Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: 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.

No one is "eliminating" them. They are eliminating future occurance beyond the norm.

Also -- what purpose does it serve to have gay people? Not specific gay people, but gay people as a whole?

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: 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.

No one is "eliminating" them. They are eliminating future occurance beyond the norm.

Also -- what purpose does it serve to have gay people? Not specific gay people, but gay people as a whole?

I mean "eliminating" in the sense you mean, eliminating future generations of gay men and lesbians by preventing their birth.

As for purpose, there are a few schools of thought on it. Some theorize that gay men and lesbians are nature's way of curbing population growth. Certain American Indian tribes have a place of respect in their culture for gay people. They are dubbed "two-spirits" as they can be seen as serving both a masculine and feminine role. Gay men could go hunt with the other men, due to physical strength, or stay home with the women to help with child-rearing, due to a more pronounced feminine side.

Personally, I view all groups of people (and all individuals) as having intrinsic value and purpose in society because we are all here to teach each other and learn from one another. What you, personally, learn from watching the gay community (and the struggles that have occured) may be different than what another person learns. Some may learn what it is like to feel hatred for another group, some may learn what it is like to feel empathy toward another group. Regardless of the lesson, there is a reason that people and sub-cultures exist. Eliminating the possibility of those sub-cultures from existing the future would be to deny society as a whole a chance to learn from that community, and deny that community the opportunity to learn from others.

[John Galt]

What does one learn?

And I know there are many reasons for homosexuality to develop. Just as there was genetic reasons for sickle cell anemia -- heterozygous were superior to homozygous dominant (who had no defense against malaria) and homozygous recessive (who died from sickle cell anemia) since the heterozygotes were resistant to malaria. But if hetereozygousy is the reason we could make it always heterozygous. As for a gay uncle helping to raise children, I do not see how this is necessary. Perhaps in a hunter gatherer society that we evolved from but I don't see how they are needed now. No I don't think there is a grand purpose for homosexuality as a whole now.

BUT homosexuals of choice will always be around. Even if homosexuality was genetically destroyed, I do not think this so-called 'culture' that you think is somehow important would ever be destroyed, and the practice of homosexuality would continue.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: What does one learn?

And I know there are many reasons for homosexuality to develop. Just as there was genetic reasons for sickle cell anemia -- heterozygous were superior to homozygous dominant (who had no defense against malaria) and homozygous recessive (who died from sickle cell anemia) since the heterozygotes were resistant to malaria. But if hetereozygousy is the reason we could make it always heterozygous. As for a gay uncle helping to raise children, I do not see how this is necessary. Perhaps in a hunter gatherer society that we evolved from but I don't see how they are needed now. No I don't think there is a grand purpose for homosexuality as a whole now.

BUT homosexuals of choice will always be around. Even if homosexuality was genetically destroyed, I do not think this so-called 'culture' that you think is somehow important would ever be destroyed, and the practice of homosexuality would continue.

What one learns is dependent on the individual. One might learn what it is like to feel an irrational hatred of a group. One might learn indifference. One might learn compassion and empathy. The lessons learned are as varied as the people learning them.

Every group, and every individual, serve an intrinsic purpose in society. Hitler (as vile as his actions were) served a purpose and taught a lesson. The gay culture, just as every other culture, serves a purpose. And, perhaps you don't feel that there is a gay culture, but that could be because you are not a part of it and don't know what it is like to be a part of it. However, that doesn't make the culture any less valuable than any other.

Oh, and if you feel that homosexuality will continue regardless of any genetic attempt to eradicate it, then this all becomes a moot point.

[Jaxian]

Sorry to go back to the first post, but I feel that the root of the problem lies here.

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.

This statement is the largest problem with your reasoning. You can say that evolution and/or natural selection favors those species which reproduce, but it is incorrect to say that this is the point of life on Earth.

Examining the beliefs of evolutionists, I think most feel that evolution simply determines which species live today. This doesn't mean that "survival and reproduction are the point of life", it simply means that the species which survives and reproduces is the one which will be seen on the planet in later generations. If we instead consider more religious people, I think that most believe life is a test of your faith and goodness. Neither of these beliefs suggest that reproduction is the point of life.

