Let the comparisons between gay men and goats begin...

[Caligastia]

What if through this research they found a way to eliminate homosexuality? Would anyone here be against it?

I dont think I would be against it, because I reckon being gay must be a hard life (more often than not).

[Solly]

OK, I'll save it for another day.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boddington's
OK, I'll save it for another day.

And when you do, you will get restricted then. Go do your gay bashing somewhere else.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Caligastia
What if through this research they found a way to eliminate homosexuality? Would anyone here be against it?

I dont think I would be against it, because I reckon being gay must be a hard life (more often than not).

People who are born black are prone to have a harder life due to the societal status of minorities. Would you advocate a surgical means to make everyone white, since that might one day be possible?

Yes, many gays have a hard life, but the hardships they endure that relate to their sexuality are due to the unjust attitudes of society. Fixing society is the better answer.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being gay, most gays function quite well in society and life. Therefore "fixing" it is unneccessary, as nothing is "broken."

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Caligastia
What if through this research they found a way to eliminate homosexuality? Would anyone here be against it?

I dont think I would be against it, because I reckon being gay must be a hard life (more often than not).

An interesting question. Lets assume that this line of research is correct and that there is a biological basis that predisposes individuals to homosexuality. Then postulate that we could detect it in utero and that we can alter the gene(s) in favour of heterosexuality.

Would the fundamentalists that dont support genetic manipulations in humans now support it?
Would parents do it if it was legal? What if there was a 10% chance of serious side effects?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


People who are born black are prone to have a harder life due to the societal status of minorities. Would you advocate a surgical means to make everyone white, since that might one day be possible?

Yes, many gays have a hard life, but the hardships they endure that relate to their sexuality are due to the unjust attitudes of society. Fixing society is the better answer.

It would be easier to change society than change a few individuals?

There's nothing inherently wrong with being gay, most gays function quite well in society and life. Therefore "fixing" it is unneccessary, as nothing is "broken."

I guess the only thing outside of the attitudes of society that is a disadvantage for gays is that couples are unable to reproduce in the normal fashion.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It would be easier to change society than change a few individuals?

Easier isn't the question, it's what is morally right. After all, blacks only constitute about 14% of the population. Why shouldn't we change society to be more just to such people? Instead of repealing Jim Crow, we should have just worked on making everyone white?

I guess the only thing outside of the attitudes of society that is a disadvantage for gays is that couples are unable to reproduce in the normal fashion.

Yes, and that's hardly something worthy of genetic manipulation, since there is a wealth of options now available to gay couples for having children, including much-needed adoption (except in areas where bigotry prohibits such adoptions, of course, but that goes back to societal attitudes).

I don't think gays are substantially more unhappy or unhealthy than heterosexuals, and certainly not in places where society is accepting of gays. Plenty of heterosexuals have miserable lives due to various factors, including their love lives, and I don't see anyone advocating a genetic alteration for them.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Easier isn't the question, it's what is morally right. After all, blacks only constitute about 14% of the population. Why shouldn't we change society to be more just to such people? Instead of repealing Jim Crow, we should have just worked on making everyone white?

Actually I think things are easier when there is only one race to worry about. Not that I think everyone should be genetically modified to look the same, but I think it will be a good thing when all the races of the world eventually blend.

Yes, and that's hardly something worthy of genetic manipulation, since there is a wealth of options now available to gay couples for having children, including much-needed adoption (except in areas where bigotry prohibits such adoptions, of course, but that goes back to societal attitudes).

I don't think gays are substantially more unhappy or unhealthy than heterosexuals, and certainly not in places where society is accepting of gays. Plenty of heterosexuals have miserable lives due to various factors, including their love lives, and I don't see anyone advocating a genetic alteration for them.

It would be hard to justify a blanket policy of genetically manipulating gays out of existence, but I would support the right of parents to alter their child if they didn't want it to be gay.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Caligastia
What if through this research they found a way to eliminate homosexuality? Would anyone here be against it?

I dont think I would be against it, because I reckon being gay must be a hard life (more often than not).

Suicide rates for gay teens are 4x the average.

I would still be against it, just as I would be against using genetic testing to select for other traits -- such as skin color.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes, and that's hardly something worthy of genetic manipulation, since there is a wealth of options now available to gay couples for having children, including much-needed adoption (except in areas where bigotry prohibits such adoptions, of course, but that goes back to societal attitudes).

Boris, I agreed with you on all what you said here, but this last one, gay couples having children is for me still something hard to accept.
I think the problem is more complex than just bigotry.
From what I heard from psychologists, a child needs some kind of reference/example to discover and build up its sexual identity. When the child has a mother AND a father, it has an example of both (a choice!!).
I don't know much about gay couples (exept the popular picture of one playing the guy and the other playing the girl, but how true is it ...?), but I doubt that children of gay couple really have an objective example of both sexes.
I may well understand that a gay child of a hetero couple also has a problem of sexual identity, but think that statistically, more children will have problems if more children were raised by gay couples.

BTW: I noticed on this forum the words "gay" and "straight" are used. Is "homo" and "hetero" offending in english?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Dry
BTW: I noticed on this forum the words "gay" and "straight" are used. Is "homo" and "hetero" offending in english?

No, it's just that "gay" and "straight" are the common vernacular words used. "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are long words; it's easier and quicker just to say their vernacular forms.

[SpencerH]

Calling someone a "Homo" often has a derogatory meaning though.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Dry

I may well understand that a gay child of a hetero couple also has a problem of sexual identity, but think that statistically, more children will have problems if more children were raised by gay couples.

From the (limited) studies done, a child raised by gay or lesbian parents is no more likely to be gay than a child raised by strait parents.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Amadan
From the (limited) studies done, a child raised by gay or lesbian parents is no more likely to be gay than a child raised by strait parents.

That's not what I meant.
What I wanted to say is that every child need to find among it's relatives an example of his sexual identity.
If I simplify, I would say 4 sexual identities:
- straight boy
- straight girl
- gay boy
- gay girl
You, as child may have problems if you have no example of your identity among your close relatives. (ex. gay boys may have problems if they don't know any gay men. Kind of "Am I normal?" questionning)
I don't know the % of each category, but straight traits is more present in the population. It is thus statistically safier to have straight parents.

[Solly]

"It is thus statistically safier to have straight parents"

That is a fact.