Could this viewpoint be considered offensive?

39 posts

Flag Post

I am going to state something that I genuinely believe.

Homosexuality is caused by a genetic abnormality. Reproduction and the passing on of genes is a base instinct of all animals. Homosexuality is contrary to a base instinct of survival, which is why it is a genetic abnormality. It will one day be possible (though not necessarily morally right) to detect and prevent homosexuality before a person is born through genetic engineering.
There is existing research that suggests that homosexuality may be linked to genetics, but this research is not yet fully completed.
I fully support the rights of homosexuals. They deserve equality and I support gay marriage, due to the fact that their sexual orientation is in no way their own fault.
These are my beliefs on the matter of homosexuality.

The question is, could this viewpoint be seen as offensive? Maybe even homophobic if you interpret it in a certain way?

 
Flag Post

It could probably be seen by someone as offensive; most opinions are. That being said, you have a right to your viewpoint.

 
Flag Post

The question is, could this viewpoint be seen as offensive?

Only if you’re offended by ignorance.

Let’s take this step-by-step. You ‘believe’ homosexuality is caused by a genetic abnormality. You admit that research on this idea is yet to be conclusive. You furthermore ‘believe’ that genetic engineering (ie. eugenics in this context) will one day root out the homo gene.

Do you also ‘believe’ in evolution? What I mean is, do you actually think about scientific theories in terms of belief?

I’m no scientist, but I’m pretty sure theories aren’t beliefs, and I know just enough to know that’s not a matter of semantics. It’s like blindly supposing evolution is true even if you know at the same time that evolution still isn’t a solid argument. In other words, completely bizarre.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

The question is, could this viewpoint be seen as offensive?

Only if you’re offended by ignorance.

Let’s take this step-by-step. You ‘believe’ homosexuality is caused by a genetic abnormality. You admit that research on this idea is yet to be conclusive. You furthermore ‘believe’ that genetic engineering (ie. eugenics in this context) will one day root out the homo gene.

Do you also ‘believe’ in evolution? What I mean is, do you actually think about scientific theories in terms of belief?

I’m no scientist, but I’m pretty sure theories aren’t beliefs, and I know just enough to know that’s not a matter of semantics. It’s like blindly supposing evolution is true even if you know at the same time that evolution still isn’t a solid argument. In other words, completely bizarre.

I believe it because it is the most convincing argument that I am aware of. If you present me with a more convincing argument as to what the cause of homosexuality is, then I will accept it.

 
Flag Post

Hmmmm……
viewpoint and offensive

One: the OP seems to be in “conflict” w/ itself in regard to maintaining “A” (singular) viewpoint
On the one hand, he is saying he has no “problem” w/ homosexuality at all.
But, on the other…his view of it is: a genetic ABNORMALITY,,,
not a variance or some other benign description. He says: their sexual orientation is IN NO WAY THEIR OWN FAULT.
So, there is fault to be found in homosexuality?
Are homosexuals “faulty” humans?
Is their sexual orientation “faulty”?
If not, why would it need to be "corrected?

Maybe this is nothing more than the silly adherence to main-stream terminology,,,,
or, maybe it is the ol’ Freudian slip….and the OP actually thinks of homosexually as being abnormal in a deviant way. But, “we” will call them “equal” even though we all know they aren’t…..all because of the fact that our population numbers are going to be hugely adversely affected because of this variant gene.

Two: The subjectivity of offensive.
Yeah, that’s damn fine logic on which to ask the question: is it offensive to want to “engineer” away this dreadful ABNORMALITY
But then, I guess it might depend on what ones concept of offensive is.
That kind of subjectivity is so hugely spread across the social spectrum as to be near-totally moot.

What I find offensive is that there yet is (and even ever was) this concept that homosexuality is something of any consequence that merits the vile, negative attention it gets in America.

 
Flag Post
So, there is fault to be found in homosexuality?
Are homosexuals “faulty” humans?
Is their sexual orientation “faulty”?

If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty.

If not, why would it need to be "corrected?

Maybe they’d rather be straight?

Maybe this is nothing more than the silly adherence to main-stream terminology,,,,
or, maybe it is the ol’ Freudian slip….and the OP actually thinks of homosexually as being abnormal in a deviant way. But, “we” will call them “equal” even though we all know they aren’t…..all because of the fact that our population numbers are going to be hugely adversely affected because of this variant gene.

