Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

A reoccuring question of mine is:when wecan make designer babies, will we fix the gay disorder?Or would that not be PC to do? Youfind more of the religious right on the side of gays than you will find liberals. Of course, if it was preventable, I wouldn't have my son be gay, and I would fix him. I doubt however that by time I'm gonna be having kids we'll be able to fix anything genetic. Hell, we don't even know what genes control sexual "prefrence" or whatever they are calling it these days.

[Geneviève]

John Galt wrote: A reoccuring question of mine is:when wecan make designer babies, will we fix the gay disorder?Or would that not be PC to do? Youfind more of the religious right on the side of gays than you will find liberals. Of course, if it was preventable, I wouldn't have my son be gay, and I would fix him. I doubt however that by time I'm gonna be having kids we'll be able to fix anything genetic. Hell, we don't even know what genes control sexual "prefrence" or whatever they are calling it these days.

I'm not sure what, specifically, you're referring to; there is no way to "fix" genes, nor will there ever be; do you mean, if we could isolate a gene that causes homosexuality, would pregnant women choose to abort fetuses that were discovered to have that gene?
If that were an option, then yes, I imagine there would be a large public outcry against it; there's no telling who would be more opposed, liberals or fundies. The religious Right already opposes abortion on general principles, for any reason; the Left would no doubt object to the termination of wanted pregnancies for no other reason than that the fetus possessed a "gay gene". It smacks of eugenics.
I doubt this will ever become an issue, however, because I do not think there is a "gay gene" to isolate; even if there were something biological that predisposed an individual to homosexuality, it would be nothing more than a possibility, the same way one can be genetically predisposed to obesity, alcoholism, or an increased cancer risk.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: A reoccuring question of mine is:when wecan make designer babies, will we fix the gay disorder?Or would that not be PC to do? Youfind more of the religious right on the side of gays than you will find liberals. Of course, if it was preventable, I wouldn't have my son be gay, and I would fix him. I doubt however that by time I'm gonna be having kids we'll be able to fix anything genetic. Hell, we don't even know what genes control sexual "prefrence" or whatever they are calling it these days.

I'm not sure it's possible to tell exactly who will be gay or not. While a group of genes could make homosexuality more probable, I doubt that genes cause homosexuality, so I don't know if it is possible to purge the gay people before they are born.

As for whether it’s ethical or not, I’m not sure. I personally would not care, but obviously there are those who despise the gay people very much, so I understand why they would not want to have gay kids. I guess it is within their rights. This way these poor kids wouldn't have to experience "Falwell's homophobic BS turn gay kids into normal kids" camps.

[Geneviève]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: A reoccuring question of mine is:when wecan make designer babies, will we fix the gay disorder?Or would that not be PC to do? Youfind more of the religious right on the side of gays than you will find liberals. Of course, if it was preventable, I wouldn't have my son be gay, and I would fix him. I doubt however that by time I'm gonna be having kids we'll be able to fix anything genetic. Hell, we don't even know what genes control sexual "prefrence" or whatever they are calling it these days.

I'm not sure it's possible to tell exactly who will be gay or not. While a group of genes could make homosexuality more probable, I doubt that genes cause homosexuality, so I don't know if it is possible to purge the gay people before they are born.

As for whether it’s ethical or not, I’m not sure. I personally would not care, but obviously there are those who despise the gay people very much, so I understand why they would not want to have gay kids. I guess it is within their rights. This way these poor kids wouldn't have to experience "Falwell's homophobic BS turn gay kids into normal kids" camps.


One stereotype about gays is that they treat their mothers well.
I have a gay uncle who lives up to that stereotype; he still lives at home with my grandmother, even though he's in his thirties.
Personally, I haven't met many women who are virulently anti-gay.... ie, who would prefer to have no child than to have a gay child.
I have met men who feel this way; but in the case that a gay gene was detected and the option of selective abortion to weed out homosexuals became available, men would have no real say in the matter, and I can't imagine women terminating wanted pregnancies because of this.

[Valdimar]

I would have to say that "designing" a baby to a person's liking for ANY reason is unethical. If you want something that fits what you are looking for, go pick get a puppy. I can't find a way to justify doing this to a human that is perfectly capable of becoming an independent person.

[sLiPpY]

mek wrote: Just got the simple fact that its not natural, and should be defined as a mental disorder instead of normal.

