PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical situation


C'jais
04-04-2003, 06:50 PM
Assume that homosexuality was caused by a specific gene. I know that's not the only cause, but let's assume that for this example.

Now, imagine if you were 25 years old. About to be married to someone you loved. Trying to settle in. Suddenly, your mother phones you to tell something that's been on her conscience for a long time. For as long as you were born, actually.

As it turns out, when you were but a foetus your parents had a genetic test performed on you. It was determined that you were carrying the homosexuality gene. Using experimental gene technology, they were able to prevent that gene from activating, resulting in you becoming the standard heterosexual you are today.

1) How would you react? Would you be grateful that they did this to you, thus sparing you from the possibility of a horrible child hood? Would you be mad and outraged at them for changing what was originally intended to be "you"?

Now, another question pops up. Now it's the future, and you're about to have kids yourself. It's now standard fare to screen your kids if you so choose, and it's been discovered that your child is carrying the homosexuality gene as well.

2) Would you had that removed?

I'm not trying to be homophobic here, or assume that homosexuality is a genetic disease. Just a simple rhetorical question.

EDIT: silly typos

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 07:07 PM
Yes id have it removed, i dont want weird kids and i want grandchildren. Also, homosexuals are.... icky.

El Sitherino
04-04-2003, 07:07 PM
i would screen them so i know. but i wouldnt have it removed. I'd probably teach my kid alot more self defense moves than my other kids though, since i live in texas many hillbillies hate anyone different from them. i worry that my kids might be killed because of it but i wouldnt change it.

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 07:13 PM
you should worry you might be killed too sith.

C'jais
04-04-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
you should worry you might be killed too sith.

Whoah there. We don't want to see any death threats here, understood?

How about question Nr. 1, by the way?

How would you react if faced with the idea that you might have once been homosexual, but your parents intervened from sincere "goodwill"? Good or bad?

Wacky_Baccy
04-04-2003, 07:23 PM
Very interesting situation you present there, Jais... Very interesting :)
Posted by C'jais
As it turns out, when you were but a foetus your parents had a genetic test performed on you. It was determined that you were carrying the homosexuality gene. Using experimental gene technology, they were able to prevent that gene from activating, resulting in you becoming the standard heterosexual you are today.

1) How would you react? Would you be grateful that they did this to you, thus sparing you from the possibility of a horrible child hood? Would you be mad and outraged at them for changing what was originally intended to be "you"?

I'm not really sure how I'd react... I think I'd first of all be shocked, and also a little disappointed that they'd felt the need to 'change' me to make certain that I'd turn out straight... I think that I'd also be glad to some extent, because it would remove one 'opportunity' for people to discriminate against me.

I have a vague feeling that it might well and truly screw my life up, because I'd always wonder what it would've been like to have been allowed to develop 'naturally', and even whether having the 'gene' would've made certain that I'd turn out gay if they'd left me 'as was'...

I'll have to give this a bit more thought, and see what others say, I think :)

[size=0]Now, another question pops up. Now it's the future, and you're about to have kids yourself. It's now standard fare to screen your kids if you so choose, and it's been discovered that your child is carrying the homosexuality gene as well.

2) Would you had that removed?

I'm not trying to be homophobic here, or assume that homosexuality is a genetic disease. Just a simple rhetorical question.I could get oh-so-sociological about this, but I won't now, cause I'd need to do a bit more research and I'm feeling lazy right now :D

Avoiding that route for now, I'm again unsure what I'd do... I think that if I'd coped with it well (being told by my parents), and also if society wasn't particularly tolerant of homosexuals, that I'd probably have it done...

I very much believe in leaving things alone though, so if society was tolerant of homosexuals, I'd leave him/her as is, and allow the child to develop untampered-with - even if I'd 'coped well' with being told by my parents :)

I dunno, maybe that's just me... But then, I am a very odd person :)


:D

*edit*

Ahh, I see we have company already... Good good :)

griff38
04-04-2003, 07:23 PM
C'jais asked, How would you react if faced with the idea that you might have once been homosexual, but your parents intervened from sincere "goodwill"? Good or bad?


I think i would get mad, I have always wanted to be gay anyway.

But seriously,:rolleyes: no, not after that much time had gone by. I don't think it would be so terrible.

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 07:26 PM
EDIT: Please don't go mud-slinging each other here -C'

El Sitherino
04-04-2003, 07:26 PM
EDIT: Same applies to you -C'

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 08:00 PM
actually it might be good to be gay, since in the US you get extra rights, just like if you are black or latino.

Well thats my point of view anyway, i dont think its fair they get money, sometimes democrats annoy me. (democrats arent liberals ive decided, all they want is votes from minorities)'

EDIT: sorry i got this whole post off topic, it was meant to be serious but i kind of turned it into a joke.

Wacky_Baccy
04-04-2003, 08:18 PM
Posted by CagedCrado
actually it might be good to be gay, since in the US you get extra rights, just like if you are black or latino.And why are they given 'extra' rights in some areas? Because people discriminate against them.

Equal rights for ALL people would be SO much better than being biased towards one 'community' in some areas, and discriminating against them in others...

