Gay Cure MERGED

Sexuality and genes are not something that needs changing. In some Asian countries they are modifying their babies so that they are born male, and they have many more males than females in their society.

Back in Sparta there was overpopulation. Humans have been overpopulated for thousands of years, maybe not in our eyes when trying to meet our needs, but in the eyes of nature or how many of us nature thinks there should be.

I expect that it will be an option in the future. I might like being able to go to the doctor and get some pills or shots or something that would change my sexuality. I could become bisexual. Its not gay or straight, its what gender your attactacted to, and we have the ability to figure out how to configure our heads to like a certain gender.

People could change both ways. I wouldn't be opposed to it.

 

What am I - chopped liver? I have posed several questions to you to try to explore your opinion and you did not design to answer. Please point out to me how I have evidenced discomfort, anger, or a reluctance to answer your question. Or do you have a preselected "crowd"

 

Nope, dude.
I like women too much

 

"The point is that IF the truth is that people are 'born gay' then there might be a way to reverse it. Eliminate it."

Doubtful, it's most likely an extremely complicated and integrated genetic structure that would account for sexualty IF it exists at all.

 

It would seem it would double my chances of being childless.
(if we are going on chances here)

So are we all in agreement that 'if' you could choose to be straight you would?
If so why?

 

No, we are not in agreement that "if" you could choose to be straight you would. I happen have been born straight. Many people I know happen to be born gay. None of them has ever said to me "You know paul, I really wish I could be straight like you" Do I think my friends want to be straight - No. Would I change my friends if I had the power - No. Therefore, I do not see where we have come to an agreement.

 

no, i would not choose to be straight. I am who I am, I don't want to change anything about myself.

 

It used to be very common to hear people say things like "Believe me... if I could wake up tomorrow an be straight I would love that.. if only I could life would be so much easier!"

I wonder if its possible they will be able to develop tests at the hospitals which can determine which of the newborns are 'homosexual babies'?
Thats not quite what our question is based on but if we only got that far - it could give the parents a heads up.

 

Given a genetic profile of a "gay" human being then an in vitro test would be a very simple thing. Then how would people feel about abortion. Hummmm? The next 5 to 15 years are going to be very interesting. Also maybe I have been under a rock all these years but I have never heard a gay person state that they wanted to be straight

 

You think that many parents would choose to Abort the 'Gay' Babies growing inside them.
Interesting.
I think those parents would 'rather' find a way to remove/replace the gay gene but if that was not possible yet then I wonder what that says that some parents would think it was better if they were dead than gay.

That even brings about a better question here:
IF we are saying that people are 'born gay' then if we did see wholescale eliminations of the 'gay gene' or the fetus's carrying it....... do we then see homosexuals begin to disappear in a few more generations?

Is that a bad thing?

 

.

I am starting to believe that you are seriously sick in the head. Yes that is a bad thing. There is a name for it, "The Final Solution", that's Hitler's name for the murder of millions of Jews and anybody else they didn't like. I suppose you wonder if that was a bad thing too, don't you Erassmas70?

You would never be able to get rid of your "gay gene", even if you murder every gay baby! God will still keep making us. That is what is so sick about your moot argument. Now, like I said and will keep saying, if we could get rid of the ass-hole gene, I wouldn't being having this discussion with the likes of you.

.

 

No no.. dont try and run away and hide behind Hitler again.

The hypothetical question, and the 'what if' logical consequences was being persued here and persued by you as much as anyone.
Dont go 'aborting' everything the moment it gets difficult.

IF we are to suppose that there is a 'gay gene' and that people are somehow 'born gay' then we can easily speculate that its passed on through generations.
IF that is the case then we have all kinds of possibilities.
IF the biological 'gayness' is removed then we might have some situation where the people DO PROCREATE even more (since they are now hetero) but maybe that STILL passes on to their offspring.
Now you would (in total theory) have many more people 'born gay'.
But ....
IF we go back to our scenario where its identified in the womb and enough people are aborting - well you may very well see that particular 'trait' start getting eliminated from the population.
After a few generations there are no more gay-gene carriers left to pass it on and it all becomes a thing of the past.

IF those abortions went on that is.
Its possible there would be many people who would WANT to have gay children?
Even creating a whole new social subclass of 'Gay Bearers' and maybe parents who want to produce gay kids to replenish the world for other gays etc?

Interesting aint it?

Funny thing though.. not everyone is so eager to insist that people are 'born gays' now?

 

I am sorry, but I have to call 'em like I see 'em. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck but wants to genetically engineer a "better" human being, it is a Nazi.

