic defect, given the purpose of life on earth? Wouldn't, therefore, not "curing" the child of the dabilitating genetic disorder that makes the child unwilling to form a sexual union with a member of the oppisite sex and thus bringing about a child -- wouldn't that be knowingly allowing the child to grow up to suffer with a defect and be a sin of ommision to allowsuch a thing to happen if it was in one's power to stop it? Isn't that child endangerment to allow harm to come to your child and you do nothing to stop it when it isin your power to do so?

But I digress. With some form of GATTACAesque world, would homosexuality be even less existant than it istoday (i'm talking less than .05%, a bit more than 1% of what it is today). And would it be a good thing? Why or why not? Do you think uponthe advent of this engineering the "gay community" will start leaving in droves from the left to the conservatives, many of which would be against genetic engineering as against "God's plan"?


While we are at it we can cure people of their religion too...Don't a good many persons few religion as a defect?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147

Why do you believe homosexuality is a genetic defect? Because it does not compute with Darwinism? If our science advances so far as to be able to manipulate genes (per your example) wouldn't it also suggest that two partners of the same-sex could now reproduce (say test tube babies) and therefore be "GASP" in your eyes contributing members of society?

The only debilitating defect I see regarding homosexuality is the bigotry and hatred that others have lodged firmly up their...

Hmmm...perhaps this ^^ is a genetic predisposition. I wonder what percentage of people are just born homophobic.

[John Galt]

Anjire2 wrote: John Galt wrote: I suppose eugenics is a loadedword. Now they use other terms ("genetic engineering" and such) but its basically the same thing.

Anyway, what's thepoint of every life form on earth? To live and reproduce. Simply that. I suppose you cangetinto some moral thing about why are we here but basically every lifeform on this planet is doing its bestto have offspring. And the fittest survive.

Along comes us, humans, and we know a thing or two about genetics (this next part hasn't happened, but will happen, within our lifetimes). We play with things and eventually figure out how to make any zygote anything. We can make everyone better faster stronger smarter, whatever you desire for your child. We can remove dabilitating genetic diseases from ever appearing. We've also figured out where the multiple genes are for sexual orientation.

Now, if we're here to carry on the line of humans, wouldn't it make sense to well, "cure" people of their homosexuality before birth? Isn't homosexuality a genetic defect, given the purpose of life on earth? Wouldn't, therefore, not "curing" the child of the dabilitating genetic disorder that makes the child unwilling to form a sexual union with a member of the oppisite sex and thus bringing about a child -- wouldn't that be knowingly allowing the child to grow up to suffer with a defect and be a sin of ommision to allowsuch a thing to happen if it was in one's power to stop it? Isn't that child endangerment to allow harm to come to your child and you do nothing to stop it when it isin your power to do so?

But I digress. With some form of GATTACAesque world, would homosexuality be even less existant than it istoday (i'm talking less than .05%, a bit more than 1% of what it is today). And would it be a good thing? Why or why not? Do you think uponthe advent of this engineering the "gay community" will start leaving in droves from the left to the conservatives, many of which would be against genetic engineering as against "God's plan"?


While we are at it we can cure people of their religion too...Don't a good many persons few religion as a defect?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147

Sure, if that's really possible. I doubt it though. Moreover, that would be upto the parents to exercise their freedom of religion. But homosexuality, now that makes it so their children don't make new taxpayers! It makes them unlike the reamining 95% of the population! Even if there ever was a reason evolutionarily speaking for it --it has come and gone (we don't need Uncle Nathaneil to help out, we can manage fine) and therefore whatis left is substandard individuals that will not do.

Quote: Why do you believe homosexuality is a genetic defect?

Now now, I never said that.

Quote: Because it does not compute with Darwinism?

Well,actually it could, ifyou take the social aspect of it in that less children to more adults equals better care. But we don't need that anymore.

Quote: If our science advances so far as to be able to manipulate genes (per your example) wouldn't it also suggest that two partners of the same-sex could now reproduce (say test tube babies) and therefore be "GASP" in your eyes contributing members of society?

Ahnold's role in "Junior" will never become a reality. And I'mnot so sure twoeggs could be spliced together. Oh sure,a lesbian could have her ownchild -- but it would be a clone. I'm talking after conception we can manipulate genes in the zygote.

Quote: The only debilitating defect I see regarding homosexuality is the bigotry and hatred that others have lodged firmly up their...
Ha!
Quote: Hmmm...perhaps this ^^ is a genetic predisposition. I wonder what percentage of people are just born homophobic.