So whose belief says that we are here to procreate and continue the species? Maybe someone's belief does. Maybe yours does. But these things are your individual beliefs, not the belief of everyone.

So maybe you will genetically alter your child to be heterosexual. In your mind, that might be fixing a "defect." But someone else does not believe sexual orientation matters at all. And in someone else wants his child to be gay. So instead of imposing your "point of life" upon others, the future would let each person keep his own beliefs, and each person might genetically engineer a different child.

But consider the beliefs you presented: that we should genetically enhance our children to enhance our species' ability to survive. Do you think homosexuals have no point in that belief? They certainly can and do reproduce. From donating sperm, to artificial insemination, to surrogate parenting, homosexuals can and do reproduce today. Yet you are talking about a time where genetic engineering allows us to create any sort of child we want. Surely such a time allows children to be born without a member of both sexes to parent it. So of what relevance is the gender of a couple, and of what relevance is the method of sex that couple has?

Well think about it: the real relevance is that heterosexual sex might result in children who are not genetically engineered. If your belief is that we should be creating children who are genetically enhanced, then you should certainly be worried about unwanted children created via heterosexual sex for pleasure. So wouldn't it be more ideal for you to give your child homosexual attractions? That way, this child would only be interested in having sex with a member of the opposite sex if it were for a purpose: to have a child naturally.

I should also mention that the morality of genetically changing the mind of an unborn child is a huge moral question. But even assuming that we do decide it to be moral, I really see no reason to get rid of homosexuality, for the reasons I mentioned above.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Imagine a society where everyone is great in every respect and equal in every respect. Is this a society that you really want to live in? Eugenics may sound nice to you, but the social consequences are serious and the society will NEVER be the same. Remember: when everyone is brilliant, NO ONE is brilliant. Diversity in moderation makes a society interesting and healthy.

[Sage Orator]

Quote: 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.
While I disagree with your meaning of life for my first part I will assume that it is true.

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?
The problem with that is that most likely it is a combination of both genetics and early environment, neither of which are under control of the child. It is quite possible that the parents do not know that they are raising their child that way, but certain things currently unknown affect sexual preference. Also, considering the small amount of people who have it right now there really is no reason to do this, but if parents are really against it as is with any other "defect" then let them do it if possible. It is really their choice and not anybody else's.

Quote: And would it be a good thing? Why or why not? Do you think upon the 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"?
I don't think it would be a good or bad thing, it is the same as people who are born with defects today. They aren't really all that different, is there really any need to change them? I don't think that one issue will cause a large amount of "left-wingers" to go conservative.

Quote: 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 is chemicals released in the brain. Therefore, homosexuality is a chemical, not genetic, issue.
The question is, have they really changed? There is a very high likelihood that the person was neither homosexual to begin with or did not really change. There are also people who experimented with homosexuality reverted back to heterosexuality. Let's look at the numbers. There is a 30% "success" rate of converting homosexuals to heterosexuals. Only 30% of those stay as heterosexuals. Approximately 8% of people experiment with homosexuality. That leaves only 1% of people being "converted" who were most likely never homosexuals and/or were placed to pad the statistics. This is ignoring bisexuals as well.

Also, I can kill myself, does that mean that most humans do not want to live? Certainly not, it is merely an isolated case with unique circumstances. You claim, as a fact, that attraction is caused by chemicals. This is not as definite as you try to claim, genetics is also claimed to be the reason for attraction by experts.

[John Galt]

Jaxian wrote: Sorry to go back to the first post, but I feel that the root of the problem lies here.

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.

This statement is the largest problem with your reasoning. You can say that evolution and/or natural selection favors those species which reproduce, but it is incorrect to say that this is the point of life on Earth.

Examining the beliefs of evolutionists, I think most feel that evolution simply determines which species live today. This doesn't mean that "survival and reproduction are the point of life", it simply means that the species which survives and reproduces is the one which will be seen on the planet in later generations. If we instead consider more religious people, I think that most believe life is a test of your faith and goodness. Neither of these beliefs suggest that reproduction is the point of life.

So whose belief says that we are here to procreate and continue the species? Maybe someone's belief does. Maybe yours does. But these things are your individual beliefs, not the belief of everyone.

