GIVEN----
If–Homosexuality is not a choice, but inborn, Then it is biologically based.
If–it is biologically based, Then it can be tested for in the lab, perhaps even prenatally.
What impact would this type of testing have on society?
Would members of religious groups hostile to the gay community begin mandatory testing for entry into private religious schools? Would this result in 'outing" millions of children as early as 5 years old?
Would members of religious groups hostile to the gay community use prenatal testing, resulting in record numbers of abortions?
Would record numbers of children be abandoned by their homophobic parents? And, what would happen to these children in the disinclined-to-provide-social services 21st century? Orphan camps? Street kids in legions?
Note–this is not about whether homosexuality is genetic or biochemical in nature; rather, the thread is about the effect such a test would have on our society if it is possible.
Debates & opinions are welcome from all.
Note–started this on Opal’s board–let’s see how it plays here.
**I don’t think so. We already have tests for Down’s syndrome and the like; yet we don’t see bands of mentally deficient moppets running amok on our city streets. It is true some mothers have opted to abort a Down syndrome child, but maternal love and the desire to have a baby outweighs the fears of many others - and they carry the baby to term and care for it as they would a normal child.
So, if it was just a test, I don’t think much would change, however…
(I realize you didn’t want to discuss biochemistry, but allow me one small aside - its necessitity will soon become apparent. Also, a disclaimer: I am not gay and I do not believe the following will offend those who are, but if it does, you have my apologies in advance)
Although the exact causes of homosexuality are obviously unknown, one hypothesis is that the trait is inborn, but not genetic; it’s the result of elevated testosterone levels in the mother’s womb during prenatal development. If this, or a similar mechanism, proves true, we would likely see more prenatal hormone therapy than widespread abortions or abandoned children.
Even the most open minded of parents would be tempted to opt for a treatment if they believed it would spare the child possible ostracization in later life (not to mention the parents desire for grandkids), especially if the procedure was as simple as a few prenatal hormone shots. If this were to become common practice, homosexuals would gradually become less and less of the population because they would be “fixed” prenataly. The decreased minority would most likely experience increased intolerance as their numbers dwindled, and the few remaining would be viewed as “abarent” even more than they are now. They would again be driven into the closet and to the farthest fringes of society.
All the more reason to seriously evaluate the ethics of any prenatal procedure.
To me the interesting question is not detection, buttreatment. If homosexuality can be defined as a physiological state, the pressure builds to provide medical “correction” of a “condition”.
To start with I don’t think there are enough potential homosexuals to make anything a societal disaster. Even if every homosexual fetus was aborted how would that negatively impact society at large?
And if hormone therapy for pregnant women eliminated homosexual children would that be a bad thing? And when I say bad I mean would it have a negative impact on society?
IIRC, this was played out years ago, following the announcement that a ‘gay’ gene had been isolated (human genome project?)
The resulting debate reminded me that we are not so removed from Hitler when it comes to eugenics - a WHOLE lot of people were, apparently, HOPING that ‘AT LAST! - a way to get rid of THOSE people’ (the Catholics had a hell of a time with the ‘abort-the-queer’ question).
Most of us were relieved when it turned out that there was no such gene.
(for the conspiracy types: are we sure there isn’t? or did THEY just decide to suppress the information? Um?)
I may be biased, being gay and all, but I think that any time you deliberately eradicate a mostly harmless aspect of human diversity, you harm humanity.
I think the destruction of the aboriginal Tasmanians was horrible. I find the decimation of the Native American tribes to be unforgivable (but not to the nth generation). I think eugenics in any form is a very, very bad idea.
I doubt you’ll find too many gay folk who share your rather cavalier attitude about eliminating homosexuality.
Genocide is certainly not on the same moral plane as hormonal treatments to decrease the chances of homosexuality. And I don’t see how eugenics in every form could be a bad thing. Perhaps in the future we’ll be able to make humans less vulnerable to certain diseases based on things we do to them in the womb. That’s eugenics.
Probably not. But we’re just talking about possible socital disaster resulting from certain fictional truths. Although I can’t see any benefit to eliminating homosexuality I don’t see how it would be a disaster. Wouldn’t life just pretty much go on?