Its just science, a man and a women are what go together. Anything else is either a result in something happening to this person as a child, or a chemical imbalance in the brain.

IMO I think anyone with feelings about the same sex should check themselves in somewhere and have their head examined, too bad the government won't stand up and state the facts.

Being left handed at one time was considered to be a mental disorder. If you were fortunate enough, to have neighbors with your expressed type of mentality. They might allow you the courtesy of a lobotomy, in hope that you'd be cured. Or perhaps, if the surgery weren't a viable alternative. They'd tie your left hand to your side, and watch you struggle in attempting to learn...to favor your right.

There are an inumerable amount of children, who are tested today...and prescribed medication for items such as ADHD. IMHO, theres not a damn thing wrong with those children any type of medication could possibly correct, in that there's nothing wrong in the first place. One classroom approach does not fit all. In a hunting/gathering society the ADHD kids would grow up to be the best hunters...in the post industrial society, that genetic addaption still hasn't outlived it's usefulness. It's simply a little more challenging to harness those talents and apply them in such a way, that is useful to both the possessor, and society.

If one's fist is closed, it's not open to receive anything.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: A reoccuring question of mine is:when wecan make designer babies, will we fix the gay disorder?
Sure - about the time they find a way to fix the bigot disorder.

Now to be truthful, the real answer is 'probably not'. As others have already said, we'll most likely discover that a combination of genes may operate to give a person the predisposition to become homosexual, not that you'll see a cause and effect relationship. It may turn out that many more people are predisposed to it than actually become gay.

Any time you get into this type of eugenics scenario, you have to consider the possible overall impact of limiting the gene pool. The possible pitfalls will probably outweigh by far any 'benefit' to society realized by limiting the number of children born with the predisposition to become homosexual.

Quote: Or would that not be PC to do? Youfind more of the religious right on the side of gays than you will find liberals.
I am skeptical of this. It is never wise to underestimate the depth of the religious right's hatred for homosexuality. Only the truly hard core anti-abortion / anti-eugenics crowd is going to sign on to protecting 'gay babies'.

Quote: Of course, if it was preventable, I wouldn't have my son be gay, and I would fix him.
Which is exactly what I suspect most misguided parents sending their gay teens to camps for 'reparative therapy' have in mind in that undertaking.

It's really the central argument - whether or not homosexuality is truly bad for society and is something that actually needs fixing. I would say 'no' on both questions. There are a number of evils associated with being gay that really have more to do with how we're treated by our society than with homosexuality itself.

Quote: I doubt however that by time I'm gonna be having kids we'll be able to fix anything genetic. Hell, we don't even know what genes control sexual "prefrence" or whatever they are calling it these days.
Sexual orientation, not 'preference' - and I'm inclined to believe that you already knew this. This last statement appears to me an attempted swipe at gay people disguised as 'not knowing' the currently accepted terminology.

This isn't about what is or isn't politically correct. It's about the fact that our knowledge surrounding sexuality continues to evolve, as does the terminology to describe it.

'Preference' is generally taken to imply a conscious choice. For example, in some situations I may 'prefer' a serving of yams instead of mashed potatoes. That preference might be different with a change of entree. Similarly, if the yams aren't available and my only option is mashed potatoes, I'm not likely to make much of a fuss as I like them both.

Sexual orientation doesn't operate that way at all. I'm not going to prefer to be with a man in one circumstance and a woman in another. Nor am I going to accept being partnered with a woman if no men are available - I'll remain celibate in that instance. Continuing the food analogy, having sex with a woman is more like the way I feel about eating pickles - I have a fairly strong aversion to the idea. The difference is that I could probably be conditioned to tolerate pickles, but it is highly unlikely that you'd ever persuade me to turn heterosexual - our sexual orientation is much more deeply ingrained than even food preferences.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: A reoccuring question of mine is:when wecan make designer babies, will we fix the gay disorder?
Sure - about the time they find a way to fix the bigot disorder.

I don't know about that.Oneis the way people think, another is the way people act that is contrary to the very purpose of life... I would classify that as a disorder. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having any disorder, but it isn't ordered the way it ought be.

Quote: Now to be truthful, the real answer is 'probably not'. As others have already said, we'll most likely discover that a combination of genes may operate to give a person the predisposition to become homosexual, not that you'll see a cause and effect relationship. It may turn out that many more people are predisposed to it than actually become gay.