Seems like you’re trying to be offended (in which case, the answer to the OP is yes!). He’s simply voicing his reasoning for why people are gay, working from the starting point that it isn’t a choice. It’s almost certainly, then, a matter of genetics and the way genetic engineering is progressing, it’s really not that out there to be able identify the mutation (if that is indeed the cause) and fix it if the person wanted.

In terms of it being abnormal, I mean, it is. Let’s call a spade a spade here. There was a poll done a couple years back that said 4% of Americans are LGBT. That means 96% of people aren’t LGBT. 4% compared to 96% is abnormal. That’s not a slight. That’s just a fact.

What I find offensive is that there yet is (and even ever was) this concept that homosexuality is something of any consequence that merits the vile, negative attention it gets in America.

Seems like you’ve stumbled on to the answer to your question of, "If not, why would it need to be “corrected?” Being gay can be bloody miserable in some parts of this country. Why go through that unnecessary hell?

You can expand it beyond the States. I imagine a gay Iranian would much rather get this operation than live a life being terrified of being beheaded.

 
Flag Post

Well the problem with it being genetic is the fact that something that affects aprox 5% of the population would have been removed from the genepool a long time ago. The current leading idea is that it’s mainly based on hormones. This would for example explain why a boy with multiple older brothers has a larger chance of being gay.
Anyway it’s a fact they deviate from the norm. It’s a completely different question if divination from the norm (“abnormal”) is bad. Einstein was a divination from the norm was that bad? And yes if it’s hormones it could one day become preventable, however this still has many ethical aspects (similarly we could decide to pick a hair colour and eye colour we want all our children to have just as hitler did).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
So, there is fault to be found in homosexuality?
Are homosexuals “faulty” humans?
Is their sexual orientation “faulty”?

If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty.

Just because DNA/RNA is different doesn’t necessarily make it a mutation. Skin, hair, eye colors are a result of genetic coding. Maybe homosexuality genetics is merely recessive genes “brought to life” by the unique combination of the union of the contributing couple….as happens in many different areas of “personhood”.
.
If not, why would it need to be "corrected?

Maybe they’d rather be straight?

Wow. Either I’m not understanding how genetic engineering works,,,,or, it is YOU who is failing to grasp that such intervention IS NOT done on a person who doesn’t want to be straight. Such isn’t done post natal. I don’t think it is even done post conception. My (very cursory) understanding is that the causal gene from ONE OF the donors has to be thusly engineered BEFORE conception.
Let’s see what vika has to opine here.
.
Maybe this is nothing more than the silly adherence to main-stream terminology,,,,
or, maybe it is the ol’ Freudian slip….and the OP actually thinks of homosexually as being abnormal in a deviant way. But, “we” will call them “equal” even though we all know they aren’t…..all because of the fact that our population numbers are going to be hugely adversely affected because of this variant gene.

Seems like you’re trying to be offended (in which case, the answer to the OP is yes!).

NO. I’m NOT TRYING to be offended. I AM offended by attitudes (YOURS here?) that tries to make much more out of “gaydom” than it socially “has to” be. And, although I didn’t directly include the OP in my statement of being offended….it certainly was implied.
.

He’s simply voicing his reasoning for why people are gay, working from the starting point that it isn’t a choice.
And, I see nothing wrong w/ this “reasoning”. It seem to be as “popular” as is the same for that of alcoholism. Maybe we will soon include the propensity to be a sociopath?

On alcoholism: “How to protect yourself: If you know you have a direct genetic link to alcohol dependence, limit the amount you drink and limit the frequency of consumption. You may have nothing to worry about, but the price you may pay for too much indulgence is far too great to risk.”

I don’t think a Gay’s sexual encounters or listening to show tunes is going keep/save them from the horrors of “full-blown” Gayness. Good grief. As for the sociopath, early detection/identification and intense therapy & brain-chemistry application might help reduce negative behavior. OR, as I have speculated…this difference of psychopathy might be less a function of genetics and more of that of influences during gestation: alcohol, drug use, sickness, stress-induced hormones, etc. of the mother (probably?).
.