"Same fear." I hate that word. This is how you use it: "Me and Sara are homophobic; we're both afriad of spiders." That is how you use the term. People are destroying the english language and no one cares. Homophobic is not a word unless it means fearof the same. And I'm not afriad of homosexuals. I doubt anyone is. Many people don't like them, but that's not a fear.

[d357r0y3r]

This is the argument I've been using for ages. Simple facts - we must reproduce, if we are to stake our claim in the future. If a gay person has any good genes that would be beneficial for future generations, and would advance the human race, too bad. Their lineage ends at them.

Evolution (Darwinism specifically) doesn't really allow for an organism that doesn't reproduce. Specifically: an organism that cannot reproduce serves no purpose, with regards to the advancement of the human race.

[John Galt]

And one could make the socialist argument: this is for the good of society. Just like how we want to takeyoumoney, we also will kill your kid unless he meets specific qualifications that make him a person that will propel society not drag it down.

It is coming to this. The left will lead us down that path.

[Demonic Spoon]

hm. I doubt sexual orientation is genetic. There are some (albeit few) cases of people changing sexual orientation throughout their lives. While they may not all be true, if even one of them is true, it means that it is not genetic.

Also, the thing that triggers attraction are chemicals released in the brain. Therefor, homosexuality is a chemical, not genetic, issue.




I would generally say that it is up to the parent if they want to raise a gay child.

[Jay2014]

i dont understand the genetics debate; it seems pretty obvious to me, through studies of siblings (including the most relevant ones, those including identical twins) that sexual orientation has genetic predispositions, with environmental triggers.
identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to share sexual orientation, but it is not a 100% corrolation.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Demonic Spoon wrote: I would generally say that it is up to the parent if they want to raise a gay child.

er .. what if some parent doesn't want a gay child? Then what happens? :?

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: I would generally say that it is up to the parent if they want to raise a gay child.

er .. what if some parent doesn't want a gay child? Then what happens? :?

Exactly my point.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: I would generally say that it is up to the parent if they want to raise a gay child.

er .. what if some parent doesn't want a gay child? Then what happens? :?

Exactly my point.

Well, if they want abortion (of their gay child), I'm sure they can if they wanted to. I am very unconvinced about this whole "gay gene". From what I understand, a child is not gay or straight at conception. Rather sexuality develops in stages and even though genes affect it, the environment plays the primary role. But then again, I'm sure we have more knowledgeable members about genes and sexuality.

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: I would generally say that it is up to the parent if they want to raise a gay child.

er .. what if some parent doesn't want a gay child? Then what happens? :?

Exactly my point.

Well, if they want abortion (of their gay child), I'm sure they can if they wanted to. I am very unconvinced about this whole "gay gene". From what I understand, a child is not gay or straight at conception. Rather sexuality develops in stages and even though genes affect it, the environment plays the primary role. But then again, I'm sure we have more knowledgeable members about genes and sexuality.

There is no one gene. It's alot of different genes not being recessive. We don't know all of them, but thanks to dendrograms... we will!

Could you kill your baby ifyou told the abortionist, "I want to kill this baby because I hate gay people"?

But back to eugenics -- Whywould thateven be an issue? The baby wouldbe in a test tube and growing to be straight anyway!

[d357r0y3r]

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: I would generally say that it is up to the parent if they want to raise a gay child.

er .. what if some parent doesn't want a gay child? Then what happens? :?

Exactly my point.

Well, if they want abortion (of their gay child), I'm sure they can if they wanted to. I am very unconvinced about this whole "gay gene". From what I understand, a child is not gay or straight at conception. Rather sexuality develops in stages and even though genes affect it, the environment plays the primary role. But then again, I'm sure we have more knowledgeable members about genes and sexuality.

There is no one gene. It's alot of different genes not being recessive. We don't know all of them, but thanks to dendrograms... we will!

Could you kill your baby ifyou told the abortionist, "I want to kill this baby because I hate gay people"?

But back to eugenics -- Whywould thateven be an issue? The baby wouldbe in a test tube and growing to be straight anyway!

As pro-abortion (and yes, they are pro-abortion) liberals are, I bet they would start having a problem with it, if it was gay fetuses you were killing. That would just be discrimination.

[John Galt]

Well yes this is true, but what if we could fix em so they are straight?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: Well yes this is true, but what if we could fix em so they are straight?