I thought you were born gay? What the hell is going on here? Now gays aren't born gay? :think:

Quote: Any time you get into this type of eugenics scenario, you have to consider the possible overall impact of limiting the gene pool. The possible pitfalls will probably outweigh by far any 'benefit' to society realized by limiting the number of children born with the predisposition to become homosexual.

Like what? Limiting population growth? That's about all Isee as a supposeded benefit of allowing more gay people to happen.

Quote: Quote: Or would that not be PC to do? Youfind more of the religious right on the side of gays than you will find liberals.
I am skeptical of this. It is never wise to underestimate the depth of the religious right's hatred for homosexuality. Only the truly hard core anti-abortion / anti-eugenics crowd is going to sign on to protecting 'gay babies'.

Some arch-social conservative in the NE introduced legislation to prohibit abortion of babies who are known to be gay... don't be so skeptical mystic.

Quote: Quote: Of course, if it was preventable, I wouldn't have my son be gay, and I would fix him.
Which is exactly what I suspect most misguided parents sending their gay teens to camps for 'reparative therapy' have in mind in that undertaking.

No, I wouldn't do that, but if I could prevent it, I would. I wouldn't disown my kid if he had cerebral palsy and I won't do it if he's gay. But I'd rather he not be.

Quote: It's really the central argument - whether or not homosexuality is truly bad for society and is something that actually needs fixing. I would say 'no' on both questions. There are a number of evils associated with being gay that really have more to do with how we're treated by our society than with homosexuality itself.

I don't see how having homosexuality is "good" or "bad." I just know it is anti-evolutionary in a society such as ours (where we don't need a gayuncle to help out with the groceries), and I find it repulsive (and you can't get mad atme for that as I also find, like you, pickles repulsive, and you, unlike me, find heterosexuality (as in the act of congress) repulsive).

Quote: Quote: I doubt however that by time I'm gonna be having kids we'll be able to fix anything genetic. Hell, we don't even know what genes control sexual "prefrence" or whatever they are calling it these days.
Sexual orientation, not 'preference' - and I'm inclined to believe that you already knew this. This last statement appears to me an attempted swipe at gay people disguised as 'not knowing' the currently accepted terminology.

Please. I am at a loss for words sometimes, and that was not my intent. However, since you said above i's not all genes, maybe I should use the word prefrence.

Quote: This isn't about what is or isn't politically correct. It's about the fact that our knowledge surrounding sexuality continues to evolve, as does the terminology to describe it.

'Preference' is generally taken to imply a conscious choice. For example, in some situations I may 'prefer' a serving of yams instead of mashed potatoes. That preference might be different with a change of entree. Similarly, if the yams aren't available and my only option is mashed potatoes, I'm not likely to make much of a fuss as I like them both.

Sexual orientation doesn't operate that way at all. I'm not going to prefer to be with a man in one circumstance and a woman in another. Nor am I going to accept being partnered with a woman if no men are available - I'll remain celibate in that instance. Continuing the food analogy, having sex with a woman is more like the way I feel about eating pickles - I have a fairly strong aversion to the idea. The difference is that I could probably be conditioned to tolerate pickles, but it is highly unlikely that you'd ever persuade me to turn heterosexual - our sexual orientation is much more deeply ingrained than even food preferences.

Well at least you are normal and have an aversion to pickles, and I understand what you are saying, however, if it isn't all genes.... doesn't choice come into play, consciously or not? I thought it was all genes; I always have thought this, but if it isn't.... well... then its a matter of choice, to one extent or another, now isn't it?

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I don't know about that.Oneis the way people think, another is the way people act that is contrary to the very purpose of life...
My life has purpose whether I choose to reproduce or not. It has purpose whether or not you choose to view my existance as meaningless because I don't reproduce.

Quote: I thought you were born gay? What the hell is going on here? Now gays aren't born gay?
My statements on the matter are not inconsistent. I do believe that gay people are born with what is probably a genetically based predisposition to become homosexual. I believe that an enormously complex set of factors (genetics, hormones, some psychological influences, personality, etc.) all interact to fix a person's orientation fairly early in life - certainly long before they actually become interested in the sexual aspect. Sexual orientation is a misnomer - it isn't just about sex - it's about attraction, affection, psychological attachments and physical reactions. What we feel is just as comlicated as what heterosexuals go through when they fall in love - more so because we have a minefield of other issues to navigate thanks to our status as a hated and misunderstood minority.

