namelesstavern.net

Gypsiyee - There has been no serious suggestion that there is a genetic trait that prompts someone to have an operation to render themselves in capable of reproducing, and that would be kind of a reach since it requires a medical procedure. There is a conscious decision made, not a genetic pre-disposition.

I said that more as sarcasm than anything else - I didn't mean to imply that it's actually a genetic disorder

You missed the point, though - if it all boils down to procreation, the heterosexual people *choosing* not to have children put us at more risk than a homosexual person does. Homosexuals by means of intercourse simply don't procreate - that's not to say that they can't. If the entire world turned gay tomorrow, we would be at far less risk (in fact, no risk) than if the entire world went to get snipped tomorrow.

It's not a reach at all, those are people choosing to 'alter what god gave them' and choosing to not assist in procreating even though they have no 'genetic disorder' and are perfectly capable of reproducing.

The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot use procreation as an argument here - it's typical anti-gay 'reasoning' to justify the thought process of why gay is wrong, but it doesn't work because there are thousands of other cases that cause the same issue that no one seems to have a problem with.

So, aside from procreation and the fact that it makes you squeamish - explain to me why being gay needs to be 'cured'? If one is to cure a homosexual for means of procreating, you would need to make it so that heterosexuals who choose not to have children are cured of that mindset as well - after all, it *is* all about procreation.

The difference is that one is a choice whereas the other, if it turns out to be true, is a dysfunctional human being who isn't consciously choosing anything. Sure they can be perfectly functioning, happy, and otherwise normal human beings, but still as a result of genetics they aren't making a conscious decision to be homosexual.

It would be like being passed Diabetes, there is no difference. It is not normal.

it's a different iteration of the genome

in theory, natural selection should eventually weed out bad iterations

our "advancements" in society and medicine have in a lot of ways stunted the effectiveness of the process tho

Harrison wrote:The difference is that one is a choice whereas the other, if it turns out to be true, is a dysfunctional human being who isn't consciously choosing anything. Sure they can be perfectly functioning, happy, and otherwise normal human beings, but still as a result of genetics they aren't making a conscious decision to be homosexual.

It would be like being passed Diabetes, there is no difference. It is not normal.

There is a difference if the argument is procreation, which seems to keep being missed and avoided. My entire point is that you CANNOT argue procreation when you have people *choosing* to defy god or whatever you want to call it and NOT procreate as heterosexuals, just as homosexuals CHOOSE not to procreate in most cases.

Whether it's genetic or not, I guarantee they *would* make the conscious decision not to be "cured."

There are a lot of things that are genetic defects - being blonde, for example. So is that to be treated as a disease you want to cure? No, because it doesn't freak you out, which is ALL it boils down to.

(insert yet another pointless procreation argument which has nothing to do with it because being gay does not disallow you to procreate, going to throw that out there again in case it was missed, yet again)

I always thought of gayness as mother nature protecting herself from overpopulation anyway.

Gypsiyee wrote:
There are a lot of things that are genetic defects - being blonde, for example

err what?

I'm not sure you know what defect means

let me clarify that I mean defect as any DNA mutation, alteration, etc which is exactly the type of thing that this study references - an alteration in DNA that causes someone to differ from the norm

doesn't much make it a disease, hence it doesn't need to be cured

defect implies broken, as opposed to just a different expression of the genome

Well some consider it broken, do they not?

Forgive my poor wording, but that's what I intended to say >.<

Gypsiyee wrote: (insert yet another pointless procreation argument which has nothing to do with it because being gay does not disallow you to procreate, going to throw that out there again in case it was missed, yet again)

Since I believe I was the first one to mention procreation, I'm going to address that because I believe you are miss characterizing what I was getting at. I'll concede that sure homosexuals can reproduce, however if homosexuality is the result of genetics, then it is a genetic trait that in the natural world will drastically reduce the chances of being passed on, not only it's self but any other genetic code of the individual. From the standpoint of natural selection it can not be viewed as anything but a genetic defect. Yes of course if it is genetic is has sustained the test of time, however many arguments to this line of thought have pointed to possible reasons, living and producing offspring as a hetro due to societal pressures, medical advances that circumvent sex as the method of impregnation. Everyone arguing against this seems to be thinking of it in absolute terms of a theoretical homosexual gene being passed on as the only significance pointing to the possibility that it is deeply entrenched in genetic code taking it a very long time if ever to be weeded out by natural selection, but in the end a homosexual is substantially less likely to reproduce then a heterosexual, and that being the case all other genetics of the person will be a lot less likely to be passed on by that individual.

Now before you point to this as another pointless procreation argument, realize that my entire argument is playing devils advocate. I tried to explain that once, that I do not see how anyone who buys into evolution and natural selection as absolute unequivocal fact can view a theoretical homosexual gene as anything but a genetic defect. I personally do not care either way beyond one aspect and that is this: If homosexuality were linked to genetics, and a "cure" were found, given that to a greater or lesser degree, a homosexual who lives true to themselves will almost certainly face some stigma somewhere in their life. There are likely individuals who would take advantage of such a thing simply because they didn't want to deal with societal issues associated with it. Assuming it could go one way, it would be a reasonable assumption that it could go the other, and that a "cure" for heterosexuality could also be developed. In our current social climate it might be difficult to imagine that a heterosexual would rather be homosexual, however removing any social issues, and recognizing the general differences between the sexes, it might not be so far fetched to think someone might prefer if given the choice to look for a life partner within their own sex.

Harrison wrote:I believe environment can create homosexuals as well, not just a predisposition inborn.

