BreedingOut Homosexuality in Humans

[life]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087- 2524408,00.html

"It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch."

Is this good or bad? As with most of science, what is is. Whether it's good or bad won't stop the research.

What I find interesting is what I predict to be a hypocritical position in the group that would consider this bad. I suspect that the group that opposes a woman's right to cure her fetus of homosexuality would support a woman's right to an abortion. In essence, if motherhood will be too inconvenient, then killing the fetus is supported. However, if raising a gay child will be too inconvenient, "curing" its homosexuality is still opposed.

If abortion is legal, then certainly curing homosexuality in the womb should be also. Is there a circle to be squared here?

[Kev-o]

Why can't this world just accept other human beings?

[TrickySoup]

Homosexuality isn't a disease, you can't cure it.

[Elfer]

I have no moral opposition to this, but from a utilitarian standpoint, getting rid of homosexuals is a bad idea.

[ZagmenO]

I gotta say I support abortion as a woman's right to choose. However, being gay should be the the person's right. Curing homosexuality is just stupid.

[SkyCube]

At 1/13/07 10:59 AM, ZagmenO wrote: I gotta say I support abortion as a woman's right to choose. However, being gay should be the the person's right. Curing homosexuality is just stupid.

You could also argue that if being gay is the persons right, so is being alive...

Although I doubt the religious right will support this either, as that would mean admitting that homosexuality is something you are born with, not a choice in later life.

[Freemind]

I think the world needs MORE homosexuals. More babies would be adopted, it would help ease overpopulation in the future. It is a win-win.

[qygibo]

I'd think that accepting homosexuality would result in fewer instances of passing the gene along, if there is a gene. A great many times you see people who later admit to being homosexual who got married and had children because it was the proper thing to do, and it was a good thing for their image, and so on.

[Memorize]

Bad: altering... sort of.

Good: It could get rid of all the constant bickering over homosexuality.

I'm not homophobic, but I don't see what the big deal is with it. It doesn't seem like it should be anywhere as contraversal as abortion in any way. But, i'll wait it out.

Tho that is ironic if liberals do complain about it.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/13/07 11:06 AM, Freemind wrote: I think the world needs MORE homosexuals. More babies would be adopted, it would help ease overpopulation in the future. It is a win-win.

True. But I think the reasons a parent would abort a homosexual baby would be either because they're opposed to homosexuality or because they don't want the hardships that come with being homosexual in a world with so much opposition to it.

What I would be afraid of is government-mandated abortion of gay babies.... which could lead to government-mandated abortion of other people they might consider "undesirables". Basically eugenics would be an issue.

[Memorize]

At 1/13/07 01:04 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

What I would be afraid of is government-mandated abortion of gay babies.... which could lead to government-mandated abortion of other people they might consider "undesirables". Basically eugenics would be an issue.

They're not aborting the "gay fetus", they're altering its hormonal balance so it doesn't grow up a homosexual.

[Denta]

I say, let them be gay. Don't be a fucking Mengele and use money that could've for example go to charity to rescue a child from starvation instead of using that money to just increase the Nazistic intolerant in the world. And by adopting the babies to other countrys just because it's gay, we could just say that Hitler won his fight against diffrences. The gay part, that is.

And if my son will been gay? I DON'T CARE, as long as he'll be happy with it. Plus if you're worried that your line will die out, get more kids, the one that's gay doesn't have to be alone, plus the other kids doesn't have to be gay just because one is.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

This is like abortion or stem cell research. It’s going to be very two sided.

My line of thinking is if they do that then why not use genetic research to change the entire baby. Make it have blue eyes, make it grow to 5ft 11", make it have lots of testosterone so it will do sports, and even decide what sex.

When/if I have a child, I wouldn’t even want to know what sex it is let alone change it.

[Memorize]

At 1/13/07 02:28 PM, Denta wrote: I say, let them be gay. Don't be a fucking Mengele and use money that could've for example go to charity

Great. You know those billions of dollars we waste on space travel? Or those billions we used to create a pen that could write in space. Could've all went to charity!

[Denta]

At 1/13/07 03:14 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/13/07 02:28 PM, Denta wrote: I say, let them be gay. Don't be a fucking Mengele and use money that could've for example go to charity

Great. You know those billions of dollars we waste on space travel? Or those billions we used to create a pen that could write in space. Could've all went to charity!

Precisely, and these surveys of Mars to claim that there's water there? What does that prove, that there IS aliens?! Like, good fucking morning.

[Denta]

At 1/13/07 03:16 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:

At 1/13/07 10:22 AM, Kev-o wrote: Why can't this world just accept other human beings?

You can say that for everyone.

Why can't the world accept necrophiliacs?

Since it's moraly wrong to RAPE a dead body.

Why can't the world accept transgenders?

Since the US is full of religious assholes. Lots of people are actually smart, but most is blind and follows religion with full heart.

Why can't the world accept retards?

