Is it unethical to cure a person with down syndrome? Or someone with one of the many other birth defects? People can get pissed if they want, but if there is a "gay gene" then it is a birth defect and those who WANT "cured" have every right and parents should have the right to choose at birth if their children get a so called cure. I don't give a damn who sleeps with who, but if a homosexual wants to be "normal" who the hell are we to stop them?
So we born without any sexuality at all according to you ? And everything is to be blamed on how we are raised up by our parents and how the environment influences us? Modern psychiatry ditched that idea and more and more research points out to brain functions and natural predispositions rather than upbringing as a cause.
And theory of effects of environment somehow doesn't explain the fact of constant % of homosexuals among the human population especially since they rarely have kids. It also doesn't explain transgenderism.
I do, but I assume that is not what you are asking. wile the strong case can be made that things such as morality or love are not truly genetic, such a case cannot be made for sexuality. in the strictest sense, sexuality is merely reproductive process as interpreted by the brain.
i think a very strong case could be made for it, as no major medical organization in the world claims that sexuality is entirely genetic. Most state that there is no scientific consensus on the matter, but that it is likely due to the complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, developmental, and/or social or cultural influences.
<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation>Here's a few examples.
Is it unethical to cure a person with down syndrome? Or someone with one of the many other birth defects? People can get pissed if they want, but if there is a "gay gene" then it is a birth defect and those who WANT "cured" have every right and parents should have the right to choose at birth if their children get a so called cure. I don't give a damn who sleeps with who, but if a homosexual wants to be "normal" who the hell are we to stop them?
Question is why they want to be 'normal'. Most does because of the pressure from the rest of society. And i would not treat is a genetic disorder, just as your eye color is not a genetic disorder, or your skin color or plenty of other things directly connected to your genes. For every mutation in genes there has to be some reason. If its outside reason, like radiation than its a disease. If its natural mutation because evolution wants to try things out, it can be disease but doesn't have to. If it's something persistent, that occurs from the start of humanity and keeps at constant ratio to heterosexuality its just natural thing.
And no, parents should not be able to decide about such things, just as i believe that infants should not be baptized right away. As humans we are simply not able to be responsible enough to make such decisions.
So we born without any sexuality at all according to you ? And everything is to be blamed on how we are raised up by our parents and how the environment influences us? Modern psychiatry ditched that idea and more and more research points out to brain functions and natural predispositions rather than upbringing as a cause.
And theory of effects of environment somehow doesn't explain the fact of constant % of homosexuals among the human population especially since they rarely have kids. It also doesn't explain transgenderism.
I don't think people are born with absolutely no choice at all what so ever for what arouses them. The environment how you are raised, and how you live your life are important factors.( key word is FACTORS.)
Just because i don't believe one single gene utterly and completely defines who you are despite everything else does not mean i think genetics have not a single damn thing to do with it.
You do realize some people look to the middle ground, and not to each side of the extreme right?
I don't think people are born with absolutely no choice at all what so ever for what arouses them. The environment how you are raised, and how you live your life are important factors.( key word is FACTORS.)
Just because i don't believe one single gene utterly and completely defines who you are despite everything else does not mean i think genetics have not a single damn thing to do with it.
You do realize some people look to the middle ground, and not to each side of the extreme right?
Never said it's one genes fault. It's just this article stating that. The most recent researches i'm aware of were pointing towards biological conditioning, not genetics. It's just how general concept of human being consists of both heterosexual and homosexual people because apparently nature figured it's the right way.
All this environmental conditioning is a pretty way of blaming the so called society on things we don't accept. Why people can't just realize we may differ one from each other, and it's perfectly natural.
And it's hardly looking at middle ground, when it's still looking for excuses why A is not B.
While this is certainly a topic that can be discussed in good length, I merely want to bring in a tiny bit of my viewpoint: genes aren't everything. (I kinda have to say that as a sociology-student.)
Typically, in such online discussions, I find that there's an almost alarming reliance on hard sciences such as biology, physics or medicine while the only science that will ever be purely logical and completely true is mathematics.
Just how many more "smallest elements" does physics have to define or how often do we have to repaint the illustration of the atom? Why didn't the expensive western-medicine pills that I swallowed for 6 weeks not cure my haemmorhoids and why did the acupressure and homeopathy help?
Yes. Genes aren't everything, at least in terms of determining human behavior. There is no 'gene' that causes racial hatred, or devout faith, or a fear of heights. From the things I've read and heard regarding cutting-edge research into human genetics, this is also what the hard sciences are discovering.
Genes do not determine your personality or actions; they create the environment in which your personality forms, and influence the chemistry that generates your feelings, which, in turn, influence your actions. These parts of your personality are also influenced by your experiences.
Example:
<youtube=u2V0vOFexY4>
The take-away from that clip is basically that your genes are just one of many factors that influence how the brain develops and how we get from chemistry to behavior.