I often wonder why so many people seem unable to realise this =/

Well thats my point of view anyway, i dont think its fair they get money, sometimes democrats annoy me. (democrats arent liberals ive decided, all they want is votes from minorities)'A-ha! Something we can almost agree on :D

I'm a 'liberal', but some of the democrats or their equivalents in Europe really annoy me at times, too.

Probably for different reasons, however, but they annoy me all the same ;)

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 08:25 PM
well where i live basically everybody has equal rights, you can get hired no matter what color or race you are. Most places are like this so the things to benefit other races go waaaay over board, itd be better if all of the programs were cancelled.

Tyrion
04-04-2003, 08:39 PM
I'd be happy, and I'd take it out.

Why? I've learned that it's easier to be blissful, so you'd like females if you had that gene,and since you didnt have any desire to like men, you dont really notice anything different..and you'll face ALOT less hardship early in life.

Edit- and I've never really gotten the idea of "Liberal, Democratic, Republic". To me, it seems nothing more than a label.

ET Warrior
04-04-2003, 08:56 PM
I would be upset that my parents changed me to be who they thought I should be instead of who I was going to be. Although if I were going to be married I would also be thankful because had I been gay i never would have fallen in love with the girl that I did.

No, i would not change the genes of a child of mine who would be gay. I would allow him/her to be the person that they were meant to be.

Eldritch
04-04-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
well where i live basically everybody has equal rights, you can get hired no matter what color or race you are. Most places are like this so the things to benefit other races go waaaay over board, itd be better if all of the programs were cancelled.
What town do you live in? Is it called 'Perfect'? ;)
There will always be people that are subject to discrimination. All we can do is strive towards equal rights. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive, ignoring the facts, or they're part of the very small percentage of people for who this does not apply (this could be you, how should I know?).

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 10:30 PM
Well i live in south dakota, so you are either White/black/latino (if black or latino probably in the air force) and if you are indian you are a drunk or have a job. Everybody who wants a job can have one.
Sounds like equal rights to me. Well there is racism, just not in the work force. There is no room for racism in the work force and it is unacceptable. Really mostly its native americans being prejudice against whites saying you took our land etc (stuff that happened a looong time ago and it wasnt even the settlers that took it) Im not racist, i truly dislike some native americans, yet on the other hand i have friends who are native american, black, latino etc. Its just when they ask for stuff that is more than i have, i think its bull ****, especially if they have no jobs.

Eldritch
04-04-2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
1) How would you react? Would you be grateful that they did this to you, thus sparing you from the possibility of a horrible child hood? Would you be mad and outraged at them for changing what was originally intended to be "you"?

2) Would you had that removed?

Sorry 'jais, forgot to respond to your questions.

1) I'd be shocked, but I wouldn't be upset. I don't know if I would be grateful, but I certainly would be happy I wasn't gay (considering the awful treatment and discrimination they receive).

2) No, I wouldn't change a thing about my kid, so long as he/she was healthy, I wouldn't care what their sexual affiliation is (not really my business anyway, I think).

SkinWalker
04-05-2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Well i live in south dakota, .... and if you are indian you are a drunk or have a job. Everybody who wants a job can have one.
Sounds like equal rights to me.

I sure hope things have changed since 1999 (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sdsac/ch1.htm)

*back to the topic

I don't think I'd change a thing about my unborn child. If there were, indeed, a gene that affected sexual orientation, what would state that that specific characteristic is the only thing affected? Perhaps sexual orientation is the by-product (still hypothetically speaking, of course) of a chemical balance in the brain. Perhaps this same chemical also affects other tendancies and works in conjunction with other chemicals associated with other genes.

Actually, Shadow T. got me thinking along this line of thought in the "Gene for stupidity" thread. I started looking at genetic makeup like a tower of cards. Perhaps there are one or more cards that can be removed or changed that will allow the tower to continue to stand to it's full height, but you really have to take the other cards into consideration when choosing which to manipulate. Admittedly, I'm very ignorant when it comes to genetics (for now), but can't believe anymore that it is as simple as turning off a switch.

As far as the first question is concerned: I would be surprised at the news, but wouldn't regret the decision since heterosexuality is all that I knew. Likewise, if my "parents" were homosexual and manipulated the gene to "turn on" my homosexuality, I would feel the same way. Homosexuality would be all that I knew to be valid.

Hypothetically speaking.

Crowy
04-05-2003, 09:02 AM
well... i tihnk that homosexuality is worng... "we were adam and eve, not adam and steve" i itnhk thats how that old saying goes...

id be greatful htey done it, yet... wondered if i would have been one really if i didnt... is it possible that the gene might be a defect? like its htere but it wasnt going to effect you...

so therefore i would get it removed
cause im an exit only person when it comes to my poo tube

CagedCrado
04-05-2003, 10:02 AM
Anything that the american indians put out like that is lunacy, its a lot like saddam hussein, part truth, all crazy. All they want is money so they complain, plain and simple. Youve not delt with these type of people, dont get me wrong, im not talking about the group as a whole, im just talking about the 50% of them who have jobs 1/10th of the time, complain that they still own the black hills and say that you are racist if you have them do anything... such as tell them to pull up in drive thru for fresh fries or what not, they just whine. Anything wrong with the justice system is actually sad, they make stuff up thats laughable. This so called obstruction of justice is just them being treated like white people and not liking it.