Since the US government can't accept someone who can't help the US any further to globilazation.

Why can't the world accept pedophiles?

Since it's both moraly and phsycicaly wrong to RAPE kids.

So much more sympathy is given to gays than anyone else.

That's because gays are with gays, twerp. Gays doesn't rape small boys, that's the pedo's job. And you're just increasing the intolerance in the world by comparing gays with necrophiles and pedophiles.

[JakeHero]

So, it's a question of who's right outweights the others. Gay rights or women's rights. This should be an interesting battle.

[Denta]

At 1/13/07 03:30 PM, BanditByte wrote: So, it's a question of who's right outweights the others. Gay rights or women's rights. This should be an interesting battle.

Both rights are equally important, that's why they both should be taken seriously.

[Ravariel]

At 1/13/07 03:30 PM, BanditByte wrote: So, it's a question of who's right outweights the others. Gay rights or women's rights. This should be an interesting battle.

In all honesty, I actually have no idea where I stand on this issue. I have always been torn about possible genetic engineering of humans... the question about whether it's right for us to decide for someone else what his or here mental/physical/sexual characteristics might be. But then again, if we make them "better" where's there room to complain? If we make their life easier what's the problem? At the same time, what constitutes "better"? Dealing with the social stigma of homosexuality is often a very rewarding part of a person's social growth. And why would we feel the need to remove what is a completely insignificant "problem" from a person?

Interesting battle indeed.

Nevermind the resultant questions of possibly being able to choose other things about our child, like hair color, physical prowess, mental acuity, etc...

[Idiosyncratic]

They can't do this. Now any dance artist will have a huge drop in sales within the next decade.

[Draconias]

At 1/13/07 04:24 PM, Ravariel wrote: In all honesty, I actually have no idea where I stand on this issue. I have always been torn about possible genetic engineering of humans... the question about whether it's right for us to decide for someone else what his or here mental/physical/sexual characteristics might be.

Form what I understand, the prevailing view of how homosexuality is introduced during pregnancy is when the mother's immune system attacks the child, damaging its development. Direct evidence has been found for this occurring, but not for a gene or any other heritable characteristic. Considering that situation, it is entirely just for doctors to prevent the mother from injuring the child and damaging its development.

[StealthBeast]

homsexuality is either:

A: A choice.

B: A mutation.

if it's a mutation, then there isn't really much science can do to prevent it. If it's a choice, then whatever.

But it's not genetical....

theres not a "gay" gene. if there was, it wouldn't be possible for the gay gene to get spread because DURR they cant reproduce...

[StealthBeast]

At 1/13/07 10:59 AM, ZagmenO wrote: I gotta say I support abortion as a woman's right to choose. However, being gay should be the the person's right. Curing homosexuality is just stupid.

wow... that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

First off, if homsexuality can be cured, it should be, because if it can be "cured" then it was obviousl a bad thing to begin with. if it can't be cured, which i'm sure it can't, then it's not a bad thing.

Secondly... If there s a "gay" gene that turns a person gay... then shouldn't it be removed? theres not much good to being gay. their sexual practices are generally less convinient then hetero practices (due to the fact that the human body wasn't designed to be gay). Not to mention sodomy isn't sanitary. So if being gay is a bad thing, it should be removed immediatly. The only good thing about being gay is not being able to get pregnant... but then that becomes a HUGE problem when a dedicated gay couple wants to have a child

thirdly and mostly. it's rediculous that the child doesn't have the right to live... yet he has the right to be gay... Simple as that.

that has to be the most retarded thing i have ever.

[StealthBeast]

At 1/13/07 03:26 PM, Denta wrote:

At 1/13/07 03:16 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:

At 1/13/07 10:22 AM, Kev-o wrote: Why can't this world just accept other human beings?

You can say that for everyone.

Why can't the world accept necrophiliacs?

Since it's moraly wrong to RAPE a dead body.

It's in most peoples minds morally wrong to have sex with someone of the same sex.

Why can't the world accept pedophiles?

Since it's both moraly and phsycicaly wrong to RAPE kids.

It's morally and naturall wrong to have sex with someone of the same sex.

So much more sympathy is given to gays than anyone else.

That's because gays are with gays, twerp. Gays doesn't rape small boys, that's the pedo's job. And you're just increasing the intolerance in the world by comparing gays with necrophiles and pedophiles.

Whats wrong with necrophiles? necrophiliac people would sign a paper saying that their spouse may rape their bodies in the case that the person dies if they could. But the law doesn't allow them to. Why? because of the intolerance in the world

Also, not all pedophiles are bad. there ARE registered pedophiles. They are people who cannot change their pedophile mindset however do not rape children, and registered themselfs. They are good people like u and me. So why cant you accept pedophiles? you're just increasing the intolerance in the world.

And what about those hates bestiality people. What about them? Whats wrong with them mating with other animals? They respect their mates, and they tend to be quite loyal to their mates. Particularly between large dogs with humans, and dolphins with humans.
==

So whats wrong with any of them?

You fucking idiot you damn right know what the hell wrong with it. Fuck...

You can't just have sex with a dead body... it's unnatural, and unsanitary. It's discouraged by pretty much every law in any religious book, and it's not right mentally.

Pedophiles have something mentally wrong with them. Perhaps from their childhood, perhaps due to friends. I'm glad many of them register themselfs but even then... they have something that is not genetically wrong with them. they made a choice to be pedophiles whether they want to believe it or not. they have to change themselfs.

Gays have something mentally wrong with them. Perhaps from their childhood, perhaps due to friends. I'm glad many of them seek to not actually practice gay sex but even then... the have something that is not genetically wrong with them. They made a choice to be gay whether they want to believe it or not. They have to change themselfs. The only exceptions are people who had issues during development into a person while in the womb. They were born female but given the genetalia of a male, or they were born male, but given the genetalia of a female. but these cases are very rare, and when they do happen, they are very obvious to spot... And even then... their disorder is the equivilance of a retard. A retard has some sort of unnatural mutation, just as "literally born gay" people have. Should we respect them? yes. But that doesn't mean it's good to let that mutation spread to another offspring. But that doesn't matter anyway... because gay people are fucking confused, or chose to be gay, while people who were technically born gay are more apparent.
==

And u all damn well know that male was meant to have sex with female, and that female was meant to have sex with male. Females were not designed to have sex with females, and males were not designed to have sex with males.

Oh, and thanks to some fucking bestiac who had to fuck a monkey in the ass and then go fuck someone else, we got this huge AIDS breakout.

[JakeHero]

At 1/13/07 04:24 PM, Ravariel wrote: In all honesty, I actually have no idea where I stand on this issue. I have always been torn about possible genetic engineering of humans... the question about whether it's right for us to decide for someone else what his or here mental/physical/sexual characteristics might be.

Well, if the mother may kill the zygote, fetus or baby in the third term, who's to say she can't alter its characteristics? Then again, social engineering is never a good path to go down. Every society that has practiced is no longer around. Whether this is or isn't the direct result of eugenics is to be seen.

[SkyCube]

At 1/13/07 06:12 PM, StealthBeast wrote: It's in most peoples minds morally wrong to have sex with someone of the same sex.

And you've done a study to prove this I assume.

they made a choice to be pedophiles whether they want to believe it or not. they have to change themselfs.

Hahahaha. Did it ever occur to you that just because it isn't genetic, it might not be a choice either? Why they hell would anyone choose to be attracted to children? Could you choose to be attracted to children?

Gays have something mentally wrong with them. Perhaps from their childhood, perhaps due to friends. I'm glad many of them seek to not actually practice gay sex but even then... the have something that is not genetically wrong with them. They made a choice to be gay whether they want to believe it or not.

If it came from events in their childhood they didn't choose it, did they? Make your mind up.

The only exceptions are people who had issues during development into a person while in the womb. They were born female but given the genetalia of a male, or they were born male, but given the genetalia of a female.

If development problems in the womb can cause this, why not homosexuality and paedophilia too?

but these cases are very rare, and when they do happen, they are very obvious to spot...

Not true, I know someone who is a "male trapped in a womans body", and you would never guess unless he told you so.

And even then... their disorder is the equivilance of a retard. A retard has some sort of unnatural mutation, just as "literally born gay" people have. Should we respect them? yes. But that doesn't mean it's good to let that mutation spread to another offspring. But that doesn't matter anyway... because gay people are fucking confused, or chose to be gay, while people who were technically born gay are more apparent.

Wait, so now some people can be born gay, and it can spread? I think it's you who is confused.

And u all damn well know that male was meant to have sex with female, and that female was meant to have sex with male. Females were not designed to have sex with females, and males were not designed to have sex with males.

So what? Humans have been doing "unnatural" things since we first existed.

[SkyCube]

At 1/13/07 07:52 PM, SkyCube wrote: Not true, I know someone who is a "male trapped in a womans body", and you would never guess unless he told you so.

Oops, that should read "woman trapped in a male body".

[qygibo]

Well, I suppose that I'm a liberal here, so I'll say this:

Women's rights and gay rights are important, but when it comes down to it, if a woman wants to abort her fetus because a gay gene was detected, THAT'S HER CHOICE. There are women who already abort fetuses who show signs of other incurable genetic disorders; and it should be their own choice if they want to consider homosexuality a negative genetic disorder and so treat a fetus with signs of it by terminating it.

[Memorize]

At 1/13/07 07:52 PM, SkyCube wrote:

So what? Humans have been doing "unnatural" things since we first existed.

There's that typical liberal attitude. "So what?" I barely stop laughing over the stupidity of that statement. No facts, no examples, just... "so what". LOL

[AdamRice]

Sounds dumb, people should just accept others.