It’s almost certainly, then, a matter of genetics and the way genetic engineering is progressing, it’s really not that out there to be able identify the mutation (if that is indeed the cause) and fix it if the person wanted.
What person are ya talking about?
The Gay person?
Or the prospective parent(s)?
If the former, ya’re certainly sounding like those wing-nut conservative assholes who have tried to cure being Gay.
.
In terms of it being abnormal, I mean, it is.
As are many such DIFFERENCES in ppl in general. This shit-insistence that “Gaydom” has a negative connotation associated w/ this very common “deviation” merely shows me that there is obviously SOME (latent?) bias/bigotry involved.
.
Let’s call a spade a spade here.
Ya mean a Black person
LOL…j/k
.
There was a poll done a couple years back that said 4% of Americans are LGBT. That means 96% of people aren’t LGBT. 4% compared to 96% is abnormal. That’s not a slight. That’s just a fact.
And I see someone using “facts” and twisting them to serve their own bigoted agenda by ignoring other such assessments of similar “deviation from the norm”…be they positive or negative.
.
What I find offensive is that there yet is (and even ever was) this concept that homosexuality is something of any consequence that merits the vile, negative attention it gets in America.

Seems like you’ve stumbled on to the answer to your question of, "If not, why would it need to be “corrected?” Being gay can be bloody miserable in some parts of this country. Why go through that unnecessary hell?


You can expand it beyond the States. I imagine a gay Iranian would much rather get this operation than live a life being terrified of being beheaded.

OR, the Gay could just stay “in the closet” a lot easier than hate his parents because they failed to anticipate whether or not he & his society would be able to cope w/ his “problem”.

YOUR thrust on the matter has the taint of “let’s blame the victim” to the point of (possibly?) diminishing the victimizer’s input. This kind of shit is done all the time by all of us in all manner of scenarios. I call it: convenient rationalization…. in order to forestall having to deal w/ an at-hand problem.

I really like what thijser points out just above.

 
Flag Post

I’m offended by no viewpoint. Being “offended” is hardly an ideal state of mind, and I don’t really want to be in a less-than-ideal state of mind. Instead, I choose to be open-minded.

But people nowadays get pissed off at every little thing.

 
Flag Post
Such isn’t done post natal. I don’t think it is even done post conception.

For now this is true. But that doesn’t mean that it is impossible that, sometime in the future, we will be able to alter the expression of genes in a living person.

It will still always be simpler to do it before birth, but it may one day be possible to perform genetic engineering on living subjects.

 
Flag Post

Offensive… depends on the person viewing the viewpoint. And given the huge number of easily-outraged individuals wafting around the world, your offending market is probably a decent chunk of the population.

The simple idea behind what you’re saying isn’t offensive to me. I just think it incorrect to state that the sole cause of homosexuality is genetic.

 
Flag Post
Well the problem with it being genetic is the fact that something that affects aprox 5% of the population would have been removed from the genepool a long time ago.

Not necessarily. After all, four leaf clovers (a mutation) continue to exist.

The current leading idea is that it’s mainly based on hormones. This would for example explain why a boy with multiple older brothers has a larger chance of being gay.

Good point. Not really sure why I blanked on hormones. Probably because I’m an idiot.

Anyway it’s a fact they deviate from the norm. It’s a completely different question if divination from the norm (“abnormal”) is bad. Einstein was a divination from the norm was that bad? And yes if it’s hormones it could one day become preventable, however this still has many ethical aspects (similarly we could decide to pick a hair colour and eye colour we want all our children to have just as hitler did).

I just don’t see how me saying they’re abnormal is bad. Max Scherzer having two different colored eyes is abnormal. It isn’t bad (and he was a hell of a pitcher this year). Be gay isn’t abnormal. I never made the claim that it’s bad.


Just because DNA/RNA is different doesn’t necessarily make it a mutation. Skin, hair, eye colors are a result of genetic coding. Maybe homosexuality genetics is merely recessive genes “brought to life” by the unique combination of the union of the contributing couple….as happens in many different areas of “personhood”.

Did I say otherwise?

Wow. Either I’m not understanding how genetic engineering works,,,,or, it is YOU who is failing to grasp that such intervention IS NOT done on a person who doesn’t want to be straight. Such isn’t done post natal. I don’t think it is even done post conception. My (very cursory) understanding is that the causal gene from ONE OF the donors has to be thusly engineered BEFORE conception.
Let’s see what vika has to opine here.

I know very little about how it works. My perception is that now, yes, is the same as yours. However, it seems like it’d be possible to eventually be able to do it on a person. I could be very wrong. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again. As you say, hopefully vika responds.

NO. I’m NOT TRYING to be offended. I AM offended by attitudes (YOURS here?) that tries to make much more out of “gaydom” than it socially “has to” be.