Easily the worst minority by far to me. I am fine with all races but i judge people by how they act, and these people act horribly. You cant walk down the street in some places without an indian saying you took their land 150 years ago.... for all i know some indians killed my great great grandfather who was here in mandatory military service so should i be upset about this?
Trust me, its just whining for money.
Now that ive cleared up somebody looking at the whining and i never shut up side of the story, i will post on number 1

#1: Id be shocked that i had that gene in me to pass down and have it removed from the family line as well, I just want my posterity to have nice normal lives and have wives and some kids. Nothing much to ask for your kids, and i know we all want that for our kids. I might be a little old fashioned or whatever but homosexuals make me gag.

Im just going to open a thread on that.

SkinWalker
04-05-2003, 10:47 AM
You, sir, are a fine representative of bigotry in every sense of the word.

How sad.

ET Warrior
04-05-2003, 11:38 AM
The people you talk about that are lazy and worthless, are NOT lazy or worthless because they are Native Americans. It's because they're lazy.....you'll find people like that in EVERY single ethnic group.
im not talking about the group as a whole, im just talking about the 50% of them

So I'll just assume that you know 5,000 of the 10,000 or so Native Americans in South Dakota then......

SkinWalker
04-05-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
So I'll just assume that you know 5,000 of the 10,000 or so Native Americans in South Dakota then......

Actually it's more like 62, 000. And you made a good point. Generalizations are made based on minimal observations and used to support preconceived expectations.

Zodiac
04-05-2003, 12:23 PM
It amazes me to see people who think homosexuals are 'icky' and make them gag.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being homosexual. I'm glad to be living in a country as progressive as Holland with a society that realises homosexuality isn't some sort of sickness. And when people realize this, they don't treat homosexuals different than any other person. And that's how it should be, because we're all human. Now if we could also get rid of the racists here in Holland, then I'd be 100% happy.

To answer C'jais questions:

1) I'd be pretty upset with my parents for them being so narrow-minded. The excuse for preventing me to have a terrible childhood would be ridiculous, because people don't automatically get teased and terrorised because they're homosexual (well.. at least not in the city where I'm living). And if i were to spent that childhood in a place where they would hate me and discriminate me and give me a very hard time, I'd seriously move away from that society filled with unreasonable hatred.

2) No.

Eldritch
04-05-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Zodiac
1)And if i were to spent that childhood in a place where they would hate me and discriminate me and give me a very hard time, I'd seriously move away from that society filled with unreasonable hatred.
But what would you do if you weren't old enough to move away on your own, and your parents wouldn't move either? A little bit tougher to deal with discrimination when you're forced to by your current circumstances.

Zodiac
04-05-2003, 01:34 PM
Then I'd have to deal with it with the help of the people who are close to me.
I'm coloured so I've already been through a lot of situations where I got discriminated just because I had a different skincolor, and although I don't like it and will never get used to it, you just deal with the fact that there are people on this earth who are just that dumb and you just have to develop a stronger personality with the help of your friends/family, so you don't let the idiots get you down.

ET Warrior
04-06-2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Zodiac
so you don't let the idiots get you down.

.......and if all else fails.....you kill the idiots......;)


But seriously, I don't understand what people have against homosexuals.....i mean......they're still people....and the're not hurthing anybody.....so why treat them like dirt?

Luc Solar
04-06-2003, 04:40 AM
Didn't reead the earlier posts, but:

1) I'd be thankful.

2) I'd get rid of the "gay-gene".


I saw this documentary of deaf people a while back. They were very angry because some deaf parents had decided to give their deaf child a operation that (with the help of some gizmo) made them able to hear.

The reasoning was as simple as it was retarded: "there's nothing wrong with us, we're normal people. Deaf people aren't defective and we can be just as happy as people who are able to hear!"

I mean...jesus! You won't help your own child because that would make you feel "disabled". How disgusting! :mad:

Same thing here - the only question that matters is this:
would it make my childs life better?

The answer is obvious: Yes. My child would be better of not being gay/deaf/blind/schizophrenic/whatever.

The problem is really defining how far one can go. Is it okay to alter the genes to make him smarter? IQ 120? How about an IQ of 220? That would be even better! He'd probably live a great life and benefit the world around him as well. Who draws the line and where?

You don't have to be able to draw the exact fine line between the "no-no's" and the "acceptables" in order to make the call in an individual case. You don't have to know where exactly the line between a slap and assault & battery goes when the victim has a iron bar driven through his skull.

I could not care less about the whole "God intended him to be gay/deaf"-argument if my childs interests are at stake.

BigTeddyPaul
04-06-2003, 04:59 AM
I would have it removed for a few reasons. Clearly the Bible states homosexuality is wrong so therefore according to my own religion I cannot allow my child to be a sin if I have that option. Another reason is because being gay is more often than not a disability in society. They are scorned in life. They are more accepted then they were years ago but there are still too many people who hate gays. My family is included in this. My grandfather HATES gay people and is very outspoken about it. There are other who feel the same way but don't say so publicaly. A third is that I am the last reproducing male of my line so to carry on my families linegage I need reproducing heirs. Stupid but a part of my life.

