I realize you are making a joke but I think you bring up an interesting point. I wonder if there are events that take place in childhood that ‘turn kids gay’*. I don’t mean some stupid sterotype like taking your kid to France or bringing him to the Ballet but some ‘normal’ event that triggers a persons genes. I wonder what the reaction would be in our society, would that event suddenly become taboo? Would people dismiss the evidence and continue on doing it? Interesting stuff I say.
don’t like the way I phrased that but I can’t think of a better way to put it
I agree with your point that a gay child is in for a tough life if it is born into a family that hates gays.
However, that hatred may not be the reason for the hypothetical abortion made under those circumstances. It’s entirely possible that the choice wouldn’t be made based on a parent’s inability to love but rather their concerns over quality of life given the status of gays in society (or in specific communities). When one reads the statistics about hate crimes, about the number of gay teens who commit suicide, about the cruelty experienced by gay children at school, and so on, it could certainly give a prospective parent pause.
I’m not saying it makes the decision any less deplorable to some people, but your assumption that it must be based on parental loathing for a gay child seemed hasty to me.
I think Bricker was trying to mousetrap pro-choicers into admitting that an abortion is “wrong” if it is done for motivations which we would be likely to find abhorent (in this case, homophobia). The “gay test” might not really be plausible but the question was meant to be rhetorical. In Bricker’s mind he was setting two liberal values against each other. Will we still support the right to choose or will we rush to a knee jerk defense of gay fetuses?
I don’t think the trap really works, though, because there is no necessary contradiction. I believe that homophobic women have the same reproductive rights as any other women. If they don’t want to have gay babies, they don’t have to. Even if she decided she wanted to abort a mixed race fetus out of sheer, mean racism (and never mind the paradox of how a racist woman got herself in that condition to begin with, I’m trying to make a point here), she would have that right.
I might have contempt for that woman’s views but morons have the right to be morons as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.
The reason that I don’t see it as a contradiction is because I don’t see a victim. Aborting a gay fetus, in my less than humble opinion, does not hurt anyone else and thus there is no ideological paradox for me.
With the advent of cochlear implants, the deaf community was sharply divided on their use, with some deaf advocates claiming that the use of implants would destroy deaf culture by essentially removing deafness from young children.
If (and I know we’re getting into sci-fi territory here, with hovercars and replicators) there were an isolated event or series of events in combination with particular genes that “created” homosexuality, either in utereo, in infancy, or whenever… would it be wrong to simply eliminate those events, or tinker with those genes?
I mean, arguably homosexuality is “natural” in the sense that it’s always been around, so arguably it would be “unnatural” to remove it from individuals otherwise destined for it.
But of course there are those that believe it “unnatural” in the first place.
It was only 50% of a joke. My gf’s cousin is in his teens and belongs to a fairly conservative family. For whatever reason he’s the kind of person that sets off everyones “gay-dar” and as a result his parents were rather nervous that he would turn out “that way”. As a result they try hard to badmouth gay people in his hearing range and other things to try and prevent him from turning out gay. Recently he has in fact decided/discovered that he’s gay. IMHO his parents past behavior has made this a far more tramatic experience for him then it would’ve been otherwise. I can imagine that in a truly conservative family where they had scientific proof that their kid was predeposed to be gay from birth, the situation might be considerably worse.
In the family I mentioned above, I have no doubt that the parents love thier son and will continue to do so when he “comes out of the closet”. In truth, I don’t even think that they’re really that homophobic, they just don’t want to have a gay son both because it will make his life more difficult and also make him harder for them to relate to. Honestly I’d probably feel the same way about my kids, though I wouldn’t go to such ends to prevent it.
Yeah, I was painting with an overly broad brush there with the fundie thing. I meant parents who seriously didn’t want a gay kid, for whatever reason.
I would be seriously suprised if we actually trackdown even a strong predictor for homsexuality in the near future. Still, I think this hypothetical is worth discussing, because as science advances I think it’s inevidable that we will be able to test forsome attributes in the womb that are seen as undesirable to a segment of the population but are not really health related.
Removing deafness? Isn’t that a double negative? How about “restore hearing”.
The real issue here is that the procedure is most effective when done at an early age, so the there are problems with consent. But Deafness isn’t like homosexuality in that it presents some level of real danger to the individual, especially children. Gay kids aren’t more likely to be hit by cars, but deaf kids certainly are.
The trick is to change only the sexual orientation, and nothing else. It might, for instance, be impossible to straighten out the condition (pun intended) without affecting the individual’s ability to form same-sex friendships. I personally expect that the gense affecting the formation of sexual relationships probably overlap with the genes involved in forming other, nonsexual relationships.
To the extent that it IS possible to affect only the sexuality, then I don’t see how it could be wrong. If we assume that both states (homo- and hetero-sexuality) are normal, one is not better than the other. You are just chosing between two normal states.
A more interesting question might be: would it be wrong to tinker with the genes and turn an otherwise straight child into a gay child?
