Homosexuality Will Cease to Exist Someday

[ricketyclik]

I can actually relate to what you're saying Kid. Substitute "evolution" for "God" and "optimises" for "wants" and we're on the same page.

[Kidlicious]

I can actually relate to what you're saying Kid. Substitute "evolution" for "God" and "optimises" for "wants" and we're on the same page.

Except the theory is that the human brain has evolved in such a way that human beings don't want to be different because they will be outcasts. I look at it this way, God made the forest and the forest fire (you can substitute evolution if you like). Look what happens when we try to take away the forest fire. We just get a disaster.

[ricketyclik]

Not all humans fear being different. Think radical activists. They're the forest fire.

Jesus was one such, apparently. As were Moses, Bhudda and Mohammed. Rachel Carson.

[Kidlicious]

Jesus was killed. The same might have happened to Moses. I guess you could say the same of Mohammed had he not been militarily victorious. Bhudda wasn't that much of a radical. I'm not sure who Rachel Carson is.

edit: I guess my question is why do you think evolution causes society to eliminate people who are different?

[DriXnaK]

God makes people how he wants them. What people see as an evil is not an evil. We are born to have to deal with things. I've always been different and I now know that that's a good thing. I thank God everyday that I'm different.

You're not different, you're just lazy and useless. Part of the problem with America is that we encourage this continual self acceptance which just leads to mediocre individuals like yourself. On top of it, you then have religious zealots, again, like yourself, who then also have the "God made me the way I am" attitude in addition. It's a veritable weapon of mass destruction.

[Darius871]

You are ignoring the very significant difference between making a change that will affect a person who will live and have to deal with the effects of those changes, and making a change to a lump of cells that never will be a person. (If you try to counter with "it's not just a lump of cells", then you lose the hypocritical insinuation that you are going for and instead have just replaced it with a disagreement about whether it's a lump of cells or something more that should be protected.)

Nope, I'll leave the rank hypocrisy on the other side of the table, thanks. You're the one trying to parse out differing moral values of different fetuses based solely on future potential, not me. You might as well say I'm ignoring the very significant difference between making a change that kills the person who would have lived to cure cancer, and making a change that only kills a would-be loser. I'd rather keep things consistent: a fetus is a fetus.

[Fake Boris]

Kuci, you have failed to address the issue of claimed vs revealed preferences.

[Kidlicious]

You're not different, you're just lazy and useless. Part of the problem with America is that we encourage this continual self acceptance which just leads to mediocre individuals like yourself. On top of it, you then have religious zealots, again, like yourself, who then also have the "God made me the way I am" attitude in addition. It's a veritable weapon of mass destruction.

Woooosh! You missed my whole point.

[notyoueither]

I don't know that the OP went that far. The hypothetical is simply that science discovers a simple genetic "on/off switch" for homosexuality, and the implied consequence is that parents would turn it off with such near-uniformity that the genetic sequence would eventually be eradicated.

If that's the scenario, without any sort of government intervention, I'm just curious who it is that would oppose such a movement. In theory the social left should be fine with it because they're all about a woman's right to choose what to do with her body between conception and birth, and the social right should be fine with it because it gets rid of the gays they apparently have some problem with, so who would have a problem with it?

The social left has a problem with gender selection. I think they'd have a problem with selection against any fundamental aspect of humanity such as race or sexuality.

[Elok]

Depends which part of the social left you ask.

Strategically, it makes no sense to give in to this idea that there’s somehow something a little queasier about having an abortion for gender than, say, for money. These are equally legitimate reasons (or, if you are on the other side, equally illegitimate). One might make you uncomfortable in your gut, but it can’t make the movement hesitate. Because that hesitation—that pause of, well, yes this one is complicated, or, as Amanda says, this one is "unpleasant to contemplate"—makes it that much easier for so many of those other reasons (money, timing, work) to seem a little not-OK too.

Also, let’s just remember that we are talking about fetuses. No matter how many ultrasound pics get posted to Facebook, these are fetuses with female genitals or male genitals—not little girls and little boys. If pro-choicers object to aborting because of the sex of the fetus, aren’t we then saying that abortion is “murdering” girls? Aren’t we basically arguing that a fetus is not a blank slate but a future possibility? That is not the case to make if your goal is to protect abortion rights. Gulp for a second if you must, then get over it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/31/sex_selection_abortion_and_the_pro_choice_movement_why_liberals_shouldn_t_gulp.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_plugin_activity

(yay, now this thread can be about a different beaten-to-death controversy!)

[notyoueither]

For people for whom abortion rights are a very high priority, I can see that. Anything that impinges on the right to choose is a threat.

However, there are people who are pro-choice who do find some restrictions on abortion acceptable, are there not?

[giblets]

If pro-choicers object to aborting because of the sex of the fetus, aren’t we then saying that abortion is “murdering” girls?

No, you're saying a gender imbalance that could result from such a practice would be bad for society. Duh.

[Darius871]

Depends which part of the social left you ask.

Strategically, it makes no sense to give in to this idea that there’s somehow something a little queasier about having an abortion for gender than, say, for money. These are equally legitimate reasons (or, if you are on the other side, equally illegitimate). One might make you uncomfortable in your gut, but it can’t make the movement hesitate. Because that hesitation—that pause of, well, yes this one is complicated, or, as Amanda says, this one is "unpleasant to contemplate"—makes it that much easier for so many of those other reasons (money, timing, work) to seem a little not-OK too.

Also, let’s just remember that we are talking about fetuses. No matter how many ultrasound pics get posted to Facebook, these are fetuses with female genitals or male genitals—not little girls and little boys. If pro-choicers object to aborting because of the sex of the fetus, aren’t we then saying that abortion is “murdering” girls? Aren’t we basically arguing that a fetus is not a blank slate but a future possibility? That is not the case to make if your goal is to protect abortion rights. Gulp for a second if you must, then get over it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/31/sex_selection_abortion_and_the_pro_choice_movement_why_liberals_shouldn_t_gulp.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_plugin_activity

(yay, now this thread can be about a different beaten-to-death controversy!)

Wow, good pull. It never ceases to amaze me what arcane nooks and crannies the blogosphere's mental masturbation manages to explore. It's a big world after all.

However, there are people who are pro-choice who do find some restrictions on abortion acceptable, are there not?

Depends on what you mean by restrictions. I suppose there are plenty who might vacillate over procedural aspects like waiting periods, consent from minors' parents, paternal notice, education about alternatives, etc., but who among the truly pro-choice scrutinizes the reasons swirling around a particular mother's mind? Paltry few, I'd imagine, but I doubt this is the sort of thing that gets polled.

[Aeson]

Nope, I'll leave the rank hypocrisy on the other side of the table, thanks. You're the one trying to parse out differing moral values of different fetuses based solely on future potential, not me. You might as well say I'm ignoring the very significant difference between making a change that kills the person who would have lived to cure cancer, and making a change that only kills a would-be loser. I'd rather keep things consistent: a fetus is a fetus.

I suppose it's no surprise you failed utterly to understand what I was saying. I said you were insinuating there was a hypocrisy being exhibited by any pro-choice who would abhor the OP. That you say "nope" and then do exactly what I predicted you were trying to do is rather hilarious.

I simply pre-emptively pointed out that it's not hypocrisy because the effects of the choice are different. You are going on about the hypocrisy I already explained to you doesn't exist. All there is is a disagreement about whether the fetus is yet a person deserving of protection or not. The question of if a living human can have things done to them without consent is another matter entirely. You have "countered" with the argument I predicted, but still do not realize how you've disproven the hypocrisy you were driving at by doing so. The question you've replaced the initial one with is whether the fetus is alive and deserving of rights. There is no hypocrisy there.

As for the "ignore" you counter with, it is irrelevant and shows clearly how confused you are about the implications of your statements and the meaning of mine. Only an omnipotent being could ignore what you are countering with. None of us could possibly know that difference when the choice was made. In contrast, we know with a high level of certainty that a modification to the fetus will affect the life of the person they become. That is actually the entire point of the hypothetical... to make a known change (sexuality) that will change the course of the life of the person. The issue of affecting a person without their consent would not differ between the two fetuses in your hypothetical counter.

To help you with an analogy you might be able to understand, the issue is whether or not a choice made before a fetus is a person deserving of rights (whenever you think that is) should be allowed to affect the life of that fetus (presumably in a negative way...). An applicable analogy would be to implant a radioactive device in the egg before fertilization (I'm guessing you think conception is the point in question) that will cause random mutations to the baby. (eg. Elephant Man type stuff.) Since the act was before even most die-hard pro-lifers think life begins, would this be acceptable to you? If not, does that make you and all pro-lifers hypocrites for thinking that life began at conception and not sooner, yet still protecting the person's interests before that point? (Hint: no, of course not. Hypocrisy means countering your own internal logic. Not simply disagreeing with someone else's.)

[Dr Strangelove]

How successful have we been so far in modifying the expression of genes? Not very. What if the gene for homosexuality causes a structural change in the brain before birth? How are you going to alter the expression of that gene. The test for determining a baby's genome is risky enough, no one is going to support mass testing to determine who should get pre-natal treatment, and so far there isn't much evidence that homosexuality "runs in the family". In fact, there isn't a great deal of evidence that it's a genetic trait.