Are we born with it? I believe the very basic answer is yes - Mother Nature sets us up for it and once we've actually entered the world it begins to gel, the various traits associated with our sexuality expressing themselves with varying degrees of strength.

Is it a matter of choice? No more than my 'choice' to dislike pickles and probably much less so - one I can't remember ever consciously making and one that is so fixed there's little I could do about it if I wanted to. The problem with describing one's orientation as being a matter of choice is that most people take this to imply conscious decision making and they then leap to making unfair and unfounded assessments of blame toward the individual for making those 'choices'.

Quote: Quote: Any time you get into this type of eugenics scenario, you have to consider the possible overall impact of limiting the gene pool. The possible pitfalls will probably outweigh by far any 'benefit' to society realized by limiting the number of children born with the predisposition to become homosexual.

Like what? Limiting population growth? That's about all Isee as a supposeded benefit of allowing more gay people to happen.

A disingenuous response. I was talking about the possible negative consequences of getting rid of all the people who test positive for 'the gay' - whether or not they would actually end up that way, and now you turn it around and demand that I supply you instead with examples of the positive contributions that homosexuality makes to society.

I don't have to justify my existance to you. What I'd really like to say right now would get me banned for sure.

Quote: Some arch-social conservative in the NE introduced legislation to prohibit abortion of babies who are known to be gay... don't be so skeptical mystic.
I am skeptical of their motives for doing so.

Quote: I don't see how having homosexuality is "good" or "bad." I just know it is anti-evolutionary in a society such as ours (where we don't need a gayuncle to help out with the groceries)
So any positive contributions this individual might make to the survival of his extended family or to society in the long and short run don't matter simply because he isn't reproducing. Which of course is a bunch of crap, since he certainly could reproduce through unconventional means. Oh, but we don't want that - he might pass on those nasty gay genes and then we'd have even more gay people. Ugh.

Quote: and I find it repulsive (and you can't get mad atme for that as I also find, like you, pickles repulsive, and you, unlike me, find heterosexuality (as in the act of congress) repulsive).
No, but my anger would be justified if you allow your repulsion at the act to distort your perceptions about gay people in other ways, as so many people seem to do.

Quote: Please. I am at a loss for words sometimes, and that was not my intent. However, since you said above i's not all genes, maybe I should use the word prefrence.
We've already been over this. Preference implies that you those feelings are not terribly strong when quite the opposite is true. It implies that you can make a conscious choice, which is also not true when it comes to being attracted to the way a person's gender is expressed as a part of all the other things that make him or her attractive to you as an object for your affection, sexual gratification, personal validation, etc. etc. etc. It's impossible to come up with even a short phrase that adequately describes what sexual orientation actually is.

Quote: Well at least you are normal and have an aversion to pickles, and I understand what you are saying, however, if it isn't all genes.... doesn't choice come into play, consciously or not? I thought it was all genes; I always have thought this, but if it isn't.... well... then its a matter of choice, to one extent or another, now isn't it?

No, and I've already answered this above (and at greater length someplace in another thread. I'll have to see if I can locate that.)

(edited for clarity)

[John Galt]

Im just going to respond to the part that intrests me:

Quote: Any time you get into this type of eugenics scenario, you have to consider the possible overall impact of limiting the gene pool. The possible pitfalls will probably outweigh by far any 'benefit' to society realized by limiting the number of children born with the predisposition to become homosexual.


John Galt wrote: Like what? Limiting population growth? That's about all Isee as a supposeded benefit of allowing more gay people to happen.


A disingenuous response. I was talking about the possible negative consequences of getting rid of all the people who test positive for 'the gay' - whether or not they would actually end up that way, and now you turn it around and demand that I supply you instead with examples of the positive contributions that homosexuality makes to society.

I don't have to justify my existance to you. What I'd really like to say right now would get me banned for sure.