Sorry again honey, but I know for a fact that you failed every "logic" course you might have taken and didn't even comprehend the text of any "logic" book you have ever touched. So, don't pull that 'logic' crap, till you know what you're talking about.

Early on I pointed out how impossible and deceptive your hypothetical question was. That was an example of logical progression, you moron.

Let's look at your pseudo "logical progression", shall we?

"IF we are to suppose that there is a 'gay gene'"
That is a hypothesis, however as we will see, there are no facts to substantiate it. No 'gay gene' has been found. Just as no 'left handedness' gene has been found. There isn't even evidence as to how these things occur genetically.

Now, to be frank with you I could provide lots of criticism at this point for and against a "gay gene". I could explain what I know about genetics and what I have read on the subject. But you haven't researched your subject and I don't want to educate you, because I am afraid of what you would do with that knowledge. You have proven yourself to be ignorant and mean spirited, a dangerous combination but not as deadly as educated and mean spirited. I not only worry for you, Erassmas70, but for the people around you.

"and that people are somehow 'born gay'"
The key idea here is 'some how' not 'born gay'. There is substantial evidence that we are born gay. There is also substantial evidence that might indicate that some folks develop their orientation as early as 1 or 2 yrs old. Exactly how or why this happens is speculation right now. We agree people are born gay. We just don't know how that happens.

"then we can easily speculate that its passed on through generations."
That is a second hypothesis. You are building a hypothesis on a hypothesis. Illogical. You must prove the first in order to speculate on the second. We could just as 'easily speculate', as you say, that the FSM passes on the gay gene.

Listen, after this your argument just gets squirrelier and squirrelier. If -If -If -If -If -ain't logic, buster, if you aren't making any deductions.

"IF that is the case"
You have yet to provide any evidence that it might be, because there isn't any.

"If you were any nuttier"
You wouldn't be able to form the one half of your sentences that do make sense and then you probably (in total theory) wouldn't be able to sign in your password and we would be relieved of your nonsense.

IF those abortions went on that is.
You're creepy, you know that?

So you're trying to convince me that killing gay babies is going to make parents want to adopt gay kids to replenish the stock and how stupid am I to not realize this and how asinine am I to not agree with you in the first place when all you originally wanted to do was just a little gene therapy -not kill me, which if I took the time to think about it would actually benefit mankind. Is that what you were trying to explain with logic?

And you wonder why nobody wants to play with you.

 

wow.. you covered it all.

 

Which would be true if this actually was a scientific debate.. but its not really, so while it 'sounds like' you are seeing some real cool 'break down' type of post from Hippunk - it actually sucks big time.
..and that is the technical term here - sucks bigtime.

You cant even begin to believe there is a problem with 'what if' speculation and realistically that is exactly how most innovation comes about in the first place and how most of the public reacts to the innovations (they also running 'what ifs' and 'what consequence' scenarios).

So its not only legitimate to speculate but in this case it may be very important.
Despite all kinds of, effectively meaningless' posts like this last one trying to apply inappropriate or uncalled for standards... you still have the question and the call for answers:

IF it becomes possible to 'cure' homosexuality - would you do it, for yourself or for the expected child?

Im not going to sit around here pretending like this is difficult when three year olds get how a 'what if' speculation works.
"But Erasmus.. I explained why it isnt real and I used the words 'hypothesis from a hypothesis so.."
No.
Shut up and sit down and stop acting like a huge dork.
Thanks.

Others can feel free to chip into the obviously simple idea here - What if its possible.
Would you even have your expected child tested for gayness?

 

I must break ranks somewhat with Hipunk in that I am willing to accept your hypothetical situation. This is if I understand it is as follows:

1. Being Gay is Genetic
2. This Genetic trait can be detected before birth
3. By selective abortions we could eliminate Gay individuals
4. Most people would chose to abort a Gay Baby

Is that a fair statement of your hypothesis?
Let me know if I am with you so far.

 

Why "cure" homosexuality? There's nothing wrong with being homosexual.

 

This has been supposed by many and a whole lot of 'science' was touted about the media and 'gay orgs' claiming this was the proof that homosexual behavior was a genetic predisposition and even an imperative.
So lets just go with that...

If they are right about this, then its not long before that becomes a very good possibility alright.

Depends. Its a possibility if we were to accept point 1 and 2.
What do you think?

Says Who?
You?
Seems to me that was a suggestion or insinuation made by another member but Im not convinced.

Yeah ok then.
What exactly are you having difficulty with?
Can you be more specific here or what?

