Gay gene

[Nyraubia]

Well if the gay gene was real then I would definitely support it's destruction.

[Grenartia]

Well if the gay gene was real then I would definitely support it's destruction.

Why? Its completely unethical to do so. Why should we destroy the gay gene, and keep the straight gene?

They should be a package deal. Support destroying both, or don't support destroying either. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Condunum]

Well if the gay gene was real then I would definitely support it's destruction.

Why? Its completely unethical to do so. Why should we destroy the gay gene, and keep the straight gene?

They should be a package deal. Support destroying both, or don't support destroying either. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why is it unethical?

[Dukopolious]

If there was a gay gene, then they should spread it, not destroy it. This erases homophobia (Because some many people would be Homosexual), and helps with population control (Because it takes male and female... substances... to reproduce).

[The Emerald Legion]

If there was a gay gene, then they should spread it, not destroy it. This erases homophobia (Because some many people would be Homosexual), and helps with population control (Because it takes male and female... substances... to reproduce).

We've already mastered population control.

It's called war. We're really, really, good at it.

[Condunum]

If there was a gay gene, then they should spread it, not destroy it. This erases homophobia (Because some many people would be Homosexual), and helps with population control (Because it takes male and female... substances... to reproduce).

No. Just... No. Normalizing something doesn't necessarily make it acceptable.

[Greater Portucale]

Assuming there is a Gay Gene, and we can "nullify" it, that would make as much sense if there was a "red headed" gene, and we went around nullifying it.

I mean, if we could, and the redheaded person wanted NOT to be redheaded, sure, one's body is his own.

But why would we consider forcing people to stop being redheaded???? (or gay)

[Chinese Regions]

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.

Gender is part of our identiy no?
Removing a gay gene is just like sex change or changing your skin colour.
Granted it shouldn't be enforced but it should be allowed if it exist.

[Ceannairceach]

If there was a gay gene, then they should spread it, not destroy it. This erases homophobia (Because some many people would be Homosexual), and helps with population control (Because it takes male and female... substances... to reproduce).

No. Just... No. Normalizing something doesn't necessarily make it acceptable.

It makes it easier to accept, because numbers tend to equate to advantage in regards to politics.

[Ceannairceach]

Why? Its completely unethical to do so. Why should we destroy the gay gene, and keep the straight gene?

They should be a package deal. Support destroying both, or don't support destroying either. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why is it unethical?

Because that would force a decision on people, as well as show favoritism to one genetic stance.

[Hallistar]

I wouldn't mind changing alot of genes tbh to achieve 'sameness', and that would include gay genes (if there was such a thing) as well. Regardless if it offends some community or people, thats their fault for wanting to make the children have to be different.

[Ceannairceach]

I wouldn't mind changing alot of genes tbh to achieve 'sameness', and that would include gay genes (if there was such a thing) as well. Regardless if it offends some community or people, thats their fault for wanting to make the children have to be different.

Wait, wouldn't it be you wanting to make people the same, not them wanting to make people different?

[Hallistar]

I wouldn't mind changing alot of genes tbh to achieve 'sameness', and that would include gay genes (if there was such a thing) as well. Regardless if it offends some community or people, thats their fault for wanting to make the children have to be different.

Wait, wouldn't it be you wanting to make people the same, not them wanting to make people different?

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

[Ceannairceach]

Wait, wouldn't it be you wanting to make people the same, not them wanting to make people different?

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

Then why couldn't that society be built without getting rid of the theoretical gay gene? Why not get rid of the "straight" gene?

[Hallistar]

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

Then why couldn't that society be built without getting rid of the theoretical gay gene? Why not get rid of the "straight" gene?

It could if it wanted to. It could either agree on the straight gene or the gay gene.

[Salandriagado]

Wait, wouldn't it be you wanting to make people the same, not them wanting to make people different?

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

[Avenio]

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

Mmm. Nothing like inbreeding, eh? Prognathic jaws, mental debilitation, epilepsy wherever you turn, what a fantastic way to live.

[Hallistar]

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

I don't think you catch the flu just because of your dna as much as how much your body has developed an immune system to it. I'm talking about an artificial dna that is free from genetic diseases and other deformities, and could be constantly monitored to prevent extinction. Why? Because parents wouldn't reproduce sexually, they wouldn't reproduce at all. The state would be responsible for decanting individuals.

[Hallistar]

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

Mmm. Nothing like inbreeding, eh? Prognathic jaws, mental debilitation, epilepsy wherever you turn, what a fantastic way to live.

I'm not talking about inbreeding, or sexually reproducing for that matter. And I'm assuming with sufficient technology, those could be altered.

[Spetznaz Assault Teams]

Itd be a standardized DNA race based on a homogenous society that its founders agreed on. Height, race, sexuality, etc, wouldn't be issues anymore. Either that or somehow there would be a way to change your race, height, or sexuality etc when you're older at a cheap price, I'd be cool with that too.

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

[The Nihilist Republic]

How about just destroying the "prejudice gene"?

[Gunstradaa]

fukn fags

[Avenio]

I'm not talking about inbreeding, or sexually reproducing for that matter. And I'm assuming with sufficient technology, those could be altered.

Yeahno. Once diversity is gone, it's gone. Once you've gotten everyone onto a 'standard' genome (Whatever the hell that is), you can't get the diversity back. Even if you were to switch to IVF between partners (As if natural sexual intercourse would halt), you would still be dealing with the genetic equivalent of incest between identical twins every time you create a baby. Hence why homozygosity in a population is bad.

[Ceannairceach]

fukn fags

This isn't a topic about cigarettes; Do learn the topic before posting again.

[Spetznaz Assault Teams]

I'm not talking about inbreeding, or sexually reproducing for that matter. And I'm assuming with sufficient technology, those could be altered.

Yeahno. Once diversity is gone, it's gone. Once you've gotten everyone onto a 'standard' genome (Whatever the hell that is), you can't get the diversity back. Even if you were to switch to IVF between partners (As if natural sexual intercourse would halt), you would still be dealing with the genetic equivalent of incest between identical twins every time you create a baby. Hence why homozygosity in a population is bad.

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

I believe this applies to your post as well