It certainly shouldn’t be made into much (which is why I’m always wary wading into gay X threads since you consistently misconstrue myself as a homophobic member of the National Organization for Marriage). However, we still don’t live in a post-racial world and probably never will. I’m hesitant to believe we’ll ever live in a post-sexual orientation world too.

What person are ya talking about?
The Gay person?
Or the prospective parent(s)?
If the former, ya’re certainly sounding like those wing-nut conservative assholes who have tried to cure being Gay.

I was talking about the former, yeah. Again, my post worked from the starting point that it was a mutation. In that scneario, fixing them is wholly accurate.

Ya mean a Black person
LOL…j/k

GOOD ONE

And I see someone using “facts” and twisting them to serve their own bigoted agenda by ignoring other such assessments of similar “deviation from the norm”…be they positive or negative.

Please expand on how I’m twisting the facts, or are you seriously arguing homosexual behavior isn’t a deviation from the norm (hence, being abnormal)?

OR, the Gay could just stay “in the closet” a lot easier than hate his parents because they failed to anticipate whether or not he & his society would be able to cope w/ his “problem”.

I never mentioned the parents, nor should genetic engineering take place on a child. I was picturing a grown homosexual male/female who wanted to make the switch. I apologize for not being a bit clearer on that. No parents.

YOUR thrust on the matter has the taint of “let’s blame the victim”

How, exactly am I blaming the victim?

to the point of (possibly?) diminishing the victimizer’s input. This kind of shit is done all the time by all of us in all manner of scenarios. I call it: convenient rationalization….

I’m not gay, karma – I’m guessing. If you want to compare sexual orientation to race, fine. But, just rememeber, Michael Jackson no longer wanted to be black – he wanted to be white. I find it hard to believe that 0.0% of gay people would take part in an operation to become straight.

in order to forestall having to deal w/ an at-hand problem.

Stop read more into what I’ve written than I’ve actually written. It’s thoroughly irritating. You don’t know what my intent was. If you’re unclear, ask what I meant. You’re as good of a psychologist as Keith Ablow (meaning you’re utter shit at it).

 
Flag Post

To be honest, the problem with gays, is that its fine if you don’t know it, but for some reason, it affects people that do know it. I myself support their rights, yet I am “afraid”, if that is the correct terminology, of them.

I know they are humans, and that they are exactly the same etc, but for some reason when it gets too close to me, I feel uncomfortable, and this is something several people have.

It is easy to shout, yes I am pro-gay from afar, yet to be uncomfortable around them.

I think I could be bothered if you support them, but cant get along with them in real life.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wave_Rida:

To be honest, the problem with gays, is that its fine if you don’t know it, but for some reason, it affects people that do know it. I myself support their rights, yet I am “afraid”, if that is the correct terminology, of them.

I know they are humans, and that they are exactly the same etc, but for some reason when it gets too close to me, I feel uncomfortable, and this is something several people have.

It is easy to shout, yes I am pro-gay from afar, yet to be uncomfortable around them.


I think I could be bothered if you support them, but cant get along with them in real life.

So basically you are a hypocrite?

 
Flag Post

sadly, I would have to admit yes.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by Wave_Rida:

To be honest, the problem with gays, is that its fine if you don’t know it, but for some reason, it affects people that do know it. I myself support their rights, yet I am “afraid”, if that is the correct terminology, of them.

I know they are humans, and that they are exactly the same etc, but for some reason when it gets too close to me, I feel uncomfortable, and this is something several people have.

It is easy to shout, yes I am pro-gay from afar, yet to be uncomfortable around them.


I think I could be bothered if you support them, but cant get along with them in real life.


So basically you are a hypocrite?

I think he would be homophobic in the most literal sense of the word. He is not homophobic in the way that people who discriminate against gay people are homophobic. He is homophobic based on the literal definition of the word: fear of homosexuality.

He does not dislike gay people or think that they are inferior, he just fears them for some reason. But maybe it would be a good idea to think about what that reason is.

 
Flag Post

I admit, I have no idea whether homosexuality arises from genetic or hormonal factors. But, for this thread, I will suppose that it is indeed genetic.

…it is a genetic abnormality.

I agree that homosexuality would qualify as being an abnormality simply because it is a deviation from the norm. I don’t believe that there is anything inherently faulty about being gay.

Reproduction and the passing on of genes is a base instinct of all animals.