Now, whatam I trying to say? I was talking about "fixing" people so they weren't gay anymore before birth, not getting rid of them. I don't see how homosexuals or lack of homosexuals adds or subtracts to society. Yes,society would be different had there not been some certian homosexuals. I couldn't drunkenly sing and dance to silly Elton John songs. But the factof the matter is I'm not saying get rid of gay people, I'm saying get rid of the gayness of people, with genetic fiddling. I do not believe that someone's sexuality, like other things that are results of genetics that are meaningless, like race, influences someone's development to the point that their life would be drastically altered had they been different. What if Einstienwas gay?Would he be less of a genius? No. What is Alexander the great wasn't a bisexual who also had a fondness for horses, would he not be the greatest military commander ever? No, he still would be. That's my point. You seem to think that beinggay or straight is exceedingly important. If it's natural, it shouldn't be, right?

[Geneviève]

Quote: I was talking about "fixing" people so they weren't gay anymore before birth, not getting rid of them.


Perhaps your earlier allusion to "designer babies" is what caused the confusion.
At present, the term refers to sex-selective abortion (terminating a pregnancy because the fetus is the wrong gender; very common in China these days) and the like.
I don't believe there is any way to "genetically modify" fetuses, at present, or to add or remove a certain gene without terminating the pregnancy.
If such a gene was discovered, there would be recessive "carriers" of the gene, and the gene could eventually be bred out through a program of selective breeding, genetic testing, etc.
But as far as "fixing" an existing fetus's genes (or "removing" a specific gene) once it's already in utero... the technology for this does not now exist, and I have no reason to suspect that it ever will.
It would be preposterously expensive and complicated (if not outright impossible, which is what I believe), and anyone who really cared that much about not having a gay child would probably be just as content to simply abort the gay-gene-carrying fetus and try again, possibly with donor eggs/sperm, or with a different partner who did not carry a recessive gay gene.


Furthermore, if you were talking about "fixing" genes in utero so that fetuses would not be born homosexual, I'm not sure why you think the religious Right would oppose it.
If anything, I can see them attempting to force such a procedure on all pregnant women, if such technology were ever developed.
I can honestly see no reason they'd oppose it, no reason they wouldn't wholeheartedly promote it, if it did not involve terminating pregnancies.

[John Galt]

Geneviève wrote: Quote: I was talking about "fixing" people so they weren't gay anymore before birth, not getting rid of them.


Perhaps your earlier allusion to "designer babies" is what caused the confusion.
At present, the term refers to sex-selective abortion (terminating a pregnancy because the fetus is the wrong gender; very common in China these days) and the like.
I don't believe there is any way to "genetically modify" fetuses, at present, or to add or remove a certain gene without terminating the pregnancy.
If such a gene was discovered, there would be recessive "carriers" of the gene, and the gene could eventually be bred out through a program of selective breeding, genetic testing, etc.
But as far as "fixing" an existing fetus's genes (or "removing" a specific gene) once it's already in utero... the technology for this does not now exist, and I have no reason to suspect that it ever will.
It would be preposterously expensive and complicated (if not outright impossible, which is what I believe), and anyone who really cared that much about not having a gay child would probably be just as content to simply abort the gay-gene-carrying fetus and try again, possibly with donor eggs/sperm, or with a different partner who did not carry a recessive gay gene.


Furthermore, if you were talking about "fixing" genes in utero so that fetuses would not be born homosexual, I'm not sure why you think the religious Right would oppose it.
If anything, I can see them attempting to force such a procedure on all pregnant women, if such technology were ever developed.
I can honestly see no reason they'd oppose it, no reason they wouldn't wholeheartedly promote it, if it did not involve terminating pregnancies.

I neversaid anything aboutpresent, but I,unlike you, believe this will eventually happen, and cheaply.Why? Because like in GATTACA, they will justtake your "best" sperm and "best" egg tocreate the "best" offspring, which, naturally, would be heterosexual...

As for why I think the religious right would be vehmenly opposed to these things, its because a typical answer regarding things by them is "goddidit." So they would not mess with God's wonderful creation...

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I neversaid anything aboutpresent, but I,unlike you, believe this will eventually happen, and cheaply.Why? Because like in GATTACA, they will justtake your "best" sperm and "best" egg tocreate the "best" offspring, which, naturally, would be heterosexual...
:shock: That's quite an assumption!