So maybe you will genetically alter your child to be heterosexual. In your mind, that might be fixing a "defect." But someone else does not believe sexual orientation matters at all. And in someone else wants his child to be gay. So instead of imposing your "point of life" upon others, the future would let each person keep his own beliefs, and each person might genetically engineer a different child.

But consider the beliefs you presented: that we should genetically enhance our children to enhance our species' ability to survive. Do you think homosexuals have no point in that belief? They certainly can and do reproduce. From donating sperm, to artificial insemination, to surrogate parenting, homosexuals can and do reproduce today. Yet you are talking about a time where genetic engineering allows us to create any sort of child we want. Surely such a time allows children to be born without a member of both sexes to parent it. So of what relevance is the gender of a couple, and of what relevance is the method of sex that couple has?

Well think about it: the real relevance is that heterosexual sex might result in children who are not genetically engineered. If your belief is that we should be creating children who are genetically enhanced, then you should certainly be worried about unwanted children created via heterosexual sex for pleasure. So wouldn't it be more ideal for you to give your child homosexual attractions? That way, this child would only be interested in having sex with a member of the opposite sex if it were for a purpose: to have a child naturally.

I should also mention that the morality of genetically changing the mind of an unborn child is a huge moral question. But even assuming that we do decide it to be moral, I really see no reason to get rid of homosexuality, for the reasons I mentioned above.


It isn't a "belief" of anyone or anything, it is "the purpose of life."

I say this not in some supposeded "moral" view but just as the "wiring" of life. Bacteria exists to propogate themselves. They have no moral purpose, like any animal, since they have no knowledge of good nor evil. They do not serve any "purpose" the way you speak of it, but "their purpose" is to survive and reproduce.

It is a plain fact, which is abundently clear. The purpose of life is to live and create offspring. Small organisms that do not need to share genetic material but still do for "the good of the species" when they reproduce exemplify this. I don't know if there is anything left to say.

As for homosexuals reproducing, they cannot do so with each other. I know of NO way whatsoever that two sperm could join and be implanted in the vas defrens, even theoretically. So to say they can does not help the conversation as it is plainly wrong.

As for creating children through sexual intercourse, I never said when or how the genes would be altered, if they could be done after or before conception, or anything of the sort and your fallacy does not help here.

In the end the point of the above is to say that since only heterosexuals can reproduce (which is true) the only people who would be determining their child's sexual orientation would be heterosexual (again, true). In a world where it was increasingly common to engineer your children, many people would start to fear their child, "naturally concieved," would be the stupid kid and die of cancer, things easily taken care of had they just been engineered. If they engineer one thing they will engineer other things. And when the doctor lists off, "Your son is going it be a great athlete, stellar student, high leadership potential.... yadda yadda yadda.... and a homosexual. Anything you'd like to change?" What do you think the answer will be? That was the point of this conversation. I think people would do it alot. But that means there is something defective about homosexuality, and there is, in that it is not the norm and only 3% or so of the population has this genetic defect that goes against "the purpose of life." Just as sickle cell anemia may have served a purpose for people that didn't have it, so may homosexuality, but in a world of genetic engineering that purpose (if it is indeed hereozygote superiority) no longer matters (it no longer matters to have recessive homozygous traits, in other words). Nor does it matter in a society such as ours for the hunter gatherer necessity of a gay uncle to care for the children and not have any of his own has passed. So it is a 'defect.' Alot of people think it is 'wrong' to call it a 'defect' even though it is from an objective standpoint of what the "purpose of all life is -- to survive long enough to reproduce." Since it is a variation of the norm -- which may have served an evolutionary purpose that better suited the human population as a whole -- it does not serve that purpose. I am not saying it is "wrong" I am just saying what it is. Now, the entire point of this was to say that most people will, in the end, get rid of homosexuality, in my opinion. And while Uris Fyre attempted to justify the need of homosexuality, I do not see any reason why homosexuality (which is different from homosexuals so do not put words in my mouth) needs to continue to exist.

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Imagine a society where everyone is great in every respect and equal in every respect. Is this a society that you really want to live in? Eugenics may sound nice to you, but the social consequences are serious and the society will NEVER be the same. Remember: when everyone is brilliant, NO ONE is brilliant. Diversity in moderation makes a society interesting and healthy.

