Homosexuality Will Cease to Exist Someday

[dannubis]

Damn.... Did Albie just make sense ?

[Aeson]

There are also benefits to being gay... No unwanted pregnancies. Having similar sexual desires and cycles as your partner. Better understanding of what your partner experiences. To pretend that you can predict whether a gay person would have been happier being straight is completely absurd. Whether any specific individual would be or not is going to depend heavily on their other personality traits, what they value...

As for observably more difficult adolescence, that's not clear, nor in specific cases where there is difficulty is it clear that it is due just to sexuality. Not to mention it is not clear that a difficult adolescence leads to a more unhappy live overall. Difficulties early in life can create strength of character and an greater appreciation for the good things later in life.

[Kuciwalker]

Now do the same thing but with the child being born Black or white.

You of course come to the same answer. What of it?

Don't many people argue that even today being born black puts a child at an inherent disadvantage in life? Isn't the logical conclusion that, were the same child born white instead, he would not have that disadvantage?

[Kuciwalker]

There are also benefits to being gay... No unwanted pregnancies. Having similar sexual desires and cycles as your partner. Better understanding of what your partner experiences. To pretend that you can predict whether a gay person would have been happier being straight is completely absurd.

Good thing I'm not doing that then! See again "in expectation", which I have consistently used.

[Aeson]

To equate advantage/disadvantage (or easy/difficult life) to happy/unhappy is where you're completely at odds with reality.

[Kuciwalker]

If the disadvantages black people face don't make them unhappy then why does anyone care?

[Kuciwalker]

Imagine that people weren't semi-randomly assigned to be gay or straight (or black or white). Rather, all babies are born with a little switch on their head that can be turned left or right. Left = gay, right = straight. The baby doesn't actually turn into a living child until you flip the switch. What rule would you use to decide which direction to flip the switch. Always left? Always right? Flip a coin?

[Aeson]

Good thing I'm not doing that then! See again "in expectation", which I have consistently used.

I am addressing your point as "in expectation". You want to pretend that there's some sort of evidence that a gay person can be expected to be more unhappy than a straight person, and you want to attribute this to the gay person being gay. You clearly don't understand that having difficulties in life does not equate to being unhappier overall.

[Kuciwalker]

Many gay people report that these difficulties make them unhappy. Introspection suggests that I would also be unhappy if I were treated in the way that many straight people treat gay people. I'm on solid epistemological ground here.

[Aeson]

Imagine that people weren't semi-randomly assigned to be gay or straight (or black or white). Rather, all babies are born with a little switch on their head that can be turned left or right. Left = gay, right = straight. The baby doesn't actually turn into a living child until you flip the switch. What rule would you use to decide which direction to flip the switch. Always left? Always right? Flip a coin?

I would leave the choice up to the parents in that case. There's no evidence to suggest that flipping the switch one way or the other would lead to a better result... but there is great evidence to suggest that one person forcing that onto everyone else will be met with a great deal of discontent about the situation.

[Aeson]

Many gay people report that these difficulties make them unhappy. Introspection suggests that I would also be unhappy if I were treated in the way that many straight people treat gay people. I'm on solid epistemological ground here.

Many straight people report that gay people are on the verge of ruining their marriages.

You still don't seem to understand that specific instances of unhappiness do not necessarily equate to a less happy life. Often they are a requirement for a truly happy life.

You're just hanging your myopic hat on one factor so that you can pretend you know something that's unknowable.

[Kuciwalker]

I would leave the choice up to the parents in that case.

What if the parent came to you for advice? What if you were the parent?

There's no evidence to suggest that flipping the switch one way or the other would lead to a better result...

To the contrary, I have presented substantial evidence that flipping the switch to the right would lead to a better result in expectation.

but there is great evidence to suggest that one person forcing that onto everyone else will be met with a great deal of discontent about the situation.

Strawman. No one has advocated forcible conversion here. DriXnak merely observed that parents would voluntarily flip the switch to the right in order to provide the most happiness to their child.

[Kuciwalker]

Many straight people report that gay people are on the verge of ruining their marriages.

Hardly.

You still don't seem to understand that specific instances of unhappiness do not necessarily equate to a less happy life. Often they are a requirement for a truly happy life.

I have heard many gay people express wishes that the instances of unhappiness stop. I've heard very few who say they are glad for the instances of unhappiness. Moreover, if we really thought these instances of unhappiness lead (in the long run) to a happier life then we wouldn't want to end homophobia. Efforts to end homophobia would be bad because they would deny gay people the chance of earning a happy life through suffering!

You're just hanging your myopic hat on one factor so that you can pretend you know something that's unknowable.

If the answer is unknowable then what's wrong with turning everyone straight? Do you think that the natural proportion of straight and gay people is likely to be more optimal than any other proportion?

Your entire position is status quo bias.

[Kuciwalker]

These responses were, of course, entirely predictable. Post #10 sounds like various suggestions by homophobes that we ought to be mean to gay people because gayness is bad for them and it will convince them to convert. It sounds like those, but only an idiot would actually confuse it for one. Unfortunately, Apolyton has a lot of idiots and as I expected it brought them out of the woodwork.

[Aeson]

What if the parent came to you for advice? What if you were the parent?

I would curse the dungeon master and roll a d20 to "save" against the gay. 1-19 and you're straight. (So about 5%, which IIRC is ~ the natural ratio.)

To the contrary, I have presented substantial evidence that flipping the switch to the right would lead to a better result in expectation.

You haven't presented any evidence. You've made some oblique references to some evidence you haven't shown.

Strawman. No one has advocated forcible conversion here.