Reproduction and passing on genes is clearly NOT a basic instinct of all animals, since both humans and members of the animal kingdom have exhibited homosexual behaviours in the past and present.

Furthermore, procreation is not necessary to survival on an individual level. Not procreating will not negatively affect your lifespan. Under certain conditions not procreating can threaten a species as a collective, but as I say in my next paragraph a species would pretty much already have to be teetering on the brink for homosexuality/non-procreators/barren individuals to have a significant role in extinguishing it.

From a human-centred moral perspective, homosexuals have no more or less impact on the growth of our species’ population than a heterosexual who decides not to have children. And, if the 4% prevalence rate of homosexuality being thrown around is true, it would take some pretty dire global circumstances for reproduction to become a moral imperative to the point where the gay community is expected to pitch in on that front. And in fact, that may NEVER happen given the growing prevalence of artificial insemination. In modern day, through the power of technology, we can separate reproduction from individual sexual preferences. There’s no need to go tooling around with our DNA.

The question is, could this viewpoint be seen as offensive?

The thing I find offensive about your post, OP, is that you seem to be implying that you’re pro-homosexuality… Yet you present an impassioned case for homosexuality flying in the face of what it means, by your definition, to be human. I would call you a fair-weather supporter of the LGBT community; you’re tolerant of homosexuality until it can be excised from the gene pool.

I have illustrated why homosexuality does not impact one’s individual chances of survival, why it no longer needs to be tied to human reproduction, and ultimately, why it is not a disadvantage that needs to be pruned from our genetic make-up at the earliest opportunity. Given all that, the only reason I can see for a homosexual person voluntarily undergoing genetic engineering to remove it as a trait is because of the media and society at large condemning them for it. It would be far better for our species and our society if, rather than guilting gays into altering themselves to hetero expectations, we collectively exercised our oft-overlooked capacity for accepting people as they are.

It will one day be possible (though not necessarily morally right) to detect and prevent homosexuality before a person is born through genetic engineering.

I hope so hard that, if genetic engineering and designer babies do eventually become a common thing, the scientific community will have the wisdom to outlaw the alteration of “the homosexual gene” should it indeed exist. In my opinion, we should keep it to 1) traits that impair your life in ways beyond social judgement, such as illness and 2) purely aesthetic, limited traits such as hair colour, eye colour, etc. Altering racial appearance is a whole other argument… And watch Gataca if you want a breakdown of why altering innate human ability is a bad idea.

 
Flag Post

It’s not genetic, They choose it. If it was genetic then it would be a negative one and it is a defect.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Immortal7777:
If it was genetic then it would be a negative one and it is a defect.

I don’t follow.

 
Flag Post

As someone who does identify openly on Kongregate as lesbian, the idea that you can “prevent homosexuality” is what worries me about your post. Blue eyes are a genetic mutation. But do people call for the end of blue eyes by “preventing” blue eyes before they are born? No.

So why do you think people should do this with those who identify as gay? I won’t argue as to the genetic part because I know for a fact that I am not an expert on this. I would like to say that it’s beyond “gay” or “lesbian,” there is an entire spectrum of identities out there. Would you be supportive of preventing those who identify as bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc.? What about gender identities? Trans, agender, intersex, gender queer, etc.?

What is it exactly that causes one to think that homosexuality can be prevented? Ignore the genetic engineering part. Exactly what is wrong with it that it is an “abnormality” and that it is essentially what homophobic people call “wrong”? Homosexuality has been found in other animals so it’s not an “abnormality” that is found only in one species. Can it not be argued that homosexuality could potentially be an evolutionary thing to prevent populations from over populating? If so, then is that not a good thing?

In my opinion the only reason as to why someone would choose to “prevent” it is because of societal norms. I think that you are forgetting that in the future, “gay rights” or what I prefer to call equal rights, will definitely be integrated fully into society. I know that in the future someday, those who are gay will no longer be prosecuted for who they are. It’s just going to take time. It’ll most likely take longer than my generation’s life span to accomplish this but several countries in the world have already taken steps towards this (even in the US, New Jersey just became the 14th state allowing equal marriage equality this week).

Your viewpoint is in your own right your own opinion. However I think that you are not looking at the larger picture and that your viewpoint is only for this current modern day era where we are currently seeing multiple countries taking action/action against the LGBTQ community. I think for this current time period that your post is more “understandable” but 50, 100, 200 years down the line, it’ll most definitely be seen as homophobic.