<--- (mumbles something not very pleasant about the superiority complexes of some heterosexuals)

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Now, whatam I trying to say? I was talking about "fixing" people so they weren't gay anymore before birth, not getting rid of them. I don't see how homosexuals or lack of homosexuals adds or subtracts to society. Yes,society would be different had there not been some certian homosexuals. I couldn't drunkenly sing and dance to silly Elton John songs. But the factof the matter is I'm not saying get rid of gay people, I'm saying get rid of the gayness of people, with genetic fiddling. I do not believe that someone's sexuality, like other things that are results of genetics that are meaningless, like race, influences someone's development to the point that their life would be drastically altered had they been different. What if Einstienwas gay?Would he be less of a genius? No. What is Alexander the great wasn't a bisexual who also had a fondness for horses, would he not be the greatest military commander ever? No, he still would be. That's my point. You seem to think that beinggay or straight is exceedingly important. If it's natural, it shouldn't be, right?

Certainly I will agree that being homosexual or heterosexual doesn't appear to have any bearing on intelligence, artistic talent (there's a stereotype that sure ain't true), strategic skills, etc.

That said, genetics is a terribly complex science. Many genes don't have just one function and the interaction of multiple genes to produce various traits makes fiddling with them a questionable proposition. Since we do know that homosexuality doesn't appear to come from one particular gene, we next look at the possibility that a combination (or perhaps a handful of slightly different combinations) could be the cause. Then we have to figure out just how their interaction creates the predisposition for homosexuality, and what environmental influences in early childhood have an impact. It may turn out to be a combination of the genes and the timing of how they interact during gestation - the combination of timing and hormones can be a major factor in producing an intersexed person - quite possibly the process is not dissimilar with producing a predisposition to homosexuality. On top of this there's the question of which is more responsible - the genetics or the environment? If it turns out to be the environment, you're going to have a really fun time trying to control for those variables. If it's the genetics we return to the question of what happens when you start messing around with them. You could end up with some really undesirable results (fix one thing, break five others). It may very well turn out that the only fixes that work leave you with a sadly limited gene pool or totally eliminate several desirable traits. Remember, we're not saying that every person born with the predisposition necessarily becomes gay - it could in fact turn out to be a very small minority of a much larger group that share similar genetics.

Is the cost of this research, implementing the solution and the controversy it will cause in our society going to be worth it? If you think homosexuality is troublesome for society, it's nothing compared to the mess you'll create by telling people they need to surrender control of their genetics and home environments. We have a hard enough time convincing some women that smoking and drinking alcohol during pregnancy can have undesirable outcomes since it doesn't happen in every case. Imagine trying to get them to do something as specific as not eating apple pie with a specific amount of cinnamon during the 2nd week of the third trimester while not catching one of several cold viruses. That might sound absurd but it could very well turn out to be something equally ridiculous - there is a ton we don't know yet about the interplay of genetics, hormones and environmental influences - nevermind our ability or inability to effectively control them.

What you propose is a very long way off, if it ever comes to pass at all.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: I neversaid anything aboutpresent, but I,unlike you, believe this will eventually happen, and cheaply.Why? Because like in GATTACA, they will justtake your "best" sperm and "best" egg tocreate the "best" offspring, which, naturally, would be heterosexual...
:shock: That's quite an assumption!

<--- (mumbles something not very pleasant about the superiority complexes of some heterosexuals)

Did I put best is quotation marks? I believe I did. From a parents standpoint, a kid that will carry on your line is the "best" isn't it?

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Now, whatam I trying to say? I was talking about "fixing" people so they weren't gay anymore before birth, not getting rid of them. I don't see how homosexuals or lack of homosexuals adds or subtracts to society. Yes,society would be different had there not been some certian homosexuals. I couldn't drunkenly sing and dance to silly Elton John songs. But the factof the matter is I'm not saying get rid of gay people, I'm saying get rid of the gayness of people, with genetic fiddling. I do not believe that someone's sexuality, like other things that are results of genetics that are meaningless, like race, influences someone's development to the point that their life would be drastically altered had they been different. What if Einstienwas gay?Would he be less of a genius? No. What is Alexander the great wasn't a bisexual who also had a fondness for horses, would he not be the greatest military commander ever? No, he still would be. That's my point. You seem to think that beinggay or straight is exceedingly important. If it's natural, it shouldn't be, right?

Certainly I will agree that being homosexual or heterosexual doesn't appear to have any bearing on intelligence, artistic talent (there's a stereotype that sure ain't true), strategic skills, etc.

