Gay gene

[Camicon]

God is fake and the bible is a bunch of bullhockey.

Not what this thread about, but if you want to rant about how religion is the root of all evil I'm sure there are plenty of other threads in which you can spout your mindless banter.

[Shnercropolis]

Well, this is scientifically impossible since behavior is mostly based on experiences in life.

But if it were possible, I wouldn't let the government mandate it anywhere.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Thinking about it, I thought homosexuality was at least, in part, hormonal?

Like where they find the more brothers you had, the more likely you were to have a fancy for the chest hair?

[Beiluxia]

...or, instead of taking the easy way and blaming the "sins of homosexuality" on this supposed "gay gene", our society can adapt to live with diversified people.

[Grenartia]

...or, instead of taking the easy way and blaming the "sins of homosexuality" on this supposed "gay gene", our society can adapt to live with diversified people.

But then people would have to challenge their preconceived notions!!!

[Mavorpen]

Thinking about it, I thought homosexuality was at least, in part, hormonal?

Like where they find the more brothers you had, the more likely you were to have a fancy for the chest hair?

It is.

[Avenio]

Thinking about it, I thought homosexuality was at least, in part, hormonal?

If hormones and homosexuality is linked, it's not very strongly linked. Things like testosterone levels and whatnot are relatively easy to measure, and we'd notice any strong corrolatory link between any particular hormone and homosexuality relatively early on.

Like where they find the more brothers you had, the more likely you were to have a fancy for the chest hair?

I think Robin Murray said it, but it's worth repeating, if only for effect; "You can't prove anything with epidemiology." That sort of data point is ultimately about as useful as the statistic that 7 out of 10 serial killers have driven a Ford in their lifetimes. Sure, it's interesting, and could have an influence on the psychology of serial killers, but it's really not that helpful when looked at in the absence of all other data about neurology and the whole nature v. nurture debate.

[Farnhamia]

Thinking about it, I thought homosexuality was at least, in part, hormonal?

Like where they find the more brothers you had, the more likely you were to have a fancy for the chest hair?

As the Armenians say, if brothers were a good idea, God would have one.

[Mavorpen]

I think Robin Murray said it, but it's worth repeating, if only for effect; "You can't prove anything with epidemiology." That sort of data point is ultimately about as useful as the statistic that 7 out of 10 serial killers have driven a Ford in their lifetimes. Sure, it's interesting, and could have an influence on the psychology of serial killers, but it's really not that helpful when looked at in the absence of all other data about neurology and the whole nature v. nurture debate.

Are you saying Ford doesn't make people go mad and become serial killers? Dammit, looks like my theory that my dad is a serial killer is incorrect.

[Tmutarakhan]

Thinking about it, I thought homosexuality was at least, in part, hormonal?

If hormones and homosexuality is linked, it's not very strongly linked. Things like testosterone levels and whatnot are relatively easy to measure, and we'd notice any strong corrolatory link between any particular hormone and homosexuality relatively early on.

It is about hormonal levels experienced by the fetus in the womb, is the theory.

[Ridicularia]

I'll start by saying a single "gay gene" is, imho, highly unlikely for such a complex trait.

No, no one should do anything about it, if it existed (which it doesn't). A "gay gene" would probably not always correspond to a gay person - genotype does not always determine phenotype.

In response to the gene therapy suggestion, if the trait was multigenic (which it probably would be, if it did exist), gene therapy would likely be useless anyway. Also, I would guess that other, difficult-to-reverse neurobiological processes have already taken place in a gay person that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of gene therapy, even if you could get it to work.

All in all, I'd rather not try to regulate human genetic diversity.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Thinking about it, I thought homosexuality was at least, in part, hormonal?

Like where they find the more brothers you had, the more likely you were to have a fancy for the chest hair?

As the Armenians say, if brothers were a good idea, God would have one.

They also say

"Armenia sounds nothing like Hayastan!"

[Farnhamia]

As the Armenians say, if brothers were a good idea, God would have one.

They also say

"Armenia sounds nothing like Hayastan!"

Or like Hayk (Hayastan is a Persianism). But yeah, what can you do with foreigners who can't pronounce perfectly good one-syllable names.

[Oceanesia]

And what about the black gene, the left-handed gene, and..... see where it could go? No, simply, no - its unethical and disgusting - to even try this would be to give into bigotry and ignorance - something that is simple unacceptable.

It's the homophobes (and racists, and sexists, etc) who need fixing.

Besides its doubtful there is any singular gay gene -> likely there are several genes which determine sexual orientation (whether you are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual) - and even then it is probably not only genes but only hormones which play a part in the determination of sexual orientation.

Leaving aside the fact that is it unethical and immoral, it would be probably pointless to try what the OP is proposing (not saying the OP is homophobic - but the idea is silly).

In just 10 years or so the vast majority of developed nations will have marriage equality and full LGBT protections -> this will then flow over into the currently developing nations over 20 or so years. And bigotry, ignorance, and prejudice, fails the legal battle once more.
The UNHRC passed an LGBT rights resolutions spearheaded by South Africa (and supported by more or less all developed countries) last year -- but just two or three years before that it would have not even been considered. Bigots are losing the LGBT rights struggle faster than ever before.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

They also say

"Armenia sounds nothing like Hayastan!"

Or like Hayk (Hayastan is a Persianism). But yeah, what can you do with foreigners who can't pronounce perfectly good one-syllable names.

What can I say, the Arsacids did the Armenians well.

[Familia Real de Filipinas]

Further stuies must be done to end up in a conclusion about this issue.

[Ironmacedonia]

Further stuies must be done to end up in a conclusion about this issue.

But this is a purely ethical issue, there are no "studies" involved, it's a simple question worthy of much debate.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Further stuies must be done to end up in a conclusion about this issue.

Not really. This is all hypothetical. The question asks: supposing a genetic factor which is directly linked as a cause of homosexuality were already discovered, and assuming we had a freely available method for this factor's alteration to one which induces heterosexuality, should we proceed in altering homosexuals' genes? None of this is based on whether the genetic factor actually exists, that point is moot. The question makes the supposition that such a thing exists.

If my previous posts have been any indication, I'm less than amenable to the notion that homosexuals' DNA is anyone's business but their own. This includes children, both prenatal and post. I hold the firm position that society has no authority to dictate a person's genetic code.

[Valourium]

Further stuies must be done to end up in a conclusion about this issue.

But this is a purely ethical issue, there are no "studies" involved, it's a simple question worthy of much debate.

You're right... Sort of... I don't really think it's a logical thing to debate about, because to agree with it is giving into bigotry, and just about every form of bias named on this thread previously, and then some. So the only reason it's worthy of debate because there are people with irrational bias.

[SaintB]

The gay gene shouldn't be too hard to find. It lives with another gene of the same gender, marches in gay pride parades, and goes to special bars. It is likely also related too, or it may actually be, the gene that makes people fabulous. The less accepting genes tend to shy away from it as well.

[Person012345]

But this is a purely ethical issue, there are no "studies" involved, it's a simple question worthy of much debate.

You're right... Sort of... I don't really think it's a logical thing to debate about, because to agree with it is giving into bigotry, and just about every form of bias named on this thread previously, and then some. So the only reason it's worthy of debate because there are people with irrational bias.

I disagree. I'm confident that every reason given by a person with reasonable morals to eliminate the gene can be logically debunked. If their morals are to destroy gays, then I'm pretty sure that morality can be shown to be inconsistent with their overarching morality. If it's internally inconsistent, that's no good and most people would realise it for the twaddle that it is.

[Ethel mermania]

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'.

We already do. The amniocentises (sp) test detects genetic abnormalities like fragile X and downs. Those kids usually wind up aborted.

[Iuuvic]

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

We already do. The amniocentises (sp) test detects genetic abnormalities like fragile X and downs. Those kids usually wind up aborted.

Well that is the line we seem to be discussing, is it ok to go beyond severe and crippling abnormalities in regards to 'gene-control'. There is a big difference between medical and non-medical reasoning in this topic and some people seem to think that if the former is ethically ok then the latter should be as well. Something I think anyone with a reasonably grounded sense of whats right and wrong should be against.

[New Heathera]

We already do. The amniocentises (sp) test detects genetic abnormalities like fragile X and downs. Those kids usually wind up aborted.

Well that is the line we seem to be discussing, is it ok to go beyond severe and crippling abnormalities in regards to 'gene-control'. There is a big difference between medical and non-medical reasoning in this topic and some people seem to think that if the former is ethically ok then the latter should be as well. Something I think anyone with a reasonably grounded sense of whats right and wrong should be against.

Medical reasons are okay. Non-medical I'm pretty firmly against. Actually, Nazi Germany performed eugenics for non-medical reasons (trying to shape society to their image.) The day the majority of humanity agrees on the idea of eliminating all "undesirable" traits from the gene pool (but not necessarily medically damaging) is the day we sink down to their level.

[Saint Jade IV]

It is entirely unethical. Sexuality is a part of our identity, and changing something which forms part of that is a dangerous path to go down. Many parents would like obedient children who do not rebel. Say a gene for rebellion was isolated, it would be just as wrong to remove this, or heighten someone's sense of obedience, simply to create the child a parent seeks.

That's under the supposition in the OP that sexuality is so easily determined, which of course, it is not.