I do not judge people solely on being gay. I do allow it to reflect a person. An example is that most gay people I know fit the gay stereotype. The males act like females and have high pitched voices that know about clothes and arts fartsy stuff. The women are butch and are rocker types. This seems to be the exception to the rule because when I lived elsewhere these people were around but not prevelant.

So to answer your question yes I would like to have the gay gene modified/removed.

BigTeddyPaul

ioshee
04-08-2003, 03:26 PM
How does a totally ridiculous, hypothetical question qualify as a “serious discussion”?

Well I guess since the moderator started it… :D

So to play along

1. I wouldn’t care because where I like to put my thing doesn’t define “who I am”, and even if it did who cares “who I am” … I sure don’t.

2. I think I might have it removed, but not without adding the gene that gives the kid a third arm. Think of the career opportunities you would have with three arms. I would probably pick drummer of a rock band.

Plus if I ever did have kids I would totally treat them like science experiments anyway. Training two of them in different ways to test genetic vs. environment effects, making them wear weird jumpsuits in public, time depravation... stuff like that. So gene altering would definitely not be out of the question.

El Sitherino
04-08-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
.......and if all else fails.....you kill the idiots......;)
w3rd

ZBomber
04-08-2003, 09:24 PM
Well, you couldn't have a tormented childhood. I read that children can not be sure of their sexuality until they are like 13...But anywayz.....
1) I would be happy. I don't want to be gay, not that there is anythign wrogn with them though. They are just like you and me, and they leave more girls for us to choose form :D
2) Well, I would talk it over with my wife. But I think I would, because children often make fun of gay adults.

daring dueler
04-08-2003, 09:47 PM
although when you are a child your sexuality isnt known yet, homosexual tendencies show when you are young , thus being made fun of, alot.

ET Warrior
04-08-2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by ioshee
How does a totally ridiculous, hypothetical question qualify as a “serious discussion”?

Somebody seems a little bitter that they got their thread moved...........:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I don't understand why you're having trouble that your thread which wasn't a serious discussion was moved while the threads that are serious remain...........................................

It wasn't even closed or anything......they just sent it to the swamp....you can still post in it there........

ioshee
04-09-2003, 09:57 AM
I said that because I didn’t know hypothetical situation threads were allowed here. It opens the door to some interesting thread possibilities. I’m glad to see that most people here are sticking to the terms of the hypothetical instead of arguing whether or not it is possible (as C’Jais did when I gave him a hypothetical situation in another thread.)

I understand why they moved my thread and I’m cool with that. There does seem to be a rather subjective view of what the word “serious” means on this forum. I’m just trying to question the system.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -George Bernard Shaw

Pisces
04-09-2003, 11:20 PM
No, I wouldn't be angry because they'd have saved me from what very possibly could've been an extremely miserable childhood

and

Yes, I'd have them screened and have the gene removed. I have nothing against anyone's who's homosexual (I know a couple people who are, nothing wrong with them) but I wouldn't want my kid to suffer in his childhood.

Darth Groovy
04-09-2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Im not racist, i truly dislike some native americans,

WTF? You just contradicted yourself in the same post. Maybe you are not a racist, but you sure are an angry young man.

BTW, Gay people are not "Icky", I don't think sexual preference should earn you such a label. I am a christian, and in the bible it is wrong to engage in sexual relations among members of the same sex. But this is a world of evil we live in, there is nothing we can do to change the world, it is how we live in it that counts. Also, I may not agree with a gay man's sexual preference, but I find it rude for me to condem him to a fate he has already chosen, or had chosen for him, depending on how you look at it. I have had gay freinds, they respected me for being heterosexual, and I returned the favor by respecting their sexual preferences as well. None of them ever made any kind of advances on me, and turned out to be some pretty trustworthy freinds.

Now back to C's question.

1) I would be very shocked, maybe even disturbed. Not sure if I would even tell my wife, but maybe someone in a professional field.

2) I really do not know how I would react, but If I had kids, I would probably do the same thing, because I would want grandchildren too, and also based on my religious beliefs.

ShockV1.89
04-10-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Luc Solar

Same thing here - the only question that matters is this:
would it make my childs life better?

The answer is obvious: Yes. My child would be better of not being gay/deaf/blind/schizophrenic/whatever.

The problem is really defining how far one can go. Is it okay to alter the genes to make him smarter? IQ 120? How about an IQ of 220? That would be even better! He'd probably live a great life and benefit the world around him as well. Who draws the line and where?

You don't have to be able to draw the exact fine line between the "no-no's" and the "acceptables" in order to make the call in an individual case. You don't have to know where exactly the line between a slap and assault & battery goes when the victim has a iron bar driven through his skull.


Luc, you should watch the movie "Gattaca." Deals with this subject very well, in addition to being a very good movie.

BigTeddyPaul
04-10-2003, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by ZBomber
I read that children can not be sure of their sexuality until they are like 13

A little worried there for a minute Z? Welcome to the sexual awareness group.


