In this thread, there has been mention of the question of the existance or non-existance of gays in the future. Will genetic engineering, mental conditioning, or some other means have been used to eliminate homosexuality?
I think it would be a shame if this happened, but if it can be done, I fear that there’s a chance that it will be done. Anyone have any theories?
Two questions occur to me. Firstly, why would people try to ‘eliminate’ homosexuality? The world would have to become a very different place for a government to sanction parents ‘selecting’ the sexual orientation of their would-be children.
Secondly, and more importantly, how would genetic engineering ‘prevent’ homosexuality? Has there been some irrefutable medical breakthrough in identifying ‘gay’ genes?
Why? Because most heterosexual couples would probably rather have a heterosexual child. And I’m not so sure what the government would have to say about it. Why would anyone need the government to sanction such a thing? It really wouldn’t be any of their business would it?
The OP gave several examples of how it might be possible to remove homosexuals from the future. Such methods included genetic engineering, mental conditioning, or some other method as of yet devised. It was a hypothetical question.
Oh, probably the same reason some people try to eliminate any other group of people. “Because they’re <evil/wrong/weird/whatever>”
Fortunatly, I don’t think it’s something that can be completely “eliminated”. They’d have about as much chance as making everyone dislike (For example) chocolate. Some people are just interested in different things, and it’s a bit too complex to single out one single causal factor.
They could sure try, though. As much as some groups would like it to happen, I doubt it would ever come to that, though.
Shoot. I got the same idea, from the same place, and was going to start a thread just like this one. You beat me to it Hazel. He who hesitates is lost.
What would be a shame? The elimination of homosexuality, or the existance and availability of the procedure itself? Assuming that 1-The procedure, whatever it is, has no significant ill side effects, and 2-No one is coerced into using it, what is the problem?
MGibson sez: “Why would anyone need the government to sanction such a thing? It really wouldn’t be any of their business would it?” and I just want to say that I agree completely.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson * Why? Because most heterosexual couples would probably rather have a heterosexual child. And I’m not so sure what the government would have to say about it. Why would anyone need the government to sanction such a thing? It really wouldn’t be any of their business would it?
Hmm. I’ll concede the former. I would think (hope?) that some governments would have a say in legalising genetic selection of mental and physical traits, if not in the US then in other states.
So, what is the point of the hypothetical question?
Why do you think that it would be necessary or desireable to eliminate gay people from being born?
The stigma against homosexuality is culturally based. It isn’t against nature, because were it against nature, it would not survive and would become extinct.
The thought that we’d all be eventually the same under a society that practiced eugenics is scary. At that point, you would be seeing a society where everyone was perfect.
Where would diversity exist in a land where people can have their genes mucked with invitro?
Moreover… why would sexual preference be the thing people would want to change? I think more focus would be put on congenital disorders that cause birth defects which limit the mental or physical functioning.
Further, there is a movie called Twilight of the Golds* which deals with this very question. Much like the main character, I find this question reprehensible. Luckily, with knowledge of genetics being what it is today, we don’t know causation for sexuality, and cannot breed it out.
I would hate to see the day where who we love and how we love is predetermined by others. Say goodbye to free will at that point.
Nice thought but it doesn’t work that way. By the virtue of legislation like DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act), the Boy Scout ruling, and others, the government DOES care and DOES make it their business to sanction or not sanction sexuality.
Were bigots like Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond still around when this is a reality rather than a question, I think they would be rabid supporters of enforcing invitro sexuality modification.
My personal pet theory is that we all have proclivities towards bisexuality and that it is society that keeps one part of the character repressed. I can’t quite square this theory with the fact that I don’t fancy men at all in any way, but that may just be social conditioning too.
Women seem a lot more inclined to have had some kind of homosexual encounter in their teens than the general male population. And yet homosexual experiences amongst boys in a boarding school would appear to be reasonably common. These, to me, are indicative of societal effects - the latent willingness is there but in many circumstances taboo surpresses it. I note too that many gays have had heterosexual experiences at some point, either before they realised (or were willing to admit) their own sexuality or as cover in unenlightened times or places.
OK - it’s hardly the world’s most developed or supported argument, but let’s suppose for a second that it is true.
In this case, as society becomes gradually more accepting of gays and being gay becomes no big deal, we would head to an ever more bisexual society. Not less.
No one is coerced into it? When dealing with genetic engineering?? (Skipping the other ones for now) I don’t see that as being very fair to the offspring that is being “engineered”, since they don’t get any say in the matter (Not that it stops parents from “engineering” their offspring in rather permanent ways, currently; Think of circumcision).
But worse would be the pressure by certain groups if that were to become availible. Many groups would like to push the idea that homosexuality is a mental disease and hence something that needs to be “cured”, or a genetic defect that makes gays “less” than everyone else. Something like that would likely be used to further legitimize it. They already try now…
To provide a totally anecdotal response, as someone who left an all-male boarding school a couple of years ago, I’d say that if anything homophobia is more aggressive there than it is on average, with the few people brave enough to come out suffering a lot of verbal harrassment. Thus the societal effects and taboos are just as important there, so it’s not how I’d judge general inclination.
As to the OP, I don’t think it’d work because first of all it’s so difficult to completely prevent, and second because a government with that much power and so few restraints is going to be spending it’s time on more important things, like ensuring no-one has any desire to mate at all, or they only work and sleep.
Even if they could, not all parents will choose to change the orientation of their children if they had the chance. Although I don’t WANT my kids to be gay (because, who, after all would choose to be a member of a persecuted minority), I wouldn’t consider changing them if they were. Since I don’t consider gay “broken” I don’t see a need to “fix” it. While certainly, many parents might choose to screen for and “fix” homosexuality, in order to eliminate it, that would have to be universal.