You would rather risk having kids with genetic disorders or kids that could be the stupid kid that gets held back then help them in any way you can? See, I think most people would not take your position, which is my entier point.

[spearsy23]

Well i can't speak for him, but i'd rather have natural kids. People are different for a reason.

[George W Bush]

if we can genetically engineer homosexuality out of a 'zygote', or whatever, then society will be forced to accept homosexuals unconditionally, no bias, no prejudice - 100% equality. That assumes genetics is not legislated to prevent making gay offspring.

What about the idea that homosexuality is helping humanity by subsequently preventing us from breeding ourselves into extinction.
With all medical breakthroughs, life is living longer - people will be giving birth MORE on top of less people dying. Perhaps homosexuality is one of those survival things that keeps our species alive.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Imagine a society where everyone is great in every respect and equal in every respect. Is this a society that you really want to live in? Eugenics may sound nice to you, but the social consequences are serious and the society will NEVER be the same. Remember: when everyone is brilliant, NO ONE is brilliant. Diversity in moderation makes a society interesting and healthy.

You would rather risk having kids with genetic disorders or kids that could be the stupid kid that gets held back then help them in any way you can? See, I think most people would not take your position, which is my entier point.

Galt, I don't have a problem with treating genetic disorders. But I do have a problem with what is defined as a genetic disorder. You see if certain conditions were defined as genetic disorders, then there would have been no problems. For example, if a certain type of heart condition could be corrected prior to birth using genetic engineering, then I'm all for it. However, increasingly, it seems genetic engineering will be used to create human beings who are exactly similar in every way [even their sexual orientation]. And that is what makes me worried. A society of equal super humans drastically alters everything.

So what I'm trying to say is that genetics is not just something that will have biological effects on people. More importantly, it will have social consequences and it will change the society and social values, etc beyond recogntion.

[Jaxian]

John Galt wrote: It isn't a "belief" of anyone or anything, it is "the purpose of life."

I say this not in some supposeded "moral" view but just as the "wiring" of life. Bacteria exists to propogate themselves. They have no moral purpose, like any animal, since they have no knowledge of good nor evil. They do not serve any "purpose" the way you speak of it, but "their purpose" is to survive and reproduce.

I completely disagree and I do not see how you come to this conclusion. There is no purpose of life except through religion.

In order to have a "Purpose of life", there must be a creator of life. Non-intelligence can have no purpose. This means that if life were created by an intelligence of some sort, the purpose of life is whatever reason that intelligence created life. If life was created solely through evolution or some other non-intelligent method, it can have no purpose.

What you are suggesting is that natural selection somehow has a purpose. But natural selection can have no purpose. Natural selection simply means that the species most likely to reproduce are the species which continue to exist.

Today we see only bacteria which reproduce, because any which did not reproduce died off and are gone. But is wrong to say that those bacteria which died off did not fulfill some "purpose of life." They simply did not reproduce and therefore their offspring do not exist today.

Your idea that purpose of life is to reproduce is simply your religious belief. Without religion, we exist as we are today simply because natural selection caused species which reproduce to continue to exist.

What you are using is a flaw in logic, which goes something like this: "The species which reproduces is the species which continues to exist. Therefore the purpose of life is reproduction." But that certainly does not logically follow. That which continues the existence of a species makes no indication of that species' "purpose".

Quote: As for homosexuals reproducing, they cannot do so with each other. I know of NO way whatsoever that two sperm could join and be implanted in the vas defrens, even theoretically. So to say they can does not help the conversation as it is plainly wrong.

I did not say that two sperm could join. I said that homosexuals can and do reproduce in a variety of fashions. This includes having sex with members of the opposite sex despite not having a sexual attraction. And this includes having sperm implanted into a woman for the purpose of having children. And with increases in technology, it could include simply extracting the genetic material of males and females and inserting them into an artificial womb.

Your claim that homosexuals cannot reproduce is absolutely wrong. Homosexuals can and do reproduce. What you actually mean is that homosexuals cannot reproduce with someone they are sexually attracted to. The difference between these two things is profound, and it leads to very different logic than that which you have provided.