Originally posted by ZBomber
I don't want to be gay, not that there is anythign wrogn with them though.

This whole thread and mainly this post by Z sounds an awfully much like a certain episode with a certain actress named Paula Marshall. (EDIT: Forgot the most important part - a certain episode of Seinfeld)

BigTeddyPaul

Darth Groovy
04-10-2003, 08:53 AM
Or "Seinfeld".

Bonedemon
04-10-2003, 10:43 AM
This raises the entire ethical debate about whether or not we should manipulate genes just because we can.

I´m divided on this. Introducing genetically manipulated genes into the genepool of mankind is something I am very wary to do. What would happen to evolution? Is it the next step or is it pushing it aside? What will happen after a couple of generations and so on.

On the other hand it will probably benefit the blind/Schizos/deaf/whatever.

1:I´d feel weird, like I am not exactly what I was supposed to, but It would dissapear rather quickly. Not grateful, or anything else for that matter. Perhaps I´d be angry on them for them thinking me to be wrong

2:No, they are born that way. That´s the way I will love them.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-14-2003, 09:40 AM
What the Heck?

I'd be furious with the f****ing immature.

There's nothing wrong with being it in the first place. That's what bothers me about today's society. It's not "you like other girls, so what", it's "you like other girls, but let's treat you as if there's nothing wrong with you". Same goes for races, fetishes, foreigners, accents, foreign religions, handicapped people, you name it.

It's not a bad thing in the first place, it's part of life. You're not going to "protect" the people from something that's not bad in the first place. My school is pretty mature about it (I know this girl who likes boys and girls, and everyone is fine with it).

It's not about protecting people from facism. It's about stopping prejudice and facism itself. Altering genes like that should not be legal. Period.

*Reads rest of thread*

Okay, someone here have issues.

People like LucSolar: Although we have freedom of religion, bullying, discriminating against, and proscecuting people who like the same people as they are themselves is against US laws. You can't force your kid to be "normal" because of some religion. It's not about your freedom of religion, it's about his freedom of religion.

Adam and Steve
Of course he didn't or humans would not have reproduced.

But does that mean that everyone who was not like Adam and Eve are going to Hell? Then get a life.

"Homoesexuality is bad"

Uh... right.
It doesn't make you different, it's just who you like. It doesn't affect you at all if some girl likes another girl instead of some other boy.

The problem is on your side here. It's like segregating in the 60's because "light and dark couldn't go together"..you're different in a way, too, everyone are, wheter or not you realize it.



About the deafs: Well, they are probably right. If I figured out I was going to have a telepath gene, but my parents didn't help me have it, I wouldn't be mad.

Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people.

Luc Solar
04-14-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
There's nothing wrong with being it in the first place. That's what bothers me about today's society.

There are problems with being gay. Factual problems. And I'm not only talking about the fact that you can't reproduce (which happens to be perhaps only the most important thing in life), I'm talking about the way it affects your life because of how the world treats you.

Saying "well...the world is wrong" doesn't help. The world is what it is period


It's not a bad thing in the first place, it's part of life. You're not going to "protect" the people from something that's not bad in the first place.

I'm sure you're totally fine with "not being able to reproduce" and "men having sex with men" but you must realize that the world we are living in isn't. This is reality, not a naive fairytale.

People like LucSolar: Although we have freedom of religion, bullying, discriminating against, and proscecuting people who like the same people as they are themselves is against US laws. You can't force your kid to be "normal" because of some religion. It's not about your freedom of religion, it's about his freedom of religion.

:eyeraise: :confused: Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say. That I should let my unborn child him/herself make the decision about whether or not he wants to be born gay 20 years after being born?? Religion?


"Homoesexuality is bad". Uh... right. It doesn't make you different, it's just who you like. It doesn't affect you at all if some girl likes another girl instead of some other boy.

You're not taking into consideration the world we're living in (once again). It does not matter what *you* think. It's completely irrelevant. Homosexuality DOES make you different. How else can you explain the ****ty treatment gays get? They are often seen and treated as "sinners" or "freaks" or whatever. If something causes the world to hate you, then you are indeed different. You're hated and discriminated against because you are gay. It's as simple as that.

About the deafs: Well, they are probably right.
Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people.

OMG! Are you serious? "Letting my baby hear will make ME feel like there's something wrong with ME, so I won't help my child."

NEWSFLASH: You're f'king deaf! THERE *IS* SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU. YOU CAN NOT HEAR!

If I would go blind right now I'd sure as hell have a problem. A blind person can not see. Seeing makes your life easier and more enjoyable. Seeing = a positive thing, Blindness = negative thing. Being blind = being disabled.

I have nothing against homosexuals. I know a few and they're all ok. I treat them no differently than heterosexuals. That's one thing. Another thing is that they're life would definetly be easier and happier if they could reproduce, have children, a normal family, a NORMAL LIFE.

What defines "normal"? The world we live in, that's what. A deaf person could live a happy life... but if the world was such that everyone would keep spitting on him because he's an "disgusting invalid", then I sure as hell would not wish that my own child was deaf.

This crap about "accepting people the way the are"... :mad: It's SO NOT RELEVANT!