But one thing I will criticize is that you are repeatedly supporting this idea that homosexuality can be removed. While it does not effect me as much, this can definitely hurt people. Just last week in my city alone, a person who I knew since childhood jumped off of a building downtown and committed suicide. Why? They were trans. Another person also committed suicide and in their suicide note they wrote that it was too late for them to come out as gay and to be happy due to societal norms and negativity that homosexuality can be prevented.

Though the one thing that I will give kudos for is the fact that even if you, essentially in the literal definition, are homophobic, the fact that you (and a few others in this thread) are able to support equality past your own beliefs astonishes me. Even if you aren’t completely understanding perhaps of what the LGBTQ community goes through on a daily basis, the fact that you do still support equality is what matters in my opinion. The LGBTQ movement needs as much support as it can from all sides and I welcome that from anyone whoever supports it.

Edit 1.0:

Originally posted by fma1:

That was very detailed Bunneh, but there is one thing I would like to point out. You say I am homophobic, but I did not say that homosexuality should be removed from society, just that it will one day be possible to do so. I did point out that I am unsure about what the moral implications of doing so would be. I don’t think that it should be done, just that it can be done from a purely scientific standpoint.

You can definitely tell that my head isn’t on my shoulders yet this morning, thanks for pointing this out!

Replying to your comment then, I would have to argue that I personally don’t think it’s possible to remove homosexuality. Even if they do find the “gay gene” someday does not necessarily mean they can genetically engineer it to become a “straight gene”. From what I’ve gathered about designer babies you can’t necessarily just pick and choose what genes to omit/add. However from a standpoint of someone who has limited knowledge of genetic engineering I can’t exactly say that it is impossible either.

Are you majoring in this field? Or is this stuff that you’ve picked up over the internet? I’m curious because you say this is from a “purely scientific standpoint” but exactly how “scientific” is this? I think that the idea that Gay Gene + Genetic Engineering = Straight babies is not scientific. As I said earlier, just because you have a gene does not mean it can be altered.

Scientists are limited to what they can alter so I personally believe that just because genetic engineering exists does not automatically mean that someday in the future that they can just remove any gene they want. I doubt it is that easy to alter a person. I think genetics is much more complicated than x + y = z or x – y = z. I think that even if a “gay gene” is found, it’s not all on genetics alone but can also include other factors such as environment, societal norms, etc. There is no 100% in anything which is why I say that (but that should not be interpreted as saying it is a choice, I do not believe it is a choice).

Edit 2.0: I hope the two who posted after me will see that I agreed with them. I’m trying not to post so I don’t screw up my 1k post thread that I’ll be posting tomorrow morning. With that being said, here are my responses.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
[…]
I do know that the thrust of your thread (because it sooooo focuses on homosexuality) certainly smacks of such bias that is very often demonstrated by those who are homophobic.

Maybe this is what MmeBunneh was saying?

This is actually what I was trying to say (and you put it into words very nicely). Usually when I have to “out” myself repeatedly to new people that I have never met before (and are homophobic), I usually get one of these three main arguments/statements:

A.) Homosexuality is a sin against God.
B.) Homosexuality is a choice. Gay people are all straight but confused so they need to go to “end the gayness” camps to “teach” them what is “right”.
C.) Homosexuality is not a choice. It is genetics so that “implies” homosexuality is a “genetic mutation” or is an abnormality; therefore, it can be removed.

This is why I thought the gist of this thread was about removing “homosexuality” due to the third argument that I get a lot. And it feels like that this thread is still about that.

Originally posted by Retneug:


[…]

I think you like to think of homosexuality as genetic because, based on the arguments you present about it being contrary to the “natural” human instinct of reproduction, you want a sciency-sounding way of making homosexuality sound like a negative thing. Easy enough to do from a genetic standpoint, given that buzzwords like “maladaptive mutation” are common in the discipline, and act as a well-known precedent for the type of thing you’re trying to paint homosexuality as by suggesting that it undermines survival instincts.

[…]

In sum, I think your thread heavily implies that you see homosexuality as a fly in the ointment of human evolution, and genetic engineering serves as a viable, (and well-known) future-science method of ending the gay gene’s influence over humankind once and for all. I believe this is why you prefer to view homosexuality’s origin as being genetic despite other, equally-supported alternatives.

