Genetic Test For Homosexuality=Societal Disaster?

just to try to get this back on topic (hey, there’s a first for everything)…

a. In the early days (when AIDS was called ‘gay cancer’ - NOBODY had a clue that there was a damned retro-virus involved). We had a case of a bone marrow transplant being tried.
Now for the good part:
the donor was the identical brother of the patient. raised in same home by same parents.
one was gay, the other straight.

sorry, those who were hoping to for a biolgical way of ‘outing’ folks - it seems a little more complicated.

so - don’t worry about a blood test saying ‘you are gay’ - it ain’t gonna happen in foreseeable future.

homophobes - what can I say - maybe in Heaven there will a separate section for gays, and you won’t have to worry about being contaminated. :rolleyes:

I guess the whole question comes down to the definition of the term “societal disaster”. I believe that there would be negative consequences to having and implementing such a test, but I have a hard time applying the term “disaster” to something that doesn’t involve an enormous loss of human life, and it seems that that consequence in particular is unlikely.

There are some forseeable negative consequences, though. I can’t imagine a test being administered and a “cure” applied universally, so it’s unlikely in the extreme that gays would be eliminated. The homosexual population would be diminished, probably, and that combined with the mindset inherent in the administration of the test would probably serve to further marginalize the gay population, making them easier targets for discrimination.

Which would, in my opinion, have a negative effect on society. Not just on gay people, but on society in general, because when a group become easy prey for the prejudiced element in our midst, when people can be discriminated against for behavior that doesn’t harm anyone else, and such prejudice becomes ingrained into a society, we lose sight of such values as tolerance, acceptance, and respect. Which are essential components of a civilized society.

But I realize that all of that is merely speculation. What I really think would happen is that, seeing their demise as a group on the horizon, the few remaining gay people would organize, arm themselves, and begin to recruit aggressively. Armies of muscular leathermen and lesbian bikers would descend on our cities, violently redecorating drab office areas and turning our young people on to the forbidden joys of piercing, tattooing, and mincing. Squads of transvestites would perfect the precision art of the drive-by makover, and previously dull straight people would find themselves assaulted in dark alleys by rogue hairdressers intent on making their coiffure to die for. Despite the government’s desperate legislative and military reaction (2009: The phrases “go girl” and “that is so five minutes ago” are outlawed, as well as the color mauve.) the militant non-heteros have a massive impact on society, which discovers that it enjoys being well-dressed, living stylishly, and that comfortable shoes are really a must. Over the next decade, people gradually realize that they can sleep with anyone they find attractive, that as long as it’s between consensual adults there’s nothing wrong with any kind of sex, and that love is much more fun than hate anyday. (2015: The government gives up on trying to legislate morality, and gets heavily into trying to govern efficiently, which most people feel makes a nice change.)

I figured, as long as we’re speculating…

It seems possible that eventually, we will be able to edit bad things out of our gene pool; intereted defects and conditions such as Down Syndrome, Tay-Sacks, and similar serious bad stuff. Maybe we’ll be able to edit out minor bad stuff, such as allergies and imperfect vision. I just hope we do not decide to define gayness as a bad thing to be edited out.

Say, aren’t we overdue for the Genetic Wars or Eugenics Wars (unsure of correct term)? According to classic Trek, they take place in, or begin in, the late 20th Century. I always wondered about the plural. It would seem that there will be more then one…

What gives you any idea that homophobes are going to Heaven?

a hell of a lot of homophobes (Hi JP2, Ratzinger!) seem CERTAIN they will.

(and, of course, many are certain that all homosexuals are going to Hell)

as a heathen, I tend to play mix-and-match with the various flavors of Christianity - hope I didn’t offend, and if any took offense, I would like to think it were the homophobes.

Oh Poly - nice job on the ‘Immaculate Conception’ nailing - it never ceases to amaze me how many are so confused, but still so shrill…

I don’t understand what problem people have with homosexual children. With all the overpopulating religious zealots and teenagers who f*** like rabbits and don’t want the kids, Homosexuals provide a great base for adoption of all the unwanted children, as they cannot have the children naturally themselves. It seems to me that homosexuality does society a service. From a purely sociological standpoint anyhow.

On that note, perhaps homosexuality is a natural progression when a species begins to overpopulate.

and on a final note, why would anyone care enough to test their unborn fetus for homosexuality? That’s pretty sick in my mind, it’s not like a homosexual child requires special care that it doesn’t lie in it’s own feces if untended like an autistic child might. So choice, or genetics, who cares?

People who care so much about homosexuality for religious reasons tend to ignore so much of the bible in order to spew their vitriole. Isn’t it the book of Leviticus that everyone quotes so much about it? Isn’t Leviticus the book taht also says you shouldn’t eat pork? We should all get together for a dinner party, cook up a ham and discuss why homosexuality is a sin in the bible.

Please, if someone here has more knowledge of the bible you are welcome to correct me.

Erek

Hazel:

The first true Eugenics war occurred between 1938 and 1945 approximately in Northern Europe.

Erek

In addition to abortion, I’m sure there are statistics for the numbers of such children who are given up for adoption or “warehoused.” There are also many other women who opt for adoption rather than risk a Down’s syndrome baby by becoming pregnant in their 40’s.

If people could make this type of choice about having a gay child, I’m sure that many would. Why not, when Asian people are having surgery to reshape their eyelids, overweight people are having the fat sucked out of their bodies, and African-Americans are having their skin lightened? To me, all of this is a symptom of the same societal disease - the idea that there is only one acceptable way of being.

MrVisible - excellent rant! :slight_smile:

Possibly. The less genetic diversity we have, the more we reduce our species’ potential for survival. Remember the Dutch Elm!

It’s always disturbing to me when we talk about changing the course of biology as easily as changing fingernail polish. Do we know what the consequences might be? Do we know why things are the way they are? Just because we can tinker with something, does that mean we should? And finally, of all the things we might do to benefit humankind, should we just indulge our prejudices instead? If so, my vote would be to come up with a genetic test for people who won’t put their shopping carts back in the cart corrals.

No! That could be disastrous! We need those slobs! Otherwise the society will be weighed down by universal obsessive-compulsive order!

Hmmm… may be time for a new sig…