I don’t see how it wouldn’t be a disaster. One of the joys of living in a modern culture is the experience of many different points of view coming from many different walks of life. There is nothing I enjoy more about where I live than the chance I have to dine in the local Pride Village, shop in the local Chinatown, go watch a show in the local Jewish Community Theatre, or just walk the streets and watch all manner of people go about their lives. I think the loss of any of that would certainly be a greivous loss for all of mankind.
I am not gay, and I have serious problems with the suggestion that every straight person would choose to abort or “treat” their child if they found out it was gay. This all feeds into the concept that homosexuality is a disease, am idea that I find morally reprehensible on every level.
I think the hypothetical situation is that you would still be here, but heterosexual rather than homosexual. So you wouldn’t be eliminated as such.
Would it have a negative impact on society? Would it have a negative impact on society if there were no red-headed people left because their recessive genes had bred out? (Forgive me if I’ve got this the wrong way round - I didn’t do genetics. Just substitute the appropriate hair colour).
Admittedly it would be less aesthetically pleasing, but then again there are no people with green chlorophyllous hair, perhaps there were in the dawn of time but they “bred” out?!
The destruction of Tasmanian aborigines is more to with ethnic cleansing. This question - as I perceive it - it about treating homosexuality as a disability/disadvantage, and removing that disadvantage from society.
Please note I am NOT and DO not think of homosexuality as a disability! The only disadvantage homosexuals partners have is that they can’t have kids between them, currently they need donors, in the future, perhaps medical intervention/transplant. (Though frankly it’s a just as big a disadvantage being hetero and trying to have a pregnancy-free sex life!)
I think if homosexuality was detectable/preventable, it would certainly create a bigger stigma for those that were subsequently born homosexual. So testing in that respect would not be a good thing.
One persistant theme that I have encountered in various accounts of gay peoples’ lives is the recurring rejection of adult or teenage children by their parents when the kids “come out of the closet”.
This is a stupid response–the offspring are the same people they were 30 seconds before the announcement-or 10 years before, for that matter. But it happens.
So does social ostracisim.
While it is true that many parents who learn that their unborne children are less than “perfect” go on to have the kids anyway, many others do not. We do not have reliable figures.
We do, however, know that there are fewer children born with birth defects today, & part of this is due to abortion of unwanted children.
And what about the abandoned child issue?
Even if religious prohibitions against abortion prevail, would children be abandoned in record numbers if a so-called “gay lab test” outed them at, say, the age of 3 years? :eek:
What would be the likely effect if I took the test and it indicated that, despite my happily married heterosexual lifestyle, I am genetically(or whatever) gay; would I have to undergo counselling to uncover my deeply-repressed leanings.
Interesting questionand I know we took it as given that the test would be possible, but I think it’s about as likely that we will have a medical test for homosexuality as we will a medical test for whether or not the individual prefers wholemeal bread or rye.
While I agree with a lot of what you have to say, my point is that being gay is so much a part of me that I wouldn’t be me if I weren’t gay.
I think that some of the difficulty (if you will) of growing up gay in a straight society has made me a better person than I might have otherwise been; more tolerant, more understanding, more helpful, just a better human being who loves women but is way more comfortable spending his life with a man.
While all of this is, of course, conjecture, I still wouldn’t change being gay for anything. Hmmmm, having a 32" waist, well, that’s another story. Uhm, no, it isn’t
I would say it depends on your definition of homosexuality and the society it is done to. Personally I think that removing totally straight or gay people would not really affect society much because they make up such a small percentage of the population. Trying to remove them would be as hard as trying to seperate black people from white people. Which is to say its impossible because different people have a different idea of black and white.
I actually would like to see some discussion of this. I asked the same thing in the original Fathom thread, and nobody tackled it. To me, that’s the whole heart of the matter: even if it turns out that some biological factor (genetics, prenatal hormones, track lighting in the womb) would predispose you to this or that sexual orientation, it’s a serious mistake to say that those who go against it, knowingly or not, are “wrong way round”. Rather, it means that the factor in question, whatever it is, would have a lot less definitive meaning.
It’s currently very much in vogue for scientists (and journalists) to claim that everything can be reduced to genetic on/off switches, but in the real world, I doubt very much that brain chemistry and individual psychology emerge in this way.