You may be choosing between two normal states but one state certainly comes with advatanges over the other namely being able to procreate and the uh ‘act’ of procreation.
I would have to give the same answer as I give on the abortion question: it depends on the timing. I can’t tell a pregnant woman “Don’t tinker with the genes of your day-old fetus just to keep from having a gay kid.” That would be tantamount to telling her “I get the final say in how you reproduce, not you.” And I don’t have that moral authority, any more than I have the moral authority to tell a women not to abort a day-old or week-old fetus. A thirty-three week-old fetus, on the other hand, is clearly a different story. If the technology exists to determine sexuality, then there exists a point after which the fetus deserves to be able to make that decision for themselves someday.
I meant procreate with another homosexual which unless there was some medical breakthrough I missed isn’t possible.
Diogenes-
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but it seems to be a popular choice for most long term heterosexual couples to procreate. Not being able to procreate is a difficult problem for some couples and they go to great medical lengths to do so.
Sure it’s possible. If Laura Lesbian and Glenn Gay want to have a kid together, they can manage it no problem.
Well, they may have to get drunk first, or use a turkey baster. But still, it happens. When I was in high school, in fact, some older friends of mine (one lesbian, the other a gay man) loved each other dearly and planned to use the turkey-baster method to have a kid together. Dunno how it worked out.
Perhaps you mean that homosexuals can’t procreate with another member of the same sex. Again, so? neither can heterosexuals.
Perhaps you mean that homosexuals can’t procreate with a member of their preferred sex. This is true, but given how much energy heterosexuals put into not procreating most of the time, I’m not sure you can really list this as a disadvantage to homosexuality.
Ok let me be more specific. Homosexuals are at a disadvantage becuase they cannot procreate with their long term sexual partner.
You are correct however if heterosexual couples limited themselves to what homosexual couples can do they wouldn’t have to worry about getting pregant.
Sure–but if homosexual couples limited themselves to what heterosexual couples did, they would be able to get pregnant.
See, this is a non-issue. Heterosexuals have certain urges that, when fulfilled, tend to lead to children. Homosexuals have certain urges that, when fulfilled, don’t lead to children.
If a heterosexual couple wants to fulfill their urges without risking children, they have to take additional precautionary measures.
If a homosexual couple wants to have children, they have to take additional measures.
I don’t see how it can be chalked up as an advantage for one side or the other.
This is what worries me, unintended concequences. We’ll start altering genes of babies to make them taller, or smarter or less gayer and later realize that the same gene is also what keeps us from turning into homicidal maniacs at age 35.
Many couples name the birth of their child as the happiest day of their life. A homosexual couple CAN NOT experience that. In my book that is a disadvantage.
A homosexual couple has only oral or anal sex to choose from. A heterosexual couple has oral, anal and vaginal sex to choose from. The heterosexual couple has more options which is an advantage. Not to mention the fact that when heterosexual couples overwhelmingly choose the option that homosexual couples do not have.
This is not to say homosexuals can’t be just as happy as heterosexual couples just that all things being equal heterosexuals have all of the same options as homosexuals plus some. It probably doesn’t matter to the vast majority of homosexual couples that they can’t do these things but in my opinion the advantage is to heterosexuals.
Thats my point though homosexual couples can’t ‘limit’ themselves to what heterosexuals can do becuase they cannot do them.
First, though, a reminder. Happiness resides in individuals, not in groups, not even in couples. An individual may gain happiness from being in a group, but the happiness is still in the individual.
Why is that important? Because that means the unit we should be looking at here is the individual, not the couple. And a heterosexual woman with a heterosexual male partner does not have the same options than a homosexual woman with a homosexual male partner has, plus some. Nor does the male member of the straight couple have the same options that a male member of a gay couple would have, plus some. Use your imagination. I’ll give you one freebie: a man in a heterosexual relationship may not give fellatio (within the confines of that relationship).
I know it seems to you like I’m picking nits, but trust me, it seems to me like you’re picking nits in order to prove a straight advantage where none exists.
That’s true. But it’s society that causes gay teen suicides and school abuse, not the orientation itself. Gayness isn’t a disability; the only reason it hampers someone’s life is because other people find it objectionable. Aborting a fetus just because of orientation is letting society win. So maybe people who’d abort a gay fetus aren’t necessarily homophobes, but they are cowards.
When I say homosexual couple I mean two men or two women. If you write down in a column everything a homosexual couple can do and then write down in a column everything a heterosexual couple can do the heterosexual couple will have every thing a homosexual couple AND the other things I have mentioned.
But then you don’t have a homosexual couple you have a bisexual couple. I am not arguing that bisexuals are at a disadvantage in fact they have all the advantages of heterosexuals and homosexual couples. That is until they enter into a long term monogamous relationship then they have to ‘pick’ which sex they want to be with.
I call your blow jobs with ‘eating pussy’ (do we have a specific name for that?).
I may be picking nits but I wanted to point out that there are certain advantages however small to being a heterosexual over a homosexual.