Homosexuality Will Cease to Exist Someday

[DriXnaK]

Who says it can't be a gene that all humans carry? Also, the whole point of this wasn't to pinpoint the exact cause, it was to show that eventually there will be a cure of sorts for it whatever its cause. Why you're trying to use today's level of science to determine the capabilities of future science is beyond me. Chances are very good that not only will a cause be found, it will also be possible to correct it. Whether that's in 10 years or 500 years, who knows.

[Uncle Sparky]

My point is that before that time the imbalance created through sex selection, which is currently available and being practiced, will be so skewed in favour of male babies, that drix will pay to be gay or stay a virgin.

[giblets]

Who says it can't be a gene that all humans carry?

So all humans carry a gene that makes them homosexual?

[DriXnaK]

It could be a dormant gene that humans carry that randomly gets activated. It could also be a series of genes. It could be completely linked to the brain and not genetic at all. Who knows. I see you attempted to pounce thinking you had finally found something, but unfortunately there's nothing there for you. You should stick to randomly injecting yourself in the main argument with your meek 1 and 2 liners that you keep short enough to make sure that you don't sound overly stupid. Your avatar is fitting.

[Elok]

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.

Last I heard, there was some speculation that it was linked to sudden hormone surges from the mother in utero, or something.

[notyoueither]

Chances are very good that not only will a cause be found, it will also be possible to correct it. Whether that's in 10 years or 500 years, who knows.

There's the problem. The idea that something fundamental in the nature of some of the human population should be 'corrected.'

That is the problem that even pro-choice lefties have with abortion used for the purpose of gender selection. That is the problem that I foresee when the hetero-homo switch can be flipped. Yes, some may use it. Others will find it abhorrent. I have no idea what the result will be.

[giblets]

It could be a dormant gene that humans carry that randomly gets activated. It could also be a series of genes. It could be completely linked to the brain and not genetic at all. Who knows. I see you attempted to pounce thinking you had finally found something, but unfortunately there's nothing there for you. You should stick to randomly injecting yourself in the main argument with your meek 1 and 2 liners that you keep short enough to make sure that you don't sound overly stupid. Your avatar is fitting.

You suggested that a gene everyone has might be responsible for homosexuality, without explanation. Given that most people are not homosexuals, I think skepticism toward that claim is reasonable. But of course, you can't handle the fact that you might have said something stupid so you try to project your own failings onto others.

[Darius871]

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.)

Huh?

[Kuciwalker]

I warned you...

[Aeson]

Since Kuci is too afraid to continue his tangent, and Darius is too illiterate to even understand his... I will bring up my own. The homosexual "switch" is obviously not a binary one.

[Darius871]

I warned you...

Darius is too illiterate to even understand his...

I get your point just fine: [preventing a life from coming into existence] =/= [altering the course of a life that the hypothetical presumes will come into existence]. I just can't imagine why you had to go through such tldr contortions to get there. That, and you're still telling a woman what to do with "her body" whether you like it or not. There's simply no getting around that.

[SlowwHand]

I hate to tell you, but the male is renting a portion of that space, by default.

[Aeson]

I get your point just fine: [preventing a life from coming into existence] =/= [altering the course of a life that the hypothetical presumes will come into existence]. I just can't imagine why you had to go through such tldr contortions to get there.

You clearly do not understand the implications of that point, or the inapplicability of your attempted refutation of it, or even the meaning of the sentence fragment you quoted. You also clearly do not recognize that there were 2 other separate points in the post dealing with other problems in your statements. If you do not like long responses, I would suggest not packing your own statements full of so many inaccuracies and incoherent arguments to be refuted and mocked.

That, and you're still telling a woman what to do with "her body" whether you like it or not. There's simply no getting around that.

found the OP abhorrent != telling a woman what to do with "her body"

The fact that you can't understand this simple distinction shows how moronic your position here is.

[DriXnaK]

Why is it more abhorrent to alter a fetus' genetics or take corrective action on it than outright killing it? For that matter, if you're allowed to kill the fetus' as part of a woman's choice and right to control her body, then isn't the fetus in and of itself an extension of her body and therefore she can do with it as she pleases in any way she sees fit? Is your inability to reason also the cause of your flight from society?

[giblets]

Why is it more abhorrent to alter a fetus' genetics or take corrective action on it than outright killing it? For that matter, if you're allowed to kill the fetus' as part of a woman's choice and right to control her body, then isn't the fetus in and of itself an extension of her body and therefore she can do with it as she pleases in any way she sees fit? Is your inability to reason also the cause of your flight from society?

Your right to your own body does not give you the right to use your body in ways that harm society. Genetic modifications might have implications for other people and not just the fetus.