Hmmm ... well, I am sure some parents are going to try to engineer their child, so I don't think I have much say in it anyways. They might try to have a child with an IQ that is off the charts or they might want the child to have a different hair colour, eye colour, etc ... or they might want to do something about their gay child and turn him/her straight before he/she is born.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't do anything to my child unless they told me that he/she has some severe disease that could be prevented if they modified some of his/her genes before birth.

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: And one could make the socialist argument: this is for the good of society. Just like how we want to takeyoumoney, we also will kill your kid unless he meets specific qualifications that make him a person that will propel society not drag it down.

It is coming to this. The left will lead us down that path.

The left?!? :roll:
How about, instead of 'the left', you insert power & $ hungry people (which can come from the right & the left if you'd like) - you would then be correct.

[John Galt]

A money hungry man who attains wealth without force is not on the left, since socialism relies on force while classical liberalism, the right, does not and is in fact opposed to it.

[Æ]

I don't think this is a defect. Not all straight people desire to reproduce and they are not considered to have a defect because of that. Genetic mutation is a dynamic process; there are going to be good things, bad things and odd things that come as a result. The human species has progressed greatly without our interference and forcing a static mold on a dynamic process will certainly hamper, if not altogether, stop that progression.

[John Galt]

aLienaTeD wrote: I don't think this is a defect. Not all straight people desire to reproduce and they are not considered to have a defect because of that. Genetic mutation is a dynamic process; there are going to be good things, bad things and odd things that come as a result. The human species has progressed greatly without our interference and forcing a static mold on a dynamic process will certainly hamper, if not altogether, stop that progression.

No one is forcing.

The thing is though, only people that would be having children would be making this decision. Yes, others may not have children but that does not matter. What matter is if it would be considered "wrong" to make all children genetically straight?

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: I don't think this is a defect. Not all straight people desire to reproduce and they are not considered to have a defect because of that. Genetic mutation is a dynamic process; there are going to be good things, bad things and odd things that come as a result. The human species has progressed greatly without our interference and forcing a static mold on a dynamic process will certainly hamper, if not altogether, stop that progression.

No one is forcing.

The thing is though, only people that would be having children would be making this decision. Yes, others may not have children but that does not matter. What matter is if it would be considered "wrong" to make all children genetically straight?
I think so. But, then again, I think that gay people serve a purpose in society and by eliminating them, you would be messing with nature's plan.

[Kt]

John Galt wrote:
Anyway, what's thepoint of every life form on earth? To live and reproduce. Simply that. I suppose you cangetinto some moral thing about why are we here but basically every lifeform on this planet is doing its bestto have offspring. And the fittest survive.
If this is the point of life, why aren't you off impregnating women NOW?
Quote:
Now, if we're here to carry on the line of humans, wouldn't it make sense to well, "cure" people of their homosexuality before birth? Isn't homosexuality a genetic defect, given the purpose of life on earth?
Probably just as much a genetic defect as having blonde hair, or blue eyes, or being black, all are genetic traits that make everyone different and make life a little less mundane, so I'd say no, you wouldn't be doing humanity a favour at all. Quote:
Wouldn't, therefore, not "curing" the child of the dabilitating genetic disorder that makes the child unwilling to form a sexual union with a member of the oppisite sex and thus bringing about a child -- wouldn't that be knowingly allowing the child to grow up to suffer with a defect and be a sin of ommision to allowsuch a thing to happen if it was in one's power to stop it? Isn't that child endangerment to allow harm to come to your child and you do nothing to stop it when it isin your power to do so?
I suppose it's the parent's choice to rid their child of the "debilitating disorder" :roll: of homosexuality or not. I wouldn't, It is neither debilitating, or a disorder. People who see a person's value as their ability to reproduce confuse me, we have plenty of people on earth, and many kids don't have parents, homosexual couples are the perfect people to raise the homeless children, apart from that, homosexuals CAN and DO reproduce with the oppisite sex, they are not at all unable to reproduce. :roll:

Quote: But I digress. With some form of GATTACAesque world, would homosexuality be even less existant than it istoday (i'm talking less than .05%, a bit more than 1% of what it is today). And would it be a good thing? Why or why not? Do you think uponthe advent of this engineering the "gay community" will start leaving in droves from the left to the conservatives, many of which would be against genetic engineering as against "God's plan"?
It would not be a good thing, you are destroying the things that make us human, you are trying to create a world where everyone is the same damn carbon copy. And you are under the impression that genetic engineering can, and will, de-diversify the world, you are incorrect, we will be able to make humans with night vision, glowing skin, claws, asexual reproduction, all kinds of neat things...