You asked what rule I would create that would be applied before children could be born. I stated the obvious problem with anyone (myself included) being tasked with that responsibility. It takes what is essentially a blameless situation and ensures the blame for any negative perceptions from the rule (even if misperceptions) will be harbored against the rule creator.

[Kuciwalker]

You are clinging to an untenable action/inaction distinction.

[Aeson]

Hardly.

There are plenty of instances of straight people showing extreme consternation over the existence of gays. If they were gay, perhaps they would be happier. (mocking you, not my stance)

I have heard many gay people express wishes that the instances of unhappiness stop. I've heard very few who say they are glad for the instances of unhappiness. Moreover, if we really thought these instances of unhappiness lead (in the long run) to a happier life then we wouldn't want to end homophobia. Efforts to end homophobia would be bad because they would deny gay people the chance of earning a happy life through suffering!

I am not the one claiming that a specific instance increases or decreases overall suffering. That is so unknowable that I have taken the agnostic stance. You're the one reading a crystal ball to divine the unknowable to support your eugenics policy.

If the answer is unknowable then what's wrong with turning everyone straight? Do you think that the natural proportion of straight and gay people is likely to be more optimal than any other proportion?

The problem is that your whim or the whim of any given person (or even a government, democratic or not) should not be responsible for these choices in aggregate. The fact that you don't get this is actually rather scary. I hope you never have any real power to affect people's lives.

I would be ok with parents choosing if the technology existed, since their own happiness is certainly tied to the decision.

[Aeson]

You are clinging to an untenable action/inaction distinction.

No. In the absence of evidence to support a change from the norm, inaction is a perfectly reasonable response. One you are displaying here by not going out to prepare a manger full of gummy bears for the unicorn that would grant you 3 wishes if you were to do so.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem is that your whim or the whim of any given person (or even a government, democratic or not) should not be responsible for these choices in aggregate.

You are clinging to an untenable action/inaction distinction. To choose to leave the gay/straight proportion to its "natural" course is as much of a choice as any other gay/straight proportion, given the power to actually effect it. You cannot avoid having priors, so you cannot avoid having some estimate of the optimal proportion.

[Aeson]

These responses were, of course, entirely predictable. Post #10 sounds like various suggestions by homophobes that we ought to be mean to gay people because gayness is bad for them and it will convince them to convert. It sounds like those, but only an idiot would actually confuse it for one. Unfortunately, Apolyton has a lot of idiots and as I expected it brought them out of the woodwork.

You can't even understand the responses made to you. You thought I was responding to Drixnak's OP when I quoted your hypothetical. Pretending like you knew where this was going is just an absurd attempt by you to draw attention away from the fact that you are suggesting a eugenics program to eliminate homosexuality is a good thing.

[Aeson]

The problem is that your whim or the whim of any given person (or even a government, democratic or not) should not be responsible for these choices in aggregate.

You are clinging to an untenable action/inaction distinction. To choose to leave the gay/straight proportion to its "natural" course is as much of a choice as any other gay/straight proportion, given the power to actually effect it. You cannot avoid having priors, so you cannot avoid having some estimate of the optimal proportion.

No. I can leave things as they were. I have already stated my main concern with doing so, which was so "obvious" a response you have forgotten it already I guess, moron.

You are choosing inaction in regards to countless possibilities right now, and always will be so long as you're alive.

[Aeson]

Since you like hypotheticals, and seem convinced that homosexuality is a harm against the general welfare... how many people would you kill if by doing so you could rid the world of homosexuality? Quantify the harm done for us... you have your "evidence" to work with, so get that calculator out *****...

[Guynemer]

4/10

When did you become so generous?

[gribbler]

We don't know of any especially effective way to make straight people stop being homophobic. In the OP's hypothetical we do know a way to make gay people stop being gay (or more precisely, to prevent them from being being gay in the first place). So, yes, in that case it would be the solution.

Straight people are already getting less and less homophobic year after year.

[gribbler]

Also, if homosexuality is such a disadvantage, and if it is caused by genetics, why does it even exist?

[loinburger]

I was having this discussion with my brother a few days ago. Sickle-cell anemia is a major disadvantage, but if you only have a few of the genes for sickle-cell anemia then you're resistant to malaria, so sickle-cell anemia still exists because it's advantageous. So, if you're homosexual then odds are that you're not going to reproduce, but homosexuality still exists so there must be some advantage to being half-gay or whatever. Or as he put it, "maybe I'm half-gay and that's why I'm a good engineer."

[Al B. Sure!]

Nah I think the suspicion is gay uncles can assist in the child-rearing, giving families with 'gay' genes an advantage.

[Jon Miller]

There isn't real evidence that happens, and homosexuality exists in animals were such family structure does not exist at all.

I think evidence suggests that the genetic causes of homosexuality are a common mutation (since it has been seen in insects, birds, mammals, etc... and seems correlated in animal species with the level of pollution found in the environment).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Also, if homosexuality is such a disadvantage, and if it is caused by genetics, why does it even exist?

There are so many things wrong with this logic it makes my head hurt. To start:

1) Unhappiness is only distantly related (if at all) to reproductive fitness.
2) Many things that are far worse disadvantages to reproductive fitness (e.g. Down's syndrome) continue to exist. The process of natural selection doesn't render every single creature physically ideal.

[Al B. Sure!]

Plus let's not act like gay guys can't and don't have biological children to pass on those genes.

What intrigues me is how prevalent was homosexuality in classical Greece? It seems to have been very prevalent, for more than you would expect in a given population, but why? In that case, many Greeks were probably gay for cultural reasons, not genetic.