Assuming that homosexuals are born that way (which I believe), would you be offended by the idea that it is a genetic flaw? What if it was scientificly found to be a genetic disorder? I'm asking in light of a conversation I had with a gay friend (he brought up the theory, not I). Just curious as to what the larger community had to say.
2006-10-20 16:06:20 · 21 answers · asked by Conniebug 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
I appreciate the respect. On a chromosomal level (big word, I know) many things are genetic flaws...blue eyes are genetic flaws, for example. Look at how blue eyes are accepted and even treasured by society.
There are many things that science doesn't understand about our DNA and our chromosomes, and until we know what every chromosome and gene do, we can't really say things are or aren't possible.
Is it possible that being gay is genetic? Yes it is.
Is it possible that being gay is a genetic flaw? Yes it is.
Do we know if either of these things are true or false? Nope.
All I know is that I've had feelings for women for as long as I can remember. While I don't personally believe that being gay is a genetic thing, I feel that is just way too simple, I do believe that our personality is predetermined. Not all of it chromosomally, but still predetermined nonetheless. I feel that whether you are quick-tempered, gay, straight, optimistic, etc. is determined before you are born. That is my own belief, and thanks again for being respectful in your question. I appreciate it very much.
2006-10-20 17:01:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is a fascinating question. You would first have to define what you mean by flaw or disorder. Let us suggest, according to Darwinian evolution, that a flaw is something that lets other genetic patterns have an advantage in reproduction. It would then seem, intuitively, that being gay is a flaw because such people would not reproduce and thus die out. However, empirical evidence does not support such a conclusion, there are clearly gay people everywhere and no sign that they are getting rarer. Anthropologically, being gay is not the exception but the norm in upwards of 70% of all societies world wide, it is only those societies based on the Old Testament, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that openly condemn it. More, societies that ban homosexuality tend, across the board, to ban sexuality in general, like the Puritans. This means that, and the evidence supports this, societies which have a high percentage of gays also have a higher birth rate. Equating homosexuality with lack of reproduction is a result of a flawed assumption that everyone must be exclusively one or the other, Kinsey suggested that the majority of us are actually some degree of bi-sexual, many just having a marked preference one way or the other. Where would a married man with 12 children whose happiest moments were with his male lover fall in the "one or the other" paradigm? There are a lot of those out there. By the way, I'm bi-sexual, hope you don't mind my answering your "gays only" question.
2006-10-20 23:55:21 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh man, this question reminds me of the movie Gattica. Eathan Hawke and Uma Thurman. Very good movie baised on the novel A Brave New World. People are classed as "Geneotopes" (sp) or "Gods Children", natural child birth, which doesn't happen much anymore. Their are no more "flaws" in this world. Everyone is rich, smart and perfect. Everyone is similar. Almost takes away from the diversity in people.
If being gay was found out to be a flaw, would it make much of a difference than what homosexuals have gone though already?
In certian cultures being left handed was concidered a flaw.
I'm sorry but, it just kills me to think that as progressive as most americans like to think they are their are still some out there who even think being black is a flaw.
2006-10-20 23:44:23 · answer #3 · answered by newrenaiss 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all, the terms "flaw" and "disorder" are subjective terms. Who defines what a flaw is? what makes their definition the only valid definition? the same goes for the term "disorder"
Then I would have to ask, what would it mean, I mean, what would the significance be, of another label on something? Would it change anything? What power would such a label (flaw/disorder) hold?
These are all important rhetorical questions one can ask themself. Critical reasoning skills are often in short supply these days.
I often feel that much of the scientific labeling, within the context of a culture's discourse, fails hold much weight with me. I honestly disgaurd much of that sort of labeling, because honestly, in the end, what does it matter what someone else labels it? How would it change the people I know? It wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, because it doesn't create a new alternate reality. It simply attaches a human social connotation to a human identity, and i don't feel we need more labels imposed on people that are basically useless and subjective.
2006-10-21 01:08:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Diversity is a great thing, and necessary for the survival of all species. Gay people are no more hindered by being gay than straight people are by being straight. Sex and reproduction are two separate things in humans and in other higher order creatures. Gay people can reproduce and are fertile as much as straight people. Gay people have a place in the world, and I would say we make the world a better place in many ways, as teachers, artists, football players, everything we do. It isn't a disease, doesn't make us infertile, doesn't even make us unattractive or look flawed somehow, so is it possible it is a genetic part of the human condition, good bad and ugly like everything else?
2006-10-20 23:15:43 · answer #5 · answered by Mark L 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldnt be offended by the fact, but by the way people might use it against me. Having blue eyes (which I have) is an actual genetic flaw. It is a mistake with a chromosome. I am not offended by having someone saying that it is a flaw, but I would be offended if I was finger pointed all the time and being called a flaw instead of a human/
2006-10-20 23:09:59 · answer #6 · answered by Nostromo 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I would be highly offended at the word "flaw". That word is a implication that the trait is somehow both wrong and damaging. It isn't a flaw, it is an uncommon natural variation.
The whole genetic "flaw" idea smacks of Hitler and his eugenics ideas. We know how "healthy" that was for 6 million jewish people.
2006-10-21 08:33:57 · answer #7 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know that I would be offended by the fact that homosexuality was found to be a genetic flaw. What would offend me is if the Government became involved and said that we all must have genetic treatment to "cure" our "illness"
2006-10-20 23:30:57 · answer #8 · answered by hardcorecountry_30240 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
yes, actually, I do find it offensive. because that's just another "reason" the homophobes would use against us.
I would suggest it's a genetic variance. we are born genetically predisposed to one sexual orientation or another. while development of those sexual feelings doesn't happen until puberty, in both straight AND gay/lesbian people, we are destined to be one way or the other. a lot of homophobes like to argue that it's something we "choose" at that time. by that same argument, then they must also "choose" to be straight, right? then they must also not be "born" straight, but make the actual choice at a later time?
I say it's just a load of crap...
2006-10-20 23:50:15 · answer #9 · answered by redcatt63 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I dont like the idea that it is a "flaw". How about a genetic "difference" instead?
2006-10-20 23:28:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