Remember that today there is a large problem with unwanted children, because people tend to have sex whether they want children or not. Perhaps it is desirable in the future for people to have heterosexual sex only when they want a child. This may make it desirable to have a homosexual child.

I can imagine that many parents hope their children will have children themselves. But as technology advances, and society follows, homosexuality may be preferrable to heterosexuality to many parents, who don't want to deal with pregnant teenagers.

You may consider homosexuality a defect, but I do not, and neither will many others.

[Robin Hood]

THe majority of homosexuals seem to agree that people would not choose to be homosexual, thus it's even less likely that parents, if given the option, wil not change potentially homoseuxal children into heterosexuals.

This is not a moral judgement but more of a statement of what will obnviously be the case. To be fair, as tolerant, liberal, and open as I like to think I am I'd probably do the same thing to my unborn children.....

[Æ]

Reason wrote: This is not a moral judgement but more of a statement of what will obnviously be the case. To be fair, as tolerant, liberal, and open as I like to think I am I'd probably do the same thing to my unborn children.....
And what would give you the right to do that? We're not talking about a disease here; there is nothing to defend the child against. What we're talking about is you making a decision about who your child ought to be because that's what you want even though it might not be what they want. It is wrong for you to impose your values on another person -- even if that person is your child.

People whose sexual habits deviate from the norm do not have a disease; they are who they are just as everyone else is everyone else. These deviations are a good thing because they make society much richer and complete.

[Jaxian]

Reason wrote: THe majority of homosexuals seem to agree that people would not choose to be homosexual, thus it's even less likely that parents, if given the option, wil not change potentially homoseuxal children into heterosexuals.

This is not a moral judgement but more of a statement of what will obnviously be the case. To be fair, as tolerant, liberal, and open as I like to think I am I'd probably do the same thing to my unborn children.....

And I don't doubt that there are many people who would do this.

But understand that the reason most homosexuals wouldn't choose to be homosexual is more social acceptance than anything else. If, in the future, there is not prejudice or intolerance against homosexuals, then it does not particularly make sense to change that.

I don't disagree that some people will want to make their children heterosexual, however the original question was whether it makes sense to do that. I don't particularly see how it makes sense at all.

More than likely, there would be people who wish to cure their child of heterosexuality, just as there would be people who want to cure their child of homosexuality.

The debate over whether it is moral to change your child's sexual orientation is a tough one. But it isn't an important one: even if it is moral to change your child's sexual orientation, I don't see any good reason to change from homosexual to heterosexual.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: And what would give you the right to do that? We're not talking about a disease here; there is nothing to defend the child against. What we're talking about is you making a decision about who your child ought to be because that's what you want even though it might not be what they want.

I'd be literally changing their essence, I mean it's possible tat my child could become really relihgious and want no genetic modification (including against actual diseases) but that wouldn't stop me from doing whatever to try and ensure that my child would lead a happy and fullfilling life.

Quote: People whose sexual habits deviate from the norm do not have a disease;

I know. I have zero problem with homosexuality. I just believe that the majority of people would rather be heterosexual than homosexual, even if that is just because of society.

Quote: But understand that the reason most homosexuals wouldn't choose to be homosexual is more social acceptance than anything else. If, in the future, there is not prejudice or intolerance against homosexuals, then it does not particularly make sense to change that.

There will probably always be some prejudice, and even if eventually all does go (that'd be great) it won't happen in my lifetime; and even if it did I'd still change the genes anyway because I'd like grandchildren of direct descent from my children and their spouses; and even if two sperm, or ovae could be merged then I'd still do it because it'd make a greater choice (and thus potentially a greater quality) of partners; and finally, to some extent, it'd be nice if my sons were somewhat similar to me.

Quote: More than likely, there would be people who wish to cure their child of heterosexuality,

I seriously doubt it, at least there'd be very few. I would class myself very, very highly in the tolerant 'who cares if someone's homosexual stakes'. There are many homosexuals whom I've met who I believe would amke wonderful parents , etc etc etc. BUT not only is the actual sexual process easier amongst heterosexual (of course) but also all the reasons I've given above.

[Enoch]

Reason wrote: Quote: And what would give you the right to do that? We're not talking about a disease here; there is nothing to defend the child against. What we're talking about is you making a decision about who your child ought to be because that's what you want even though it might not be what they want.