That said, genetics is a terribly complex science. Many genes don't have just one function and the interaction of multiple genes to produce various traits makes fiddling with them a questionable proposition. Since we do know that homosexuality doesn't appear to come from one particular gene, we next look at the possibility that a combination (or perhaps a handful of slightly different combinations) could be the cause. Then we have to figure out just how their interaction creates the predisposition for homosexuality, and what environmental influences in early childhood have an impact. It may turn out to be a combination of the genes and the timing of how they interact during gestation - the combination of timing and hormones can be a major factor in producing an intersexed person - quite possibly the process is not dissimilar with producing a predisposition to homosexuality. On top of this there's the question of which is more responsible - the genetics or the environment? If it turns out to be the environment, you're going to have a really fun time trying to control for those variables. If it's the genetics we return to the question of what happens when you start messing around with them. You could end up with some really undesirable results (fix one thing, break five others). It may very well turn out that the only fixes that work leave you with a sadly limited gene pool or totally eliminate several desirable traits. Remember, we're not saying that every person born with the predisposition necessarily becomes gay - it could in fact turn out to be a very small minority of a much larger group that share similar genetics.

It may turn outthat if weknockout one gene and replace it with another all will be fixed, even with all the multiple genes needed for homosexuality. We don't know. I understandit is complex. But Ialso hope people can make hypoteticalquestions without being barraged by our current understanding of science.

quote]Is the cost of this research, implementing the solution and the controversy it will cause in our society going to be worth it?[/quote]

Believe it or not.... private companies preform nearly all research in this country...

Quote: If you think homosexuality is troublesome for society, it's nothing compared to the mess you'll create by telling people they need to surrender control of their genetics and home environments. We have a hard enough time convincing some women that smoking and drinking alcohol during pregnancy can have undesirable outcomes since it doesn't happen in every case. Imagine trying to get them to do something as specific as not eating apple pie with a specific amount of cinnamon during the 2nd week of the third trimester while not catching one of several cold viruses. That might sound absurd but it could very well turn out to be something equally ridiculous - there is a ton we don't know yet about the interplay of genetics, hormones and environmental influences - nevermind our ability or inability to effectively control them.

What you propose is a very long way off, if it ever comes to pass at all.

Yeah, well... its just a simple question. And I don't think it is a long way off.If wecanfigure out how to get emryonic stem cells to do what we wish, and once we find out the genes for X, well, it will happen. Or I suppose you could fiddle with the egg andsperm and wedon't even need this.... of course, it is difficult to do, I'm not saying it isn't, but I am saying that it will be done sooner than later...

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: It may turn outthat if weknockout one gene and replace it with another all will be fixed, even with all the multiple genes needed for homosexuality. We don't know. I understandit is complex. But Ialso hope people can make hypoteticalquestions without being barraged by our current understanding of science.
I believe my point was that your framing of the question ignores what we do know about the science involved.

If you want to ignore all of that and assume it will become cheap and won't require a dangerous surgical procedure for the mother, then the answer to the question is simple: Yes, I would not be at all surprised to see parents 'fixing' their children this way as a norm.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: It may turn outthat if weknockout one gene and replace it with another all will be fixed, even with all the multiple genes needed for homosexuality. We don't know. I understandit is complex. But Ialso hope people can make hypoteticalquestions without being barraged by our current understanding of science.
I believe my point was that your framing of the question ignores what we do know about the science involved.

If you want to ignore all of that and assume it will become cheap and won't require a dangerous surgical procedure for the mother, then the answer to the question is simple: Yes, I would not be at all surprised to see parents 'fixing' their children this way as a norm.

OK, next question, would it be wrong, from a secular standpoint?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: It may turn outthat if weknockout one gene and replace it with another all will be fixed, even with all the multiple genes needed for homosexuality. We don't know. I understandit is complex. But Ialso hope people can make hypoteticalquestions without being barraged by our current understanding of science.

Yeah, well... its just a simple question. And I don't think it is a long way off.If wecanfigure out how to get emryonic stem cells to do what we wish, and once we find out the genes for X, well, it will happen. Or I suppose you could fiddle with the egg andsperm and wedon't even need this.... of course, it is difficult to do, I'm not saying it isn't, but I am saying that it will be done sooner than later...

I think that is a scary thought to be honest because I think on that basis, we are going to see a lot more uniformity in the society. People will be able to choose IQs of their babies, hair colour, sexuality, gender, skin colour, etc! I just have to say: Oh Dear! :shock: