Gay gene

[Ironmacedonia]

If scientists successfully isolated a 'gay gene' and could easily destroy it for no cost at all in every person, would you support this action or would you classify it a homophobic?

I myself have no problem with Homosexuality, and so long as they keep it to themselves I think they should be allowed do what they like, however what I do hate is the thought of thousands of homosexual children growing up and going through school having to feel as if they are not 'normal', getting stick from other children and being faced with prejudice their whole lives.

No matter what way you look at it, Homosexuality causes problems for the homosexual individual, through no fault of their own, but through fault of the prejudiced.

Going back to the question, it would not be a genocide of gays or anything ludicrous like that, it would not even be taking homosexuality away from people, it would simply be making sure that nobody ever has to be subject to prejudice for their sexuality again.

I know this is a touchy subject but please don't think I am homophobic, this just occurred to me earlier on the bus...

[Utopia FTW]

Yea, and the more pressing "stupid gene". Then we won't have to bother with the stupidity of people.

[Teutonic Territories]

If they did, then homosexuality would be classified as a mutation

[Yes Im Biop]

In Before lock


This is off the record. What holy stupidity is this? Gay gene? Who's ass is talking this? There isnt a Gene for sexuality as much as there is for common morons.

[Royal Ontario]

If they did, then homosexuality would be classified as a mutation

That it would.

[Chinese Regions]

If they did, then homosexuality would be classified as a mutation

So? Blonde hair and blue eyes are mutations, red hair and freckles are mutations. Mutations aren't necessarily bad or good.

[Grave_n_idle]

If scientists successfully isolated a 'gay gene' and could easily destroy it for no cost at all in every person, would you support this action or would you classify it a homophobic?

I myself have no problem with Homosexuality, and so long as they keep it to themselves I think they should be allowed do what they like, however what I do hate is the thought of thousands of homosexual children growing up and going through school having to feel as if they are not 'normal', getting stick from other children and being faced with prejudice their whole lives.

No matter what way you look at it, Homosexuality causes problems for the homosexual individual, through no fault of their own, but through fault of the prejudiced.

Going back to the question, it would not be a genocide of gays or anything ludicrous like that, it would not even be taking homosexuality away from people, it would simply be making sure that nobody ever has to be subject to prejudice for their sexuality again.

I know this is a touchy subject but please don't think I am homophobic, this just occurred to me earlier on the bus...

I'm really not convinced we should start gene-control programs to remove any traits that might make someone feel they are not 'normal'.

[Burning Life Down With Lemons]

Gay gene? Are you suggesting we could create people to be gay? You do realize that his makes no sense, right. I understand what your trying to say, but your arguement needs to be a little more thought out instead of relying on something you call a "gay gene".

This will be locked in three, two, one...

[Ironmacedonia]

In Before lock


This is off the record. What holy stupidity is this? Gay gene? Who's ass is talking this? There isnt a Gene for sexuality as much as there is for common morons.

This whole thread is hypothetical.

[Yes Im Biop]

If scientists successfully isolated a 'gay gene' and could easily destroy it for no cost at all in every person, would you support this action or would you classify it a homophobic?

If it was possible and its about as possible as a god being real. Yes, You would be a homophobic

No matter what way you look at it, Homosexuality causes problems for the homosexual individual, through no fault of their own, but through fault of the prejudiced.

*Fail Buzzer* No. Its the assholes that cause problems, Not the Gays.

Going back to the question, it would not be a genocide of gays or anything ludicrous like that, it would not even be taking homosexuality away from people, it would simply be making sure that nobody ever has to be subject to prejudice for their sexuality again.

Genocide = Hunting down a RACE... Gay no equal a race. Gays = Sexuality.

[Hallistar]

If they could isolate genes...yes. But not just for Gay genes, I'm talking about for every gene. I don't think its fair that people have to get their genes at random based on whichever parents they were born to. In my ideal society, itd be a standardized system that ensures that nobody has to suffer being of short stature or having a genetic defect/mental issue just because of their parents, and even if it hurts the parents' feelings that they can't pass on their genes to their children then too bad.

[Burning Life Down With Lemons]

If they did, then homosexuality would be classified as a mutation

So? Blonde hair and blue eyes are mutations, red hair and freckles are mutations. Mutations aren't necessarily bad or good.

Mutations are changes in genes, so yes, you are correct.

[Socialdemokraterne]

If scientists successfully isolated a 'gay gene' and could easily destroy it for no cost at all in every person, would you support this action or would you classify it a homophobic?

I myself have no problem with Homosexuality, and so long as they keep it to themselves I think they should be allowed do what they like, however what I do hate is the thought of thousands of homosexual children growing up and going through school having to feel as if they are not 'normal', getting stick from other children and being faced with prejudice their whole lives.

No matter what way you look at it, Homosexuality causes problems for the homosexual individual, through no fault of their own, but through fault of the prejudiced.

Going back to the question, it would not be a genocide of gays or anything ludicrous like that, it would not even be taking homosexuality away from people, it would simply be making sure that nobody ever has to be subject to prejudice for their sexuality again.

I know this is a touchy subject but please don't think I am homophobic, this just occurred to me earlier on the bus...

So your solution to undue prejudice against homosexuals is to get rid of homosexuals (which is in effect what you'd be doing by eliminating the gay gene) rather than work to shift cultural norms to condemn said prejudice. This is eugenics, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Yes Im Biop]

In Before lock


This is off the record. What holy stupidity is this? Gay gene? Who's ass is talking this? There isnt a Gene for sexuality as much as there is for common morons.

This whole thread is hypothetical.

Assumnig There is a Gay Gene There isnt by the way

[Continentalia]

Why are these people so irritated?

Anyway OP, if I had children, and the doctor told me that my child had a "gay gene" that we could get rid of so my child was straight, I'd be all for it. After all, I want to have grandchildren at some point.

And by the way, I support LGBT rights.

[Kaeshar]

I seriously doubt there is such a thing as a gay gene (more likely theres many genes involved) and this goes right into the eugenics debate.

For the question itself, well, it's a tricky question, if we can remove or alter the gay gene (if such a gene exists), what else can we do with genetics? I'm not talking about fixing genetic disorders, I'm talking about various traits.

We are still learning about the interactions of genes and multiple genes at the same time, we know alot already, but we don't know all the interactions yet.

What if removing/altering the gay gene or complex of genes has some other undesirable effect?

[Tekania]

I wouldn't support it... because there likely is no "magic gene" which makes someone gay. It's likely far more complex. As genes can also play multi-roles it's also unlikely that it could be safely removed without creating additional repercussions.

[Hallistar]

Why are these people so irritated?

Anyway OP, if I had children, and the doctor told me that my child had a "gay gene" that we could get rid of so my child was straight, I'd be all for it. After all, I want to have grandchildren at some point.

And by the way, I support LGBT rights.

I agree, but I think it should also apply to any gene of mine. Heck, even if I couldn't use my genes but some day in the future they could create 'designer babies' I'd still be for it. Well no actually another issue makes me not want to have kids but assuming for some reason I did, I'd support eugenics all the way. I don't like how people get their genes based off of randomness, and those who get genes that are almost universally agreed upon to be 'better' have it better off than those who get the shorter end of the stick and have to convince themselves life is good too.

[Retro Lyra]

Why are these people so irritated?

Anyway OP, if I had children, and the doctor told me that my child had a "gay gene" that we could get rid of so my child was straight, I'd be all for it. After all, I want to have grandchildren at some point.

And by the way, I support LGBT rights.

I'm not irritated, I'm just confused. Gay genes don't exist. I agree with you, though; I'd remove the "gay gene" in my child if it existed. Like you, I want grandchildren.

However, seeing as gay genes don't exist, there's not much I can do. I wouldn't mind if my child was gay as long as they were content with their partner.

[Kaeshar]

In Before lock


This is off the record. What holy stupidity is this? Gay gene? Who's ass is talking this? There isnt a Gene for sexuality as much as there is for common morons.

This whole thread is hypothetical.

Why would this thread be locked? The OP isn't bashing gays, it's just a thought excersize.

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

You do realize the Nazi's in Germany tried to do this, right, a genetic purification program?

[Giovenith]

I personally think that it could have both pros and cons, a con being that homophobes could go around trying to tell people to get surgery to "fix" themselves. If this were to become a surgical reality, then I think that it should only be the choice of the person with it to get when they turn 18.

[Ironmacedonia]

If there was a way to get rid of all prejudice and stop people becoming prejudice without mass murder then I'd pick that, but I'm not thinking of the prejudiced people, I'm thinking of homosexuals that are SUBJECT to prejudice for no good reason.

Looking at it there is one cause of distress, that is prejudice, there is one cause for that prejudice, homosexuality, seeing as there is always going to be prejudice, and if there was a way to remove homosexuality, that would be the only way to stop the suffering.

[Kaeshar]

You do realize the Nazi's in Germany tried to do this, right, a genetic purification program?

Yes, as I said, it goes right into the Eugenics debate.

I'm fine with fixing genetic disorders, but not wiping out ethnic groups by editing a 'black gene' or a 'jewish gene', neither of which exists.

[Retro Lyra]

You do realize the Nazi's in Germany tried to do this, right, a genetic purification program?

Yes, but they were also going for blue eyes and blonde hair in the process.