I agree with your post also. When people try to explain why they are homophobic to me, I either get the “God hates gays” argument or the “scientific” argument as to why homosexuality is “wrong” and is “against” Darwin’s theory of evolution. The thing with the scientific arguments is that they have no idea what they’re talking about. I have actually heard the genetic engineering argument several times in the past prior to this thread and each time I hear it, they only say what they think genetic engineering can do, not what it actually can do.

 
Flag Post

That was very detailed Bunneh, but there is one thing I would like to point out. You say I am homophobic, but I did not say that homosexuality should be removed from society, just that it will one day be possible to do so. I did point out that I am unsure about what the moral implications of doing so would be. I don’t think that it should be done, just that it can be done from a scientific standpoint.

 
Flag Post

fma1, the very fact that ya’ve for some reason decided to use homosexuality as example of future manipulations of genetic engineering is begging the question. Is your position for changing of sexual orientation one based on how society views homosexuality?

OR, it obviously is based on something OTHER THAN the preference of a “thing” that has yet to be even conceived (or at best—still in the womg). Such a change of something so well developed as sexual orientation by the time the person is in a position of maturity to make such a decision is going to be some form of scientific advancement that it would (by today’s standards) be something akin to a miracle.

Would it be some form of “inoculation” against continued “Gayness” by injecting the Gay w/ the dead cells of a “Straight” which would then proceed to change that very essence of genetic DNA which (supposedly?) causes such sexual orientation.

I don’t know, or care to know, if you are a homophobe.
I do know that the thrust of your thread (because it sooooo focuses on homosexuality) certainly smacks of such bias that is very often demonstrated by those who are homophobic.

Maybe this is what MmeBunneh was saying?

 
Flag Post

I do not claim to be any sort of expert on genetic engineering. I am not claiming that genetic engineering to the extent that I described is a certainty that will definatley exist at some point in the future.

I believe strongly in scientific advancement and I hold the viewpoint that nothing is truly impossible. I acknowledge that this technology might exist one day. I do not claim to be an expert in it, but I will not dismiss it as “impossible”.


The core topic of this thread was not intended to be the part about genetic engineering. I intended the main discussion topic to be the viewpoint that homosexuality is the result of a genetic abnormality, regardless of whether or not the genes can be altered.

 
Flag Post

TC, you said in your first post that you “believe” everything stated within it… And people hold beliefs for a reason. As you say, there is not yet a scientific consensus on what exactly constitutes the root of homosexual behaviour – yet you come out and say that you think it’s genetic. Now, why is that?

A genetic explanation isn’t any more “scientific” than a hormonal one. Research exists in support of both schools of thought. Objectively there’s no reason to subscribe to one over the other, so it must be your own subjective views that make the difference.

Here’s what I think.

I think you like to think of homosexuality as genetic because, based on the arguments you present about it being contrary to the “natural” human instinct of reproduction, you want a sciency-sounding way of making homosexuality sound like a negative thing. Easy enough to do from a genetic standpoint, given that buzzwords like “maladaptive mutation” are common in the discipline, and act as a well-known precedent for the type of thing you’re trying to paint homosexuality as by suggesting that it undermines survival instincts.

I think the second reason for your adherence to these beliefs is that you see genetic engineering as a kind of “out” – paired with your explanation of why homosexuality is maladaptive, you seem very much to be implying that, through genetic alteration, we can eventually remove this troublesome obstacle to fully indulging our survival instincts, thus putting us back on the “proper” evolutionary path once and for all.

He does not dislike gay people or think that they are inferior, he just fears them for some reason. But maybe it would be a good idea to think about what that reason is.

True phobias are often, by their very nature, irrational. Like anthophobia, the fear of flowers. Or chromophobia, the fear of bright colours.

Looking up the Wikipedia article on phobias right now, it appears that specific social group-related fears such as islamophobia, homophobia, and (my favourite), xenophobia have their very own section in the article. Here’s an excerpt;

Terms for prejudice
A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are used non-clinically. Such terms are primarily understood as negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of “phobias” are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the “phobia”. Often this attitude is based on prejudices and is a particular case of most xenophobia.

So, perhaps the reason you’re looking for is “prejudice”?

In sum, I think your thread heavily implies that you see homosexuality as a fly in the ointment of human evolution, and genetic engineering serves as a viable, (and well-known) future-science method of ending the gay gene’s influence over humankind once and for all. I believe this is why you prefer to view homosexuality’s origin as being genetic despite other, equally-supported alternatives.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator