Gay gene

[The Emerald Legion]

And then what does that lead to? If everyone keeps getting changes to their genes to remove problems?

Genetic homogeneity.

Congratulations. You've affirmed that the only ethical way to use genetics leads to the exact same thing you were arguing against five minutes ago.

No, actually; it would only remove severe abnormalities in gene sequence...Genetic diversity can, and still would exist...Nice try though.

Until people start demanding their babies be engineered for strength and god knows what else.

Heck there are certain black women who bleach their kids skin from infancy so as to make them "whiter" You honestly don't think that it wouldn't reach homogeneity?

I mean sure cultural insulation would keep it off for a while. But that's only a temporary measure until culture becomes more normalized.

[The Alma Mater]

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?

It would only be homophobic if people were forced to take this "cure". As long as the offer remains a choice for the individuals in question, I have no problem with it.

[Iuuvic]

No, actually; it would only remove severe abnormalities in gene sequence...Genetic diversity can, and still would exist...Nice try though.

Until people start demanding their babies be engineered for strength and god knows what else.

Heck there are certain black women who bleach their kids skin from infancy so as to make them "whiter" You honestly don't think that it wouldn't reach homogeneity?

I mean sure cultural insulation would keep it off for a while. But that's only a temporary measure until culture becomes more normalized.

Assuming world culture would ever become as normalized as you think it would, which I doubt. Ethically speaking I would only support the treatment of serious genetic disorders by that means; even with genetic engineering for reasons like strength or whatever else that in no way means a standardized DNA...Like we have been over, there are so many things that effect genetic diversity it would be impossible to eliminate it without completely controlling everything.

I don't see any evidence that individuality is on its way out anytime soon; actually the opposite seems true. People who bleach their kids are a minority and you know it, and its frowned upon by the rest of society more often than not.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Homosexuality stopped being recognized as a disorder due to a political movement. There is no actual scientific credence being lent to the idea that homosexuality is a normal sexuality.

This isn't even worthy of a response. Not only have you failed to define the limits of a "normal" sexual preference, you've engaged in throwing conspiracy theories about.

Doesn't make it a disorder, but doesn't mean you have to keep it for some lame duck principle. Besides, I thought governments are supposed to naturalist relativists? That would mean your principle is legally speaking less important than a piece of chewed gum on the sidewalk.

What are you on about? Not only did you just admit that homosexuality isn't a disorder (shooting your above argument in the face), you've yet even still failed to establish why a person's DNA is public property. The best you can come up with is arbitrarily assigning a characteristic to governments which is not in fact inherent to governments? Quit while you're behind.

[The Emerald Legion]

Homosexuality stopped being recognized as a disorder due to a political movement. There is no actual scientific credence being lent to the idea that homosexuality is a normal sexuality.

This isn't even worthy of a response. Not only have you failed to define the limits of a "normal" sexual preference, you've engaged in throwing conspiracy theories about.

Doesn't make it a disorder, but doesn't mean you have to keep it for some lame duck principle. Besides, I thought governments are supposed to naturalist relativists? That would mean your principle is legally speaking less important than a piece of chewed gum on the sidewalk.

What are you on about? Not only did you just admit that homosexuality isn't a disorder (shooting your above argument in the face), you've yet even still failed to establish why a person's DNA is public property. The best you can come up with is arbitrarily assigning a characteristic to governments which is not in fact inherent to governments? Quit while you're behind.

Because I answered that question?

The government has a right to your DNA because it is protecting other citizens from you. It's defending potential offspring from your genetics.

[Socialdemokraterne]

And a gay person's genetic structure is any of your business because...? It's not, and that's what makes a system in which this sort of an alteration is compulsory unethical. You don't own a gay person's DNA, nor does that DNA fall under the category of public goods. Therefore you have absolutely, positively no right to touch it without that gay person's express permission.

Also, taking the easy road here is not acceptable. People shouldn't be forced to conform their DNA to society's expectations just because those expectations are hard to change.

Actually as far as I'm concerned the government does own your DNA, as it has to take the well-being of any offspring of yours in mind.

So it has every right to tinker with your genetics.

That's an interesting angle to approach from, but I'm not convinced that homosexuality (which hasn't been established as a disorder and therefore does not do harm in itself) could be properly added to a list of things that child protective services should concern itself with.

[Chinese Regions]

All that would do is create people who are physically hetero but psychologically gay, which means they would hate having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex but not understand why. That would probably drive someone to severe psychological damage and possible suicide.

What physical bodily differences exist between gays and straights? They are both Human.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Because I answered that question?

The government has a right to your DNA because it is protecting other citizens from you. It's defending potential offspring from your genetics.

No, you didn't. You didn't explain why homosexuality is a public danger, so your argument is not yet validated. It's not so simply because you say it is.

[Iuuvic]

This isn't even worthy of a response. Not only have you failed to define the limits of a "normal" sexual preference, you've engaged in throwing conspiracy theories about.



What are you on about? Not only did you just admit that homosexuality isn't a disorder (shooting your above argument in the face), you've yet even still failed to establish why a person's DNA is public property. The best you can come up with is arbitrarily assigning a characteristic to governments which is not in fact inherent to governments? Quit while you're behind.

Because I answered that question?

The government has a right to your DNA because it is protecting other citizens from you. It's defending potential offspring from your genetics.

That’s a ridiculous notion; there is no law against attempting to have children if you have a genetic disorder.

(not that it matters, infertility is a consequence of the majority of severe genetic disorders anyway)

[Spetznaz Assault Teams]

This isn't even worthy of a response. Not only have you failed to define the limits of a "normal" sexual preference, you've engaged in throwing conspiracy theories about.



What are you on about? Not only did you just admit that homosexuality isn't a disorder (shooting your above argument in the face), you've yet even still failed to establish why a person's DNA is public property. The best you can come up with is arbitrarily assigning a characteristic to governments which is not in fact inherent to governments? Quit while you're behind.

Because I answered that question?

The government has a right to your DNA because it is protecting other citizens from you. It's defending potential offspring from your genetics.

I hate to sound like Glen Beck here, but I think that the line is drawn between this and genocide. Hitler's philosophy for killing the Jews was "they have inferior genetics, and shouldn't be allowed to reproduce"

EDIT: Yes the comparison is extreme. However, it is there.

[Arkinesia]

Homosexuality stopped being recognized as a disorder due to a political movement. There is no actual scientific credence being lent to the idea that homosexuality is a normal sexuality.

This isn't even worthy of a response. Not only have you failed to define the limits of a "normal" sexual preference, you've engaged in throwing conspiracy theories about.

It's only a conspiracy theory if it's untrue, and the scientist who led the charge admitted it was politically motivated.

If you don't like that, tough shit.

Doesn't make it a disorder, but doesn't mean you have to keep it for some lame duck principle. Besides, I thought governments are supposed to naturalist relativists? That would mean your principle is legally speaking less important than a piece of chewed gum on the sidewalk.

What are you on about? Not only did you just admit that homosexuality isn't a disorder (shooting your above argument in the face), you've yet even still failed to establish why a person's DNA is public property. The best you can come up with is arbitrarily assigning a characteristic to governments which is not in fact inherent to governments? Quit while you're behind.

Abnormalities can be beneficial or detrimental.

Take for instance, James Harrison. He has an abnormal enzyme that naturally occurs in his blood that is a perfect treatment for Rhesus disease. This abnormality is clearly beneficial, and his blood enzyme has been successfully synthesized and will save potentially billions of lives in the future.

Detrimental abnormalities are still not necessarily bad things, they just make normal function less possible or less comfortable. I would definitely classify homosexuality as a less comfortable detrimental homosexuality because the problems with normal function are due to societal pressures as opposed to physical roadblocks to normal function.

All of that now said, that's why I say as long as homosexuality exists as it does now, it's more worthwhile to grant them civil rights and to seek equality in all levels of public life for homosexual persons. My stance in this thread has been based purely on the hypothetical scenario laid out in the OP.

[Socialdemokraterne]

It's only a conspiracy theory if it's untrue, and the scientist who led the charge admitted it was politically motivated.

If you don't like that, tough shit.

And yet the scientific community continues to adhere to the body of evidence they've collected, even after this groundbreaking discovery. Why is that, I wonder? Have homosexuals seized control of every major psychological association? I dunno, still sounds like you're relying on the existence of a gay Illuminati to me.

But you know what, let's end the slugfest over whether homosexuality is a disease by assuming that it is (even though you admitted it isn't). There's still another part to be dealt with before my accusation of false equivalence in your equating kleptomania and homosexuality is completely destroyed: kleptomania is inherently hazardous to society and the sufferer, homosexuality is not.

Abnormalities can be beneficial or detrimental.

Yup.

Detrimental abnormalities are still not necessarily bad things, they just make normal function less possible or less comfortable. I would definitely classify homosexuality as a less comfortable detrimental homosexuality because the problems with normal function are due to societal pressures as opposed to physical roadblocks to normal function.

But in order for a detrimental abnormality (assuming we take homosexuality as such) to be the public's business, it has to pose some sort of public hazard. You can't just assume control of aspects of peoples' lives because you feel you know what's best for them.

All of that now said, that's why I say as long as homosexuality exists as it does now, it's more worthwhile to grant them civil rights and to seek equality in all levels of public life for homosexual persons. My stance in this thread has been based purely on the hypothetical scenario laid out in the OP.

And all I've done is challenge your hypothetical stance rigorously. Good on you for granting homosexuals their civil rights and equal opportunity under current circumstances. What I'm saying is that your hypothetical stance patently violates their rights.

[Iuuvic]

This isn't even worthy of a response. Not only have you failed to define the limits of a "normal" sexual preference, you've engaged in throwing conspiracy theories about.

It's only a conspiracy theory if it's untrue, and the scientist who led the charge admitted it was politically motivated.

If you don't like that, tough shit.

What are you on about? Not only did you just admit that homosexuality isn't a disorder (shooting your above argument in the face), you've yet even still failed to establish why a person's DNA is public property. The best you can come up with is arbitrarily assigning a characteristic to governments which is not in fact inherent to governments? Quit while you're behind.

Abnormalities can be beneficial or detrimental.

Take for instance, James Harrison. He has an abnormal enzyme that naturally occurs in his blood that is a perfect treatment for Rhesus disease. This abnormality is clearly beneficial, and his blood enzyme has been successfully synthesized and will save potentially billions of lives in the future.

Detrimental abnormalities are still not necessarily bad things, they just make normal function less possible or less comfortable. I would definitely classify homosexuality as a less comfortable detrimental homosexuality because the problems with normal function are due to societal pressures as opposed to physical roadblocks to normal function.

All of that now said, that's why I say as long as homosexuality exists as it does now, it's more worthwhile to grant them civil rights and to seek equality in all levels of public life for homosexual persons. My stance in this thread has been based purely on the hypothetical scenario laid out in the OP.

Medical and non-medical reasoning and detrimental effects should not be combined into the same meaning. Society can accept a non-medical abnormality and that abnormality ceases to be detrimental (to that person, if it was in the first place); that acceptance will not change the negative impact on people who actually suffer from truly detrimental disorders like sickle-cell, however. To compare medical and non-medical detriment and act as if they could be equal seems foolish.

Society has no right to determine a non-medical abnormality to be detrimental to the individual and then try to fix it; as the abnormalilty itself causes no harm only the lack of acceptance does. In other words the harm lays with a fault in society and not that of the 'abnormality.' meaning the only thing that needs fixing is the society.

[Condunum]

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.

This, I'll give you. I was just meaning to clarify that normality is not necessarily acceptability.

[Johz]

[snip]
(not that it matters, infertility is a consequence of the majority of severe genetic disorders anyway)

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

[Socialdemokraterne]

[snip]
(not that it matters, infertility is a consequence of the majority of severe genetic disorders anyway)

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

That's because parents can carry part of the code for an illness without actually exhibiting any signs.

[Goobergunchia]

fukn fags

Don't troll.

[Johz]

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

That's because parents can carry part of the code for an illness without actually exhibiting any signs.

Ah, thanks, that makes more sense.

[Condunum]

[snip]
(not that it matters, infertility is a consequence of the majority of severe genetic disorders anyway)

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

Recessive or dormant.

[Iuuvic]

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

That's because parents can carry part of the code for an illness without actually exhibiting any signs.

Nail on the head

This may help if you are more intrested http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/inheritance?show=all

But it does boil down, somewhat, to luck of the draw.

[Avenio]

[snip]
(not that it matters, infertility is a consequence of the majority of severe genetic disorders anyway)

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

'Most' is an inaccurate term for it. Some do, but not all, and not really a majority. In the case of the heritability of genetic disorders, it rather depends on which disorder it is; some disorders are recessive, some are dominant, some are single-gene disorders (ie they are caused by a single gene being mutated), some are multiple-gene disorders (like asthma or diabetes), and can be a result of a lot of genes going wrong. To look at a famous example, here's the family tree of Victoria, a carrier of haemophilia;

Haemophilia is a recessive, X chromosome-linked condition. Now, most women have two copies of the X chromosome, meaning that in most cases the non-damaged copy of the gene in the other chromosome takes precedence over the chromosome with the haemophilia gene, and thus they have no symptoms of the disease, and are thus called 'carriers'. However, males don't have two copies of the X chromosome; they have a Y chromosome and an X chromosome. This means that if the mother happens to pass on the X chromosome with the recessive haemophilia gene, they won't have another copy of the gene to 'overrule' it, and thus they'll suffer from haemophilia.

A woman can thus, live her whole life without knowing that she carries the trait for haemophilia until one of her children ends up getting the disease, which you can see in that family tree. Things like cystic fibrosis (another recessive trait, though not on an X or Y chromosome) and sickle-cell anemia (Which is a case of getting two copies of the sickle-cell trait rather than just one, from parents who both have the trait, also not on an X or Y chromosome) operate in the same way.

[Rick Rollin]

I'm going to be brutally honest with you: that retort was pathetic. Kleptomania is a recognized disorder, homosexuality is not. Kleptomaniacs, by their very nature, induce harm on society. Homosexuals do not induce harm upon society by their very nature. Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Social unacceptability is the shared trait.

Homosexuality stopped being recognized as a disorder due to a political movement. There is no actual scientific credence being lent to the idea that homosexuality is a normal sexuality.

"Normal"? Normal has nothing to do with this. Effects on society do. Give a good reason for banning "teh gaiz".

[Venolia]

Can I just question this slightly? Severe genetic disorders, ie disorders that are passed down from parents to children, generally cause infertility. Why, then, have genetic disorders not eradicated themselves already?

Recessive or dormant.

Did you mean 'dominant?'

[Rick Rollin]

Recessive or dormant.

Did you mean 'dominant?'

No, he meant that, for some reason, the gene's not showing itself.

[The Emerald Legion]

Homosexuality stopped being recognized as a disorder due to a political movement. There is no actual scientific credence being lent to the idea that homosexuality is a normal sexuality.

"Normal"? Normal has nothing to do with this. Effects on society do. Give a good reason for banning "teh gaiz".

Unnecessary division. Why pointlessly create conflict over something that doesn't help you?