In an odd bit of dissodence, there will be people who choose to keep their children “the way God intended.”
Should the government mandate the process (shudder), there will always be those who live outside the law.
If the government feels they can control the protections for gay people, the rights they have, and who can discriminate against them, it is not a stretch to think that if sexuality could be controlled through eugenics, the more conservative such as Helms and Thurmond would be in favor of genetic manipulation.
By the Thurmond/Helms standard, we are sick and perverse, and I think they would leap on a chance to eradicate us.
Pat Buchanan, wrote in the 1980’s that he thought all gay men should be put off on an island to die. With people like that in the political process, it is not without merit to be concerned that zealots like these would support the abuse of eugenics and make a law that requires sexuality testing and manipulation if the sexuality wasn’t state sanctioned.
**
I disagree with this. Why do we assume that everyone will be genetically engineered to be exactly the same and “perfect”? Makes no sense. Yes, GE can eliminate genetic disease. OK, no one has a problem with that. But Genetic engineering is much more likely to increase genetic diversity rather than decrease it.
Assuming that our liberal democracies survive, the people who will be making GE decisions for their children will be parents, not governments. And no two sets of parents are going to have the same idea of what a “perfect” child will be like. Is a “perfect” physique strong and burly, or lithe and limber? Selecting for one precludes the other.
And when we get into more radical modifications, then we completely throw out notions of perfection. Want your kid to see in the dark like a cat, or hold their breath like a seal, or smell like a bloodhound, or digest grass like a cow? How are we talking about perfect children here?
Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality and that the genes that cause it can be changed. I would imagine that many people, even those that do not have a problem with homosexuality, would rather have a heterosexual child. There could be many reasons…not wanting your child to have a minority sexual preference, wanting to avoid having your child be hurt by gay-bashers, etc.
This doesn’t mean that homosexuality would disappear, but it might become much less common.
But stipulate that homosexuality is genetically caused. Then your sexuality is already predetermined, and you have no free will anyway, regardless of whether humans can manipulate it or not. If heterosexuality is genetically caused, then I have no choice, no free will in my sexuality. Genetic engineering doesn’t remove the freedom, it simply reveals the pre-existing lack of freedom.
Skipping the other ones indeed. How about we skip the notion of parents genetically engineering their kids before birth, as the idea opens up a huge can of worms that rightly belongs in a thread of it’s own.
What I was referring to was the idea of adults choosing to use whatever this method is to change their own sexualities.
Well, let 'em push. They got free speech rights, don’t they? As long as they can’t make you do anything, and you can excercise your own free speech rights in responding to them, what is the problem?
Again, I will refrain from commenting on DOMA or the BSA ruling, as they are properly thread subjects in and of themselves. I will simply point out that because the gov is making an unwarranted intrusion into your life in one area, does not justify it doing so elsewhere.
The disclaimer: Normally I stay way clear of these topics. In a sense, I still am staying clear of it. I’m just going to snipe at a couple of points I consider erroneous.
Hastur wrote:
This is not logical. The statement assumes homosexuality is self-replicating, which it isn’t. Homosexuality is an recurring but isolated phenomenon, similar (PLEASE forgive me for drawing this comparison) to cancer or a genetic defect. All are natural; all act to remove the subject from the gene pool or reduce its chances.
Phoenix_Dragon wrote:
Riiight. There are some guys out there who hang weights from their penises in an attempt to regrow something similar to a foreskin. But can you honestly imagine a straight kid saying to its parents, “Damn it, why didn’t you let me be born gay?!?” The offspring doesn’t get to choose who its parents are either. Does this inherent unfairness in the procreative process (a very genetic thing) mean we should be able to retroactively choose who our parents are?
That’s all for now. I return you to your regularly-scheduled posting war.
The genetic engineering thing is interesteing. Rather than assuming that governments or society in large will maliciously and purposefully eliminate pieces of society, what will the good and kind parents do like some of the other posts said. I’m thinking of something like Gattaca. Where it’s not so much a question of changing the pre-existing childs nature, but determining what genetic components before there is any conception what so ever. If the Genome project came out tommorow and said they had the technology to build a designer child what would people do? For me it would be a given to check for serious and painful diseases, and not use that genetic material. Then the gray area comes. Would I screen out fat genes? I’m fat and it isn’t much fun, not to mention that health problems associated with being fat, or would I say roll the dice on that one it’s part of character to not be ‘perfect’. And the topic of the moment, Homosexuality. There are a several studies around now showing how hard gay kids have it in school, with highly increased suicide attempts. Would I be a good parent to try to spare my kid from that, or would I be a bigot by preselecting that trait. Rather than focusing on what some asshole like Helms would want to do, I think it is very interesting to consider what would happen to the make up of society as a whole.
It is very logical. Gay people are not removed from the gene pool any more than straight people are. Gay men and lesbians DO have children. And your analogy to cancer or a genetic defect is offensive. We are not a disease or a mistake.
Eugenics and genetic engineering aren’t really the same thing. The latter is a science and technology still very much in its infancy. The former is, well, insane. It’s a gold-paved road on what to do with such techniques. In the golden age of it–not so long ago–techniques available were very crude. Large number of forced sterilizations took place. Homosexuality was targetted as well, there’s always been unpleasantly vast societal pressure to do so, and will be for some time.
Hopefully, that cultural poison will die away before the technology advances to the point where we can precisely determine sexuality by gene tinkering (assuming that’s even possible). Hopefully, the morality of society in general (not quite what the chicken-fried-cross brigade would call morality, though) will take a few bounds up the ladder before then, too.
On a longer-term note, human beings one way or the other won’t exist as we do now. So not only will gays and lesbians not exist, straight people won’t, either.
He who hesitates is lost.