I'd be literally changing their essence, I mean it's possible tat my child could become really relihgious and want no genetic modification (including against actual diseases) but that wouldn't stop me from doing whatever to try and ensure that my child would lead a happy and fullfilling life.

I think that assumes that homosexuals are miserable and don't lead fulfilling lives. As a generalization, that is false. While personal anecdotes are not proof of anything beyond personal experience, I am perfectly happy in my life and feel fulfilled with the choices I have made regarding my social life, education, career.

While I won't deny that there are times when being a gay man (and I would presume lesbian as well, but have no basis of comparison) is difficult, working through those difficulties often leads people to be happier and stronger in the long run.

Reason wrote: Quote: People whose sexual habits deviate from the norm do not have a disease;

I know. I have zero problem with homosexuality. I just believe that the majority of people would rather be heterosexual than homosexual, even if that is just because of society.

In reality, I think most homosexuals wouldn't choose to be straight anymore than a heterosexual would choose to be gay. What we would choose, however, is for society to get over their misguided prejudices and irrational fear, hatred, or (in some cases) pity of gay people.

Reason wrote: Quote: But understand that the reason most homosexuals wouldn't choose to be homosexual is more social acceptance than anything else. If, in the future, there is not prejudice or intolerance against homosexuals, then it does not particularly make sense to change that.

There will probably always be some prejudice, and even if eventually all does go (that'd be great) it won't happen in my lifetime; and even if it did I'd still change the genes anyway because I'd like grandchildren of direct descent from my children and their spouses; and even if two sperm, or ovae could be merged then I'd still do it because it'd make a greater choice (and thus potentially a greater quality) of partners; and finally, to some extent, it'd be nice if my sons were somewhat similar to me.

Having a gay son doesn't mean that they aren't similar to you. I am gay, and my father is not. We both have very similar interests ranging from food to music to movies to philosophy. We can sit for hours and talk about religion and philosophy, or sit back and watch a football game. Other than the gender of who I am attracted to, and slight personality quirks that I inherited or picked up from my mother, I am more like my father than I am anyone else, and he knows how alike we are.

In addition, you can still have grandchildren that are your blood descendants. Surrogacy is an option that many gay men and women choose.

Reason wrote: Quote: More than likely, there would be people who wish to cure their child of heterosexuality,

I seriously doubt it, at least there'd be very few. I would class myself very, very highly in the tolerant 'who cares if someone's homosexual stakes'. There are many homosexuals whom I've met who I believe would amke wonderful parents , etc etc etc. BUT not only is the actual sexual process easier amongst heterosexual (of course) but also all the reasons I've given above.

I won't deny that having children is easier for heterosexuals. To deny that would be naive. And while I applaud you for your attitudes toward homosexuals, and your outlook on what it means to be gay, I still feel that the fears you voiced stem from some misconceptions you have about homosexuals and homosexuality.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I think that assumes that homosexuals are miserable and don't lead fulfilling lives. As a generalization, that is false

I would never assume that. I do believe that life is generally harder for homosexuals, though.

Quote: or (in some cases) pity of gay people.

A very fair criticism, in fact all of it is pretty fair....I need some time to think about it a little.

[GAConsultant]

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"?

My first problem with this post comes from this statement "We've also figured out where the multiple genes are for sexual orientation"
If you or someone you know has figured this out you should really share it with the real scientific community because no one in it has that information yet.

If you are talking about the genetic markers at Xq28..... that 13 year old theory has been debunked time and time again. There is, at this time, no research that has concluded that there is any genetic genetic link to homosexuality.

Secondly, If procreation is your debate, that we exist for the purpose of multiplying, then that is a rather flat argument as well. I myself know several gay parents. Both those that bred, and then "came out", and those that had children while already "out" with a willing partner for the purposes of procreation.

We are far more likely to find a genetic link to infertility than we are homosexuality, so since we will be able to identify the markers for that, long before we are able to correct that problem in the womb, then would it be justification, in your eyes, to simply abort the fetus since, by your way of thinking, it will not be able to procreate, and therefore have nothing to look forward to in life, or contribute to society.