I am genuinely curious as to why you believe this? Granted it's not a discussion topic I engage in often, but when it has come up every one I've ever talked to said they knew from a young age (right around puberty) what their sexual orientation was. The closest I have heard to environment being a factor were situations where looking back a person felt they were really just in denial about it, and something triggered this realization. In contrast I've never had a homosexual tell me it was something they chose.

I don't mean it was a conscious decision they made at some point.

I mean sexual abuse, mental abuse, physical abuse not particularly sexual in nature but leaving a long-lasting and damaged psyche in that sense regardless.

I believe that these can also be a trigger to aforementioned dispositions that wouldn't manifest themselves under normal conditions.

So in the event that homosexuality is indisputably found to be genetic in nature, I don't see this being 100% accurate. There will be those that aren't in that bracket.

That's a fair enough point Lueyen, but you'll still never get me to look at it as a defect (in the definition that Tikker put to light) as it does not cause any lower quality of life which 'defects' generally do - defect defining things such as deformation etc. in this case

but in the end a homosexual is substantially less likely to reproduce then a heterosexual

I'm kind of curious as to why you actually believe this, because this statement kind of says that homosexuals have less a desire to have children than a heterosexual; they are not hand in hand. I don't find them less likely to reproduce than any hetero couple except that they will never conceive on accident.

To me, 'less likely' means someone who does not harbor the desire to reproduce or raise children in any sense - someone who does not want a child is 'less likely' to have one; think of a hetero couple who cannot conceive on their own for whatever reason but they desperately want children - the general trend is that they would go to the end of the earth to do what they can to have a baby, and there's no difference of stance in homosexual couples, except that currently it is not socially acceptable for a homosexual couple to raise a child.

If there was no way for them to have children via adoption, surrogate, etc, the desire to have children wouldn't fade and they would find other means to have children. If the finding was that the desire is far less to have children in homosexual couples, I could agree with your stance, but being as my entire life I have had many homosexual couples come through my life I can tell you that I personally find that to be untrue.

Lueyen wrote:Now before you point to this as another pointless procreation argument, realize that my entire argument is playing devils advocate. I tried to explain that once, that I do not see how anyone who buys into evolution and natural selection as absolute unequivocal fact can view a theoretical homosexual gene as anything but a genetic defect.

population control

Gypsiyee wrote:That's a fair enough point Lueyen, but you'll still never get me to look at it as a defect (in the definition that Tikker put to light) as it does not cause any lower quality of life which 'defects' generally do - defect defining things such as deformation etc. in this case

but in the end a homosexual is substantially less likely to reproduce then a heterosexual

I'm kind of curious as to why you actually believe this

it's not a defect, just a different expression of a genome

that being said, lueyen is 100% correct in saying that homosexual in general are less likely to reproduce than heterosexual

it's exactly what you expressed, but for the opposite reason

society has changed and allowed other methods for having kids, and it's become more socially acceptable for a gay couple to have children

ie, thwarting natural selection

Lets say we found out that a persons predisposition for oral or anal sex was found to be at the genetic level. Would you want us to "cure" everyone so we wouldn't be performing those "defective activities"?

those are just a societal distinction


sexual reproduction is a whole different ball of wax

Tikker wrote:those are just a societal distinction


sexual reproduction is a whole different ball of wax

Both are just sexual preference though. It's the same.

no, it's completely different

oh wait

are you trying to imply there's a gene that would pre-dispose someone to ONLY doing oral/anal sex?

(nothing has been discovered to even remotely support that, but for sake of arguement let's say one has)

if you're trying to say that, then sure, it's a detriment to passing on your genes, and natural selection should weed that out eventually

Of course there's no evidence I'm showing you a relatable parrallel.

We aren't talking about natural selection, we're talking about genetic manipulation.

If we can "cure" homosexuality, you'd be happy to "cure" oral sex if we could?

I don't personally think we should be curing half the shit we are now

all that happens is the genetic code gets watered down, and unfavourable traits get passed on, rather than weeded out

(mutants)

Zanchief wrote:Lets say we found out that a persons predisposition for oral or anal sex was found to be at the genetic level. Would you want us to "cure" everyone so we wouldn't be performing those "defective activities"?

That is a horrible analogy.

This argument needs to stop being debated using emotions. If another animal suddenly started spewing out homosexual spawn it would sort itself out. These would just die off without having passed off their genes to the rest of the species.

People aren't that simple. Just because their desire to have children is there, it doesn't mean much. If we weren't technologically able to say "fuck you" to nature, this wouldn't happen. Natural processes would have nearly weeded out homosexuality a long, long time ago.

A genetic predisposition to being a homosexual is a defect. It would be in any other animal. We are no different just because you believe we are above nature. We are animals too. Our technological abilities, adoption, surrogate mothers, fathers etc... do NOT change that simple fact.

When everything is said and done, a genetic defect that would effectively remove any reproductive ability in a person is the exact same. Of course the desire to have children would still be there but, you are incapable of reproducing without technological aid.

Anyone making a conscious choice to not reproduce, is irrelevant as well. We're not talking about choices being made and never were.

If we're nothing more than animals, and we have the means to reproduce using science, then homosexuality is no longer a deficiency.

and what if someone decides they want to be "cured"?
maybe toggled is a better word

I see no problem with someone volunteering for some kind of genetic restructuring. I'm not entirely sure it's possible, but if it is, why not?

It does open up all kinds of problems with consent. If you find the gene at an early age do the parents have the right to make these decisions for their children, etc...

All of this is basically the story of the X-Men movies (well the first two at least).