Gene correction for homosexualtiy? A small point I would like your opinion about?

Question

I am a supporter of gay rights but something has always bugged me about how advocates talk about homosexuality.There is always a discussion about if homosexuality is "natural", I think we all know it is. My question refers not to if it is natural but rather if it is something that parents should have the right to change in their child (while in the womb). Because, as I see it, homosexuality is not something that is necessarily helpful to the human race in the evolutionary sense (which, I do not mean to offend anyone, but I think that kind of qualifies it as a "hindrance")...So, what argument is there advocating the outlawing of parents being able to keep their children (through gene therapy) from being homosexual?

...I do agree that genetic enginerring is a slippery slope. A VERY slippery slope. I am looking for your moral objections to specifically changing someones sexuality.

..Not your attitudes toward genetic tampering in general

TRACER.....Yeah dude, huh, I think you answered a different question than the one I posted!

Answer 1

Although most gay people (I am gay) tend to lean towards the argument that being gay is something you are born with, I think it can be either a predisposition or something that happens over time through experience and a gradual transition of preferences. If being with someone of the same sex is something someone wants to do, its important not because they were born with it, but because it's what they WANT to do what makes them happy. Happy is good, and I take full responsibility for my own happiness.

I don't think that removing a gay gene, or genetic predisposition, is going to make someone not gay or remove gay people from the gene pool since there are many factors that can create such an output. I do think that genetically engineering traits would mess up nature's 'natural selection', though. Nature knows what it's doing. It sees a big picture that we don't. Can you imagine the waves of generations of people that look the same because of what is fashionable? Like how people do with names. A classroom of six year old girls named Kaitlyn...now you can have a classroom that all *look/act* like Kaitlyns.

Answer 2

There have always been men and women outside of the mainstream who speak truth to power. They have been called prophets, jesters, cartoonists, playwrights, and activists. This necessary role is undertaken by those who do not follow the conventional routes used by most of the people but rather follow a new or alternative path that to them seems better. I believe that this is where gay people really are required. If gay people stop trying to fit into the mold of regular society and embrace the stance of a challenger or foil for the presumptions and prejudices of people who are busy living below the radar then evolutionary change is moved along. For example in King Lear it is the Jester who speaks to the blindness of the ruler so that He moves in the appropriate direction of being a King and a Father. Jesters who often gave non-threatening enigmatic corrections were the way that rulers could be moved into a new and perhaps better direction. Many Super Heroes do not initially have spouses or girlfriends so that the plot can move along and the total energies of the hero can be focused on the mission. Only later when trying to fit the star into the system do other characters emerge. Originally celibacy was adopted as a stance by many figures not because being alone was plus but because the mission was so important. Being free from the responsibilities of family one could become devoted especially to what needed to be done. If everyone must marry then how can marriage ever be improved. I think that when people began to balance the child-bearing aspect of sexual love with the pleasure/intimacy issues that there was a sexual revolution. Pleasure is precisely what makes persons really present to one another and intimacy is possible. Gay people have developed the pleasure principle to balance the overdone childbearing- fertility focus. Even the Catholic Church had to move toward a better balance of these two aspects. I think that gay people were certainly not the only motivators in this area for the Church. However the predominance of gay clergy in religious life has made this insight more acceptable to those in the pews. Some theologians are doing Gay Theology now even suggesting that Jesus can easily be seen as outside the Pale of his time. Some hints have been recognized in the Gospels that same sex love was also redeemed by Christ. Visionaries and Artists are needed in all areas of human experience. I think that particularly in areas where militarism, industrialism, communism, captialism and patriarchy have exercised destructive power to the detriment of human values same sex love can make a difference. Only because those who have profitted from the status quo resist change so strenuously does opposition arise and flourish. We must pay a price for our refusing to accept things the way they are. With Robert Kennedy we must say "Why Not?"
I encourage gays and lesbians to stop trying to fit into the mainstream and assume roles as outsiders and challengers. Gay is not a hindrance but a catalyst for change. The world is not black and white. It is in color. Parents might choose to keep children from being homosexual because of the suffering entailed with this role in society. When we stop believing that being gay is a crime or a threat then the genuine contribution of homosexual people can be valued.

Answer 3

If there was such a gene and it was practical to change it I don't see why people shouldn't have the option to do it. Generally I think parents know what's in the best interests of their child better than the government does, so I'm all for giving them freedom of choice. I don't buy the slippery slope argument either. If parents want to chose the gender, hair color, eye color etc. of their child I think they should be able to do that to. As long as they're not harming the child I don't see what the problem is.

Answer 4

I think in an evolutionary sense, in an overpopulated world, homosexuals are born to help clean up some of the mess that all the breeders have made. Parents who would try genetic engineering to change a detected gay tendency in a fetus don't deserve to have a child. I'd only hope they end up with the most shiftless, ignorant straight child the world has even seen.

Answer 5

I think that the people who would most likely support this particular form of gene tampering are also people who tend to NOT support gene-tampering in general; i.e., fundamentalist christians.
I think I would have to say that my position is that since homosexuality is not a physically debilitating condition, it should be left to chance. China already attempts to control population growth, and other countries will be forced to follow suit eventually. In the face of dwindling resources and a degrading environment, it would be foolish to foster the idea that focussing on maximum reproductive capacity is desireable. It isn't, and that may be the selective value of homosexuality in the first place- selection applies as well to the species as a whole, not just to individual members of the species.

Answer 6

I would think homosexuality is very helpful.

It's not as thought we are underpopulated.
It would help find parents for orphans.
Seriously, there are enough babies thrown in dumpsters by straight couples to supplement those needs.
By throwing in dumpsters I should say "creating a hinderence."

Anyway, no I don't think people should be able to alter their children while still in the womb. Unless it has something to do with health.
Making your child have blue eyes, or brown hair or straight is un needed.
It's not a zwinky, it's a baby.

People wanting to have children should be mature enough to know that. And accept if they want to squeeze out more humans, there are risks. Deal or don't breed.

Answer 7

This is what I believe, right or wrong here it is. I believe God mad me Gay for a reason.

Being Gay, Straight, Trans, Bi isn't a choice.

We are all sexual beings. By extension, each of us has a sexual orientation: an enduring attraction — be it sexual, romantic, emotional or affectional — to another person. Sexual orientation, however, varies from one individual to the next and exists on a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. Between these two poles, there exist various forms of bisexuality.

It's thought sexual orientation is likely the result of complex interactions of a number of factors — genetics, cognitive, environmental, and biological.

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior: sexual orientation refers to feelings and to self-concept. People may — or may not — express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

In most people, yes, and their sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence. What's more, there's also considerable evidence to suggest that genetic and hormonal factors play a key role in shaping a person's sexuality

Disagreeing with someone else being gay is disapproval, which is something different. But first I should point out that since you've called it the "homosexual lifestyle," you have already made the assumption that it is a choice. This is the heart of much of the debate out there about homosexuality. Some people believe it is a choice, while others believe it's not. True, it is a choice whether or not someone acts on their feelings for someone of the same sex. But I don't believe those feelings are a choice any more than I believe a straight person sits down one day and "chooses" to feel attracted to the opposite sex. Have you ever turned down dating someone of the opposite sex because you simply did not feel any "spark" there? If so, you know that no matter how hard you try, you can't force yourself to feel attracted to them. If people insisted that you have a relationship with that person anyway and try to force yourself to be happy, or that you don't deserve a fulfilling relationship at all because of how you feel, and they were going to persecute and harass you if you didn't do what they said, you'd probably feel it was very unfair and be very unhappy. I know it may be hard for a straight person to understand how we could feel the way we do, but when you try to tell us who we should be happy with, we go through the same thing. It's really hard for us when people who have not had to deal with these things insist that, since they feel readily attracted to the opposite sex, we should somehow be able to force ourselves to feel the same way. It's all easy to say if you haven't been through it. This is intolerance of people who are different from oneself, the definition of bigotry. So in answer to one of your questions, yes, I would say this is bigotry, one form of homophobia. Disapproving of others being gay is passing judgement, something I believe only God has the right to do. That said, having these personal beliefs while still continuing to treat gay people respectfully and kindly and as equal human beings, and urging others to do the same, is still different from being a hater or hatemonger

Answer 8

Being gay isn't a hindrance on their lives, if it was a genetic disease like Huntington's disease that they were to be born with and they could fix it, great.

If the parents really some how changed it, I don't know how I could raise the child knowing it wasn't the way he/she was going to be. It's not