The hard sciences, however, take precedence in talking about human development, particularly in the case of homosexuality, because we need to understand how the mechanics of biology influence people's behavior in order to determine to what degree people must be held accountable for aberrant behaviors.
Not to say that psychopathic killers, serial rapists, and violent fanatics should be absolved of their crimes because of certain defects in their genetic makeup. A dangerous person who commits evil acts must be dealt with, if not for moral reasons then to protect everyone else from them. In the case of homosexuality however, individuals who are not dangerous are still seen as moral criminals because many believe genetics has no role to play in their behavior. They believe that they are only homosexuals because they have chosen to be that way. Others believe that homosexuality cannot possibly be a choice, and therefore, cannot possibly be immoral. That would be like saying, "All people born with brown eyes and dark hair are disgusting freaks who don't deserve the same privileges as 'normal' people who have blond hair and blue eyes."
Why is this important? Because homosexuals are still oppressed, ostracized, and sometimes violently attacked by those who believe that homosexuals choose to be homosexual, and feel that the immorality of homosexuality justifies such violent behavior in the same way the Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan feel that the superiority of their race entitles them to abuse other races.
The discovery of genes and the discovery that the genes of a white person are over 99% identical to that of a black person (for example) was one of the final nails in the coffin of the idea of 'racial superiority'. Now, not only was the idea of racial superiority condemned by its malignancy, but also by its sheer stupidity. Anyone choosing to believe in it would have to remain ignorant (perhaps willfully) of the fact that any two humans of any given races are entirely the same in all but the most superficial way.
Now, we rely on the hard sciences to show us a link between homosexuality and genes, not necessarily assuming that genes are the sole explanation of homosexuality, but to prove that genes influence sexual behavior. Trying to show that thinking about sexual orientation in purely moralistic terms is as foolish as thinking of skin color in the same way.
In other words, we, as a people, do not go to the hard sciences first and foremost, as you have suggested. I think most people would prefer to rely on the soft sciences to explain these kinds of things, because they're generally faster moving and easier to understand. But, so far, the soft sciences have failed to convince moralists that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and not a simple choice, like choosing to try heroin or choosing to drive drunk.
We're falling back on the hard sciences as a last resort to prove that these arrogant, stupid, fuck-tards are exactly that, so we can start ignoring and discounting them like we do racists and move on to other things. The hard sciences are a rock that we can cling to when all else fails, a bastion of predictability and constancy, in the ever-shifting sea of human opinion and behavior.
In short, we like hard science because at the end of the day the hard sciences are what give us airplanes that fly, houses that don't fall down, and usually don't tell us to kill each other or hate ourselves. I don't know about your 'roids, though. Maybe biochemistry hasn't got that problem quite figured out yet, but that's no reason to get all butt-hurt about it. ZING!
sorry I feel I should point out that this wouldn't affect the population, there are plenty of gay couples who want to have kids they just dont want to do it the fun (in my opinion) way
Neither, because not all pedophiles are child molesters. Genetics are not the sole determinant of behavior.
Kagim said:
Of course not. Society has an interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation. It doesn't matter if you're genetically inclined to molest children or murder people or commit any other crime, you're still held responsible for it.
So its alright to persecute pedophilia for something you feel they can't control but its wrong to persecute someone for homosexuality because YOU think its immoral to do so?
If both people have no control over it what so ever why should they be treated differently? Should a mental handicapped person be given life in prison for killing someone even if they were in a situation where they could do nothing to prevent it due to there handicap?
It's alright to enforce laws which protect society. It's not alright to persecute blind people, but I don't think they should get driver's licenses.
They should be treated differently because a child molester causes irreparable harm to a child. Consensual gay sex harms nobody.
I'm not saying that all child molesters should necessarily be thrown in prison. (if pedophilia really is partially genetic, then incarceration is probably ineffective anyway.) I'm saying that a society has a right to try and prevent that behavior from harming individuals without their consent.
Kagim said:
Sexuality is not a choice. Nobody "chooses" to get off to pee. I never chose to be a sadomasochist. (a mild one. that high heel to balls thing you mentioned sounds HORRIBLE.)
A lack of genetic influence doesn't make it a "choice", anymore than the presence of a genetic influence makes it impossible to resist.
Let's be very clear what we're talking about here. Human behavior is, of course, almost always a matter of choice. I could choose to go have gay sex right now, or shoot myself in the head, for reasons that have nothing to do with genetics.
What isn't a choice, and what genes influence, are behavioral tendencies. Certain genes cause people to be more susceptible to alcoholism, or more likely to become obese.
Kagim said:
As well most healthy people with and open mind are not limited to a single desire. To be honest, anything out of straight vaginal sex from a biological standpoint can be seen as a technical 'deviation'(after all, you can't get a women pregnant through her mouth now can you?). I don't think that way however, and don't feel its a deviation, just a different appetite.
I never said genetics absolutely do not have an effect on future sexual wants and desires.(in fact i explicitly said the opposite) However i believe, environment, how your raised, and eventually, how you choose to live your life, have a MUCH greater impact. After all, I'm pretty sure my sexual desires are not genetically encoded into my DNA.
Finally, if there were a gay gene, or any form of sexual gene, that would involve it having to be part of one of the parents genetic makeup, unless it was a mutation in which case it WOULD be a bad thing, however i don't think its a mutation. As well most pedophiles do not come from a long line of pedophiles, just like homosexuals do not come from a long line of homosexuals.
In the end YOU choose what you do. Not genetics, not education, but self determination.
We can both agree that genetics plays some role, correct? I believe we disagree only on the extent to which it does.
Kagim said:
This is also why when a man gets raped most people don't believe them because most people think men can't get erections if they don't want it. Which is bullshit.
Wow a lot of discussion going on something that isn't fully proven. I see a lot of "if"'s and nothing more. So yeah, until someone "proves" to me that there is a gay gene then, and only then, I will comment on it.
OT: I think that it will turn only a few people, the rest are sheep, and they will continue with their hate. Do you think any amount of evidence for evolution, Black Holes, and Santa Clause will convince people otherwise?
Never said it's one genes fault. It's just this article stating that.
The most recent researches i'm aware of were pointing towards biological conditioning, not genetics. It's just how general concept of human being consists of both heterosexual and homosexual people because apparently nature figured it's the right way.
All this environmental conditioning is a pretty way of blaming the so called society on things we don't accept. Why people can't just realize we may differ one from each other, and it's perfectly natural.
And it's hardly looking at middle ground, when it's still looking for excuses why A is not B.
Alright i never said that environments were the only factor. I just said that they are indeed a factor. I was talking about my opinion, not the articles. As i said not everything is a choice, but not everything is forced. If you find men attractive you find men attractive. Regardless of gender its not unnatural. I however do not think your are completely unable to make your own decisions with what you do in your life. Your not born with a genetic flag saying 'GAY!' anymore then your born with one saying 'STRAIGHT!'.
As well i think blaming a singular gene like the article is saying is just another excuse for people to ignore the simple fact some people are different.
I realize people are different, and a number of factors are part of you becoming different. For awhile people felt a women being stressed during pregnancy is what caused you to be gay due to heightened hormone levels.
I'm looking for the middle ground. I look into the middle ground. From what i have learned in classes most signs point at a mix of both hormones, genetics, and how you are raised and what environment. With no factor clearly ahead or more important.
Edit: since re reading may seem more aggressive then i meant it.
Pretty much what I am saying is for the most part we do seem to agree, were just being misunderstood by one another.
Its No wonder there is so much variation, everybody was esentially female for the first bit of development in the womb, (why men have nipples) so bits of crossover are pretty much guaranteed.
While I think that Homo-sexual marriage and Homo-sexual sex is both unnatural and immoral; I'm fine with gays as long as they're not 'all up in mah grill yo.'
To me, all this experiment proves is that if you take something important froma female brain (genes, hormones, whatever) then it will start acting male. The same is true of the reverse. While still genetically female, their brains were saying 'I'm male, and this is what Males do.' I don't know any gay women who think that way.
Wait...what?! Okay, this reminds of the "differences between races research" that happened before where they tried to show that there was a "clear superiority" of one race over the other. Either way, I don't care. Be whatever color you want, be with whoever you want, have whatever taste in music you want.
OK and why do we care? why are they messing with this when according to back to the future 2 we will have hover-boards soon we need to work on hoverboards not making rats gay
I like how this is huge, groundbreaking research that's never been touched on before and is all over scientific journals and the Internet and pop-culture, and all it has done for practical purposes is give us the ability to create LESBIAN MICE.
I have enough homosexual animals in my life right now, thank you.
*Stares at cat while he stares seductively back at me*
The bad one is that if it's true, some parents would try to modify their not-yet-born children's genes so they would become straight (as was parodied above when i was still typing).
Just try not to bash me for all the things i've probably got wrong here, alright? I have the best intentions in mind.
Well, once you are conceived, there is no way to alter your genes. So removing the a gene is impossible.
You can however silence the effect of a gene, or try to replace its missing effect.
You see, a gene is a blueprint for an enzyme or another protein, which has it's effect in the body.
If the gene is damaged, the enzyme won't work. What could happen is that people would start researching a 'cure' for homosexuality
You could try to replace the defunct enzyme with something similar, or try to destroy an unwanted enzyme through medication.
That leads to an interesting question: Is it ethical to try to 'cure' homosexuality if it were possible?
Or should we accept everyone as they are?
My fear is that someone will try to destroy homosexuality and heterosexuality under the delusion that bisexuality is morally superior (some people see monosexuality as an inherent form of gender discrimination, whereas bisexuality has zero discrimination in some people's eyes) and will attempt to make everyone born bisexual. I don't consider bisexuals evil, but I do consider the attempt to delete heterosexuals and homosexuals evil. And I consider the idea that heterosexuality and homosexuality are less moral than bisexuality offensive.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
