Homosexuality Will Cease to Exist Someday

[N35t0r]

Yeah, easier was not the right choice of word. In any case, we have become increasingly more tolerant, as a whole.

[N35t0r]

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?

Those who believe humans should not meddle into such things? I'm pretty sure that for almost anything that exists (and for many things that don't), there's a group somewhere that's against it.

[Aeson]

No. What he's saying is that people who are homosexual lead less happy lives due to the fact that they are homosexual, and therefore parents, who typically prefer their children to be happy, would elect to have heterosexual children if given the option.

"Thus we should conclude that if we were given a button that would turn all children born henceforth straight, we ought to press the button." - Kuci on homosexual eugenics

Learn to read

His evidence is in the form of the overwhelming amount of empirical data surrounding the comparative happiness of heterosexual and homosexual people.

If it's overwhelming then surely you can quantify the effect on the overall welfare of humanity due to homosexuality existing. Then we can compare this to the cost of eradicating homosexuality via various methods to come to a conclusion as to whether it should be done or not. This is the standard utility argument Kuci makes in regards to everything. He's just too scared to follow through on it in this case because it is a foregone conclusion that his evidence is not strong enough to support his arguments, and that any quantification he makes is either going to illustrate how weak his "evidence" is, or make him look like an inhuman monster.

[Kuciwalker]

If it's overwhelming than surely you can quantify the effect

This just doesn't follow.

Guys, ignore Aeson. He's doing his usual retreat into absurdities and non sequiters. He does this every time he is conclusively refuted.

[N35t0r]

The most probably future outcome is that both a pill to reverse homosexuality in those already born, and a test to screen for it and fix it in the unborn would exist. Obviously no parent is going to choose not to go with the treatment. There will be those die hards who are overly idealistic and naive, but those children would more than likely take the pill at the first opportunity. That just leaves those who are already in relationships and who have "come to accept themselves" or are the type who "like themselves as they are." Since they are not immortal, they will die off in time. You're looking at about 50 years or so before homosexuality would be completely eradicated, and I would suspect that it would become a rarity in the first 10 years. News stories someday might do stories on that rare homosexual who refuses to change.

I think it depends on how far away it is... Maybe by the time it becomes technologically possible, homosexuality won't be a social stigma (strong enough) to warrant the treatment.

[Aeson]

In related trolling, who among those who immediately found the OP abhorrent happens to also be pro-choice at the same time? To those in that subcategory, isn't that fetus just a parasitic lump of cells that can be aborted or modified anytime before birth? Who are you to tell a mother what to do with her own body? tsk tsk

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.)

[Aeson]

In related trolling, who among those who immediately found the OP abhorrent happens to also be pro-choice at the same time? To those in that subcategory, isn't that fetus just a parasitic lump of cells that can be aborted or modified anytime before birth? Who are you to tell a mother what to do with her own body? tsk tsk

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.)

[N35t0r]

Also, what Aeson said.

[Aeson]

If it's overwhelming than surely you can quantify the effect

This just doesn't follow.

Yes it does. Overwhelming evidence to support your eugenics policy would have to show that the cost of the eugenics policy was less than the benefits derived from it. Otherwise there is no evidence to support your assertions that humanity would be better off without gays.

Guys, ignore Aeson. He's doing his usual retreat into absurdities and non sequiters. He does this every time he is conclusively refuted.

Keep running *****.

Quantify the harm you are referencing. You have referenced your "evidence" that has lead you to the conclusion that we should eliminate homosexuality if we can. I simply want to know how much utility we can expect this change to create in your eyes so we can properly weight the costs vs rewards.

[DaShi]

Oh, so you know the whole conversation then too?

A shame you are too stupid to talk to.

[DriXnaK]

You're making the assumption that people would take the pill due to social pressure and a lack of a feeling of acceptance. The reason they would take the pill is because there are things you can experience by being straight that you can't by being homosexual. Humans by nature wish to conform with what they feel is the natural way things should be. When everyone around you is straight and you are the only one who is homosexual, you can't honestly believe you would rather remain homosexual if you had the choice between the two. There should be bounds to idealist stupidity.

[Aeson]

The reason they would take the pill is because there are things you can experience by being straight that you can't by being homosexual.

There are things you can experience by being homosexual that you can't by being straight.

Humans by nature wish to conform with what they feel is the natural way things should be. When everyone around you is straight and you are the only one who is homosexual, you can't honestly believe you would rather remain homosexual if you had the choice between the two. There should be bounds to idealist stupidity.

Not everyone is a conformist sheep. There are plenty of examples of non-conformist (in relation to the "normal" you are referencing) individuals and communities who opt for that non-conformity. (I'll just note that it can itself be a type of conformity. You seem to be under the delusion that there is some sort of absolute "norm" that everyone would view as "norm".)

[N35t0r]

You're making the assumption that people would take the pill due to social pressure and a lack of a feeling of acceptance. The reason they would take the pill is because there are things you can experience by being straight that you can't by being homosexual.

Excuse me while I LOL at this.

Humans by nature wish to conform with what they feel is the natural way things should be. When everyone around you is straight and you are the only one who is homosexual, you can't honestly believe you would rather remain homosexual if you had the choice between the two. There should be bounds to idealist stupidity.

Yeah, that's why everybody goes around with the same haircut, dressed in the same way, rooting for the same teams and loving the same sport...

[Uncle Sparky]

If ******** trolls like Drixnak accepted homos as equals, they might be surprised /shocked at how many gays are out there.

[DriXnaK]

Who says I don't see homosexuals as equals? My argument is simply that if they could be straight, the majority of them would probably choose to do so. I expect fat people and communists to take this route. Please, continue.