 

You stated

"So are we all in agreement that 'if' you could choose to be straight you would?"

Therefore, I asked if "most people would choose to abort a Gay baby" was part of your Hypothesis

You answered "Says Who?"

I ask again Is that not what YOU are saying

 

hippypaul, I am not insulted that you "broke ranks" with me. I could have given the same outline as you yourself have. But what you will find if you read Erassmas70's posts, is that he has a strange capacity for selective reading. He not only doesn't reason or listen to facts but he only seems to collect snippets and phrases that suit his own twisted logic. He is playing with half a deck, why would I provide him with the Aces and all the wild cards?

But I will look at your list, please understand if my guarded answers seem incomplete.



1. Being Gay is Genetic
That hasn't been determined, but if you use that for your postulate, you could be a little more specific. But Gene therapy seems to be the gist of this query.

2. This Genetic trait can be detected before birth
We are unsure how gayness is affected by genes. The exact workings and interrelations between gene strands and sets of strands is a fascinating subject. Since the fruition of the Human Genome Project we've seen all kinds of wild speculation (like this). The Genome Project, as far as I am aware, has yet to issue a statement concerning the ethics or origins of sexual orientation. (see: Human Genome Diversity Project, Minorities, Race, and Genomics . If you have info on Genome and sexuality, please let me know.)

The Genome Project has helped to bring certainty to some previous theories concerning the chemical reactions and make up of DNA. But at the same time it's raised new questions. They've been able to recognize aberrant genes strands, (in this case I mean genes which are so unusual that they warrant close inspection.) Some of these genes are believed to cause genetic illnesses, like Down Syndrome; others seem to be inert, residual or "turned off".

But there is exciting work under way which may prove to be beneficial to certain genetic illnesses, like Sickle Cell Anemia. This isn't surprising, as a cure for SCA was one of the early enticements to mapping the Human Genome. Other genetic treatments for blood type illnesses are sure to be seen in our lifetime.

There seems to be quite a bit of study in eye color for obvious reasons, It's a physical trait inherited and yet vastly similar in different gene pools. Also logic dictates that it would be easier to study due to the simplicity of choices for eye color as opposed to nose shape, size etc. This is an area of genetic study that has traditionally offered plenty of data on inherited traits and scientists continue to add to those data.

However the genetic mechanisms for nonphysical inherited traits, like left handedness or a capacity for mathematics, which is obviously controlled in the brain, have proven to be vastly more complex than anticipated and quite elusive.

So, your third supposition, should be

3a. Is this trait caused by aberrant genes, like a genetic disease like Down Syndrome?
This appears to be improbable and probably impossible from what is known about genetics.

3b Is this trait caused by genetic variance like eye color?
That is highly improbable (damn near impossible), as homosexuality occurs at the same rate across all gene pools.
Though it is supposed that certain variant genes someday may be manipulated to change eye color it really isn't known how you would even do that! (I would also like to note that someday they may find a perpetual motion machine -a more likely event) However, like the treatment for SCA, help with the aging and hardening of the of the cornea and cataracts is being studied. Messing with these genes for any other reason then health is considered unethical. Now, it might be cute to ask, "if you could pick your child's eye color through genetic engineering what color would you pick?" But that question, while silly and improbable, is not politically charged and a metaphor for cleansing a gene pool.

3c Is this trait caused by a genetic mechanism like left handedness, or a capacity for math -and not a single inherited gene?
Evidence points in this direction; this is the most likely. What is frustrating is that these mechanisms are complex and elusive. It's quite possible that one part of the mechanisms that influences the proclivity for a "gay" sexual orientation may also be part of the same mechanism for something like a proclivity for artistic expression. Therefore, a more likely question from what we know is: Would you alter the genetic make-up of your unborn child to be 'straight' if it would also affect his ability to become an artistic genius?

Please don't confuse genetic treatments, like for Sickle Cell, with a cure for homosexuality. It ain't the same, not even close.

A simple way to phrase the original question would be: if you could wish to be straight would you? Another simple question is to ask: if you could wish the sexual orientation of your child, would you wish it to be straight? However, to shroud this question in science fiction presented as science fact is insulting to me and a dangerous proposition. Much of the Nazi "justification" for the medical torture of jewish children was to improve the Master Race and purify it of genetic traits like homosexuality*. (why are these people always after our defenseless children, anyway?)


*in all honesty homosexuality wasn't concidered a genetic trait by the nazis, per say, but indicative of the maladies they wished to cleanse from the Master Race.
.