If my child turns out gay...fine. I won't be getting any grandsons, but hey - I'll love him just the same. (But if I could, I'd definitely take out that gene. My childs best interest is my priority, not some vague philosophy of life.)

ShockV1.89
04-14-2003, 01:17 PM
Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people.

All the other stuff you said is up for debate (if a bit naive), but this... I laughed quite hard at this one.

Cosmos Jack
04-15-2003, 01:55 AM
If being Homosexuality was caused by a gene. Than it is a terrible evolutionary flaw. Up there with being fat, balding, and getting cancer.. What better way for a species to go extinct than to get its poles crossed... :lol:

For that matter I think being gay is a choice people make regardless of what they say.. People choose one way or the other for whatever reason...It's easier to pan it off as "I was born this way" than to set down and explain why...If you think and tell other you were born that way. Than you release yourself from being at fault for being at odds with society...

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years... The Greeks and the Romans were openly homosexual and it was excepted as normal as being heterosexual maybe even more so. Alexander the Great was gay... Doesn't mean it's logical and in humanities best interest, but it's a free country and people can do what they want in their privet lives..

Wacky_Baccy
04-15-2003, 09:48 AM
Posted by Cosmos Jack
If being Homosexuality was caused by a gene. Than it is a terrible evolutionary flaw. Up there with being fat, balding, and getting cancer.. What better way for a species to go extinct than to get its poles crossed... :lol:I've always wondered about that... I'm tempted to think myself that it's a naturally evolved way of reducing [localised] over-population, but that's probably just me... :)
For that matter I think being gay is a choice people make regardless of what they say.Answer me this:

What person in their right mind would choose to put themselves in a minority group which is regularly discriminated against by a lot of people, which often has to pay coinsiderably more for life and medical insurance (often for no good reason but the unfounded fear of the company selling it), which isn't entitled to the same civil rights as the 'straight' majority group, and which is shunned by large swathes of society for being different?
People choose one way or the other for whatever reason...It's easier to pan it off as "I was born this way" than to set down and explain why...If you think and tell other you were born that way. Than you release yourself from being at fault for being at odds with society...Have you ever considered that they might not know how to "explain why" because they were born that way? Can you explain why you're attracted to women and not men?

Gay people (and heterosexual people, for that matter!) can not help what their sexual orientation is - a gay person no more 'chooses' to be gay than a straight person chooses to be straight.
Alexander the Great was gay... Doesn't mean it's logical and in humanities best interest, but it's a free country and people can do what they want in their privet lives.. I'm glad you think that :)

Bonedemon
04-15-2003, 10:58 AM
Long ago I read an article about sexuality in a pop-science magazine(therefore I can´t credit it, sorry). It was a about some research done in sexuality and it´s nature. It did describe sexuality as a "floating" thing. It cold change as fast as in 6 weeks. Therefore you could be gay for ½ year and afterwards "reverse" to heterosexuality.

SkinWalker
04-15-2003, 12:05 PM
I think it is more to do with chemical releases and re-uptakes in the brain than with genetics. Seratonin and endorphines, for instance. These same reward processes tell us what our favorite ice cream is, drive us to jump out of airplanes, and even remind us of unpleasant experiences like foods that we have revulsions for.

With 6 billion people in the world and the rich unwilling to share the wealth, perhaps homosexuality in a minor percentage of the population is a good thing... exponential increase in world population is bound to create problems for the future.

Wacky_Baccy
04-15-2003, 02:15 PM
Posted by Bonedemon
Long ago I read an article about sexuality in a pop-science magazine(therefore I can´t credit it, sorry). It was a about some research done in sexuality and it´s nature. It did describe sexuality as a "floating" thing. It cold change as fast as in 6 weeks. Therefore you could be gay for ½ year and afterwards "reverse" to heterosexuality. Of course sexuality isn't fixed, just as much as it isn't a simple black and white area (or black, white and grey for that matter). That 6-week figure sounds highly suspect to me, although I can see how it could possibly be more accurate if applied to an infant...

I don't believe for one second that a gay person can become straight in 6 weeks (or at all), but nor do I believe that it's impossible for a gay person to be genuinely attracted to someone of the opposite sex, just as a heterosexual person might be (and vice versa on both points).


This thread has actually got me thinking about a lot of things, and has made me look at familiar points from different angles, so I think I like it more now than I did before :D

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 02:39 PM
On the causes of homosexuality: Scientific American (www.sciam.com (which is by the way damn slow today)) had a few paragraphs about an experiment where scientists altered the environment of some fruit flies ever so slightly (I seem to remember that they heated it up a bit). This caused the functions that normally put the males off courting other males to cut off, making them bisexual. It was, however, turned on again when their environment was reset.

But for the life of me, I can't seem to be able to find the article, so don't pin me on the heat thing...

As for C'Jais' question:

#1: Who knows? Who honestly knows how he/she would respond to shocks? Can you tell me how you would react if the bank that you work in was robbed? If your mother/father/girlfriend/boyfriend/brother/sister/someone else to whom you are emotionally attatched/all of the above was run over by a car and killed? No. And this has been very well-documented, as there, unfortunately, is a very rich source of data to be mined on the subject.

