Excuse me, but there is nothing “broken down” with me, and none of my wires are crossed. There’s nothing wrong with my plumbing either. If you claim that you “have absolutely no issues with gays and lesbians,” then maybe you’d better examine your beliefs more closely. You know, “With friends like these . . .”
Although I definitely wouldn’t support this because it takes away individual rights from the parents to choose how their child will turn out, so what if the bigots win? If everyone hates gays, but there are no gays, there is not a problem. If everybody really does love the king, why not have a monarchy? Same thing for a society where men are treated as superior to women; if they actually are superior, there is nothing wrong with this society (although I state again the the state-enforced process of getting there would be wrong).
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
And what, Herr Fuhrer, is your “final solution” for anti-semitism?
If we woke up tomorrow and there were somehow no Jews (say they all magically became WASPs), anti-semitism would not be a problem because it would not be harming anyone. The evil part is trying to kill all the Jews.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Am I the only one thinking of Boys from Brazil?
So killing all Jews is evil, but preventing them from being born in the first place isn’t? :dubious:
This is the most repugnant attitude I’ve encountered during more than ten years on these boards. What you’re saying is that you have no problem with a world in which nobody is different . . . so long as you don’t have to get your hands dirty to accomplish this. So let’s magically turn all Jews into WASPS, let’s magically turn all blacks white, all gays straight . . . let’s just magically eliminate all characteristics that anybody has a problem with . . . as long as it isn’t YOU who are eliminated.
You have no problem with the bigots winning, because you are one of them.
I didn’t say that I would want for this to happen. I would not. I said if it did, the resulting society would not be evil.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: If I were “eliminated”, say I woke up tomorrow to find the thought of sleeping with a woman repugnant, it wouldn’t be better or worse—it would just be different.
No, it would be the most evil society that ever existed.
Why? There’s nothing inherently wrong with swastikas, snappy uniforms, and goose-stepped marches; it’s killing people, ruling them tyrannically, and denying them personal rights that we generally consider evil.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
How would you even know they men were “superior” if they were? Physically, most men are superior to most women, but we don’t judge that as meaning they’re better people or more deserving or anything. What did you mean–more intelligent?
I don’t know; it’s a silly hypothetical. But just for the sake of argument, if men were like they are now and women were at the same mental level of the animals we commonly raise commercially without regard for their rights (or vice versa with the men and women). Of course, it would be terribly, Nazi-level evil to actually institute a conscious program to make women this way (or condone it); I’m not disputing that. However, if that was the way things had always been, it would not be an evil society.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
For one thing, if we eliminate all diversity, the species is doomed. It’s only through diversity that we can evolve . . . not merely physically, but culturally. Are you saying that black culture, Jewish culture, gay culture have not made ours a richer society than it would have been if everyone were white, WASP and straight?
And if everyone’s the same, who is going to teach us that *we don’t have to be *the same? Who is going to exemplify the fact that it’s ok to be a different race, religion, etc.?
No, I’m not saying that, any more than society would be improved if we burned all the libraries and tore down the art museums.
Who is there to teach you that it’s okay to wear purple underwear on your head and talk in backwards Japanese? I’m sure this behavior would cause much discrimination against you if you tried it 24/7, but no one is there to advocate tolerance of it, because no one feels compelled to do this. If there were no different religions (or no religion at all), there would not be a need to tolerate them. The thought would just not occur.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
People who are bigoted tend to be bigoted against everyone who’s not just like them, not just people with one different characteristic. Look at the KKK, for example: they hate everyone who’s different, not just blacks. You could say that, internally, bigotry is contagious; it tends to consume all the person’s attitudes. And tolerance works the same way. If you have learned to be tolerant toward people in general, you will have an easier time tolerating the guy who wears purple underwear on his head and talks in backwards Japanese. Your world, and his, are better for it.
But that’s just because bigotry usually results from ignorance, and people who are ignorant about one thing tend to be ignorant about many other things, too.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
I find it abhorrent, and I wouldn’t do it. But I would leave the option open to others, as long as abortion or non implantation were the options available. I don’t think I would want it to be legal if it were an actual modification, genetically or hormonally.
Vox - I have no idea where you’re coming from on this. To talk of “waking up in a world where suddenly everyone was a WASP” isn’t a hypothetical it’s a fantasy. The only way you’d get to that world is by killing the people who aren’t WASPs or stopping them being born in the first place.
I think I understand what you’re saying about bigotry being impossible in a world where everyone were the same, but I don’t get how you can credibly argue that such a thing would be good either culturally or genetically. Mono-cultures are automatically weaker and more vulnerable than more diverse cultures, and I don’t have enough faith in the ability of humanity to benignly create a human mono culture without harming a lot of people along the way and ultimately harming the species.
A parent has no such right - it is the right of the child to be whoever it is. You don’t get to decide who your children become, and those that try frequently end up with either estranged or messed up children.
I might. Gay people are, on average, more likely to commit suicide, live shorter lives and generally have a harder time. But probably not. But why all this focus on being gay, it adds noting but speculation to the controversy, when it is already today possible to select the gender of your child and female children are being deselected.
Well, I’ve witnessed couples who couldn’t conceive before, and it seems to me to be pretty damned rotten situation. Two gay guys not being able to have their own kid isn’t that bad, but its a damn sight worse than the normal husband and wife popping out a kid routine.
Look at it this way… If I had a son on the way, and this choice were offered to me, and I chose to let nature take its course and allow him to be born gay, I would be condemning him to being unable to bear a child with his future husband. It would be a choice between adoption, and finding a surrogate mother, both of which are much more difficult and stressful options.
If you still don’t see that as an issue important enough to fix, we’re likely at an impasse and will have to disagree. 
Frankly, I simply don’t see homosexuality as a beneficial trait in humans, and in fact view it as slightly detrimental. I don’t want to force change on anyone who is already gay and was born that way, and if you are happy and healthy thats wonderful. But its just as easy to be happy and healthy if you are straight, and I think it would be irresponsible not to correct it genetically or during gestation if a method were available that were easy, safe, and reliable, just as I think it would be irresponsible not to correct bad vision or premature balding or a propensity towards heart attacks in the same manner.