#2: I wouldn't even get the problem in the first place: I am against such through-and-through scans (or rather access to the results) for a number of reasons, all of which are better discussed elsewhere. Scanning for specific attributes is OK, but homosexuality is not one of those that I'd want to get a read on.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
I sure hope things have changed since 1999 (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sdsac/ch1.htm)

Always on the spot with the facts... You could sell a newspaper on that, Skin...

I didn't read it all through (I know, Mortal Sin #8), but I did check the 'home' site: The US Civil Rights Commission, and read the first few lines, and based on that, I'd say that Skin is right.

ChagedCrado: Like far too many people on these boards you suffer from what's by professionals called 'confirmation bias' (a quick browse of the Evolution/Creation thread should point out quite a few fundamentalists that suffer from the same problem), that is you see only what you want to. Curiously, I have a feeling that there is a strong correlation between fundamentalism and this disorder, though which way the contingency goes is a matter better discussed in another thread.

The answer is obvious: Yes. My child would be better of not being gay/deaf/blind/schizophrenic/whatever.

You cannot place homosexuality in the same group as diseases/disabilities, because it clearly is not.

The problem is really defining how far one can go. Is it okay to alter the genes to make him smarter? IQ 120? How about an IQ of 220? That would be even better! He'd probably live a great life and benefit the world around him as well. Who draws the line and where?

The crux of the matter indeed. But, to take your example, infact an IQ of much above average wouldn't neccesairily change its life for the better. There is (to my knowledge at the time of writing) little or no correlation between IQ and quality of life (though a high IQ could mean that it chooses a wierd hobby and gets bullied for it/gets a better job because it exploited its talents/ect).

Regarding the IQ question I am reminded of a quote from the Harry Potter books: "It's not the gifts that we are born with that determine who we are, it is what we choose to do with those gifts." - Dumbledore. I think that this quote says it all.

How does a totally ridiculous, hypothetical question qualify as a “serious discussion”?

Well, look at the thread, and see if you disagree... It is en ethical question, as much as a rational one. And since ethics are completely disentangled from petty facts (as we see with many 'soul-claiming' anti-abortionists), it will make (has made) for a serious and entertaining debate. And I'm pleased to see that it's been (almost) devoid of mudslinging...

I’m just trying to question the system.

And in comes the Skeptic. Hurrah for that! And by the way, did you guys know that Hurrah is actually derived from an Arabian battlecry meaning 'kill them'?

*Back to topic.*

About the deafs: Well, they are probably right. If I figured out I was going to have a telepath gene, but my parents didn't help me have it, I wouldn't be mad.

Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people.

They can live well, true, but the community that they can live in is very small. Because unlike homosexuals, they have a hard time even communicating with non-deaf people, because 'hearers' will have to learn an entirely new language (sign-language) in order to say anything to them, and, in most cases, 'hear' what they 'say'.

Saying "well...the world is wrong" doesn't help. The world is what it is period

While resignation can go a long way in many walks of life, it has never abolished any kind of discrimination.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Cosmos Jack
If being Homosexuality was caused by a gene. Than it is a terrible evolutionary flaw. Up there with being fat, balding, and getting cancer.. What better way for a species to go extinct than to get its poles crossed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've always wondered about that... I'm tempted to think myself that it's a naturally evolved way of reducing [localised] over-population, but that's probably just me...

It's not an evolutionary flaw, and this is not an evolutionary thread...

But anyway: The part of it that is genetic (because some part is for sure, we just don't know how much), is presumably a combination of several genes, much like the carcinogenic genes, making it fairly hard to select against, or a gene flaw, making it impossible to select against.

With 6 billion people in the world and the rich unwilling to share the wealth, perhaps homosexuality in a minor percentage of the population is a good thing... exponential increase in world population is bound to create problems for the future.

Lol. Good point, but it's probably not significant to global population...

This thread has actually got me thinking about a lot of things, and has made me look at familiar points from different angles, so I think I like it more now than I did before

A good thing, as this is exactly the point of a rational discussion... And to those of you saying that the purpose is 'to convince the other guy': Well, if you're right, then a broad enough perspective will reaffirm your knowledge, and convince 'the other guy'.

Whew, that's my two Eurocents... Or rather two Euro, judging by the size of the thing...

Luc Solar
04-15-2003, 04:13 PM
:eek: You quoted.......Dumbledore???? :confused:

I'm not sure that is allowed in here.... C'jais?


:D :p

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Luc Solar
:eek: You quoted.......Dumbledore???? :confused:

To illustrate, not to prove, mind... If you say that 'you should not kill, because verse this-and-that of the Bible tells you not to', then it would be out of order, but if you said: 'Random killing destabilizes society and is therefore bad,' and then quoted the verse to illustrate what you meant, it wouldn't be lame, only a little over-zealous.

BTW: I'm glad to see that someone read at least half of the post.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-16-2003, 12:06 AM
There are problems with being gay. Factual problems. And I'm not only talking about the fact that you can't reproduce (which happens to be perhaps only the most important thing in life), I'm talking about the way it affects your life because of how the world treats you.

Saying "well...the world is wrong" doesn't help. The world is what it is period

I've been there. I've even been bullied for it. I know how it feels, simple as that. But the world can be changed. People can be made more mature. And at the high school I go to, the majority is fine with it and except from some people, religious fundamentals, mostly, there isn't a problem with teasing for it or anything.

Hmmmm... maybe life would be easier. But I don't feel it's right to change people like that. Let's say we DO change DNA like that. Then, say, what about kids who can't afford this threatment and end up liking people of their own gender? Then not only will they be different, but also.. how also "sick" in a way, because they would be looked at as "those who something went wrong with during birth".

Let's say that 50 years ago, we started being able to isolate the gene that makes you lame. So all the kids you see in wheelchairs today really are kids who couldn't afford or for some other reason couldn't get that treatment.

Wouldn't you look even more down at them for that?

Oh, and we should isolate the gene that caused you to become lame too:). Just giving an example of something that everyone would consider "a bad thing", just to give you an idea of how anti-homosexuals think about homosexuals.

You're not taking into consideration the world we're living in (once again). It does not matter what *you* think. It's completely irrelevant. Homosexuality DOES make you different. How else can you explain the ****ty treatment gays get?
Hmmm.. so it's different. But again, the world can change.

OMG! Are you serious? "Letting my baby hear will make ME feel like there's something wrong with ME, so I won't help my child."
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Silver:).

LOL, when I wrote that, I thought, "people will think that's so stupid, I should have elaborated". So let's rephrase, 'cause I agree, that sounded silly :p.

All I'm saying is I see their point. To them, hearing is a sense they cannot understand and thus can live without, kind of like flying to us. If 95% of the population could fly, and you couldn't, you'd feel slightly "low" when you heard people were altering DNA (although you'd know it was right), wouldn't you? Along with those feelings of "yay, good for them", and "look at how our health technology has advanced", you'd have this feeling of "boy, now people are gonna feel even more sorry for me."

I'm not AT ALL saying it's wrong to alter DNA to prevent deafness. All I'm saying is that they don't have a problem with being deaf, but at the world feeling sorry for them for being it. To them, that is deregatory, for obvious reasons. If they weren't BORN deaf and knew what hearing was like, it'd be different, but for them, it's not something they need because they can't know what it is in the first place, so it's hard to explain to them how much it can improve your life. Like vikings not missing computers, because they couldn't know what computers were.

It's hard to explain, but I hope you got it:)?

Lol. Good point, but it's probably not significant to global population...
I've actually thought about that too. What if it's the same as that Chinese law that taxates your second child? Sounds bad, but it prevents overpopulation? Oh, I know, it's not likely:).

But what if the human mind simply doesn't work like other animal minds? What if human love evolved not with this whole reproduction thing in mind, but more like "lets' be together with someone"?

Humans are the only animal that cry too (I think), so I don't think you should generalize that way.

munik
04-16-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Let's say that 50 years ago, we started being able to isolate the gene that makes you lame.That's funny. Horses go lame, or other livestock. People, well, people get crippled or something like that. It's just different words, but it makes me laugh, as I've never heard anyone use 'lame' in this sense for a person, just livestock.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm not AT ALL saying it's wrong to alter DNA to prevent deafness. All I'm saying is that they don't have a problem with being deaf, but at the world feeling sorry for them for being it. To them, that is deregatory, for obvious reasons. If they weren't BORN deaf and knew what hearing was like, it'd be different, but for them, it's not something they need because they can't know what it is in the first place, so it's hard to explain to them how much it can improve your life. Like vikings not missing computers, because they couldn't know what computers were.There's this guy, a customer where I work, and he's deaf. I'm guessing deaf from birth by his inability to talk, he just makes some funny noises when he gets excited. Anyhow, I deal cards out and it doesn't take much communication, as the cards read for themselves, but every now and then this gentleman misses something, or I go too fast for him. So, he tries to communicate with me, and as I do not know any sign language, and he can't speak except for funny noises, there is some difficulty. Also, this difficulty is greatly multiplied by the fact that I usually go too fast for him on purpose, or do something quick when he isn't paying attention. So, when he bangs the table to get my attention, or points to this or that, or just starts tooting or whatever noise it is he makes, I either a)Give him a blank stare, b)Not make eye contact, or c)Look at him, but shrug my shoulders and act as if I have no idea what he wants. This is all because I'm an assh*le, and there isn't much excitement in an eight hour shift so you gotta amuse yourself somehow. Now, the point here is, while this gentleman may have been born deaf, and he has no idea what it is like to hear, or doesn't know what he's missing, or even if he doesn't have a problem with being deaf, I'm willing to bet a years salary that at those moments he'd trade his left nut just to be able to hear.

ZBomber
04-18-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
A little worried there for a minute Z? Welcome to the sexual awareness group.




This whole thread and mainly this post by Z sounds an awfully much like a certain episode with a certain actress named Paula Marshall. (EDIT: Forgot the most important part - a certain episode of Seinfeld)

BigTeddyPaul

Yeh, I got that quote on my computer:
"I'm not gay.... Not that theres anything wrong with it..." :p

And no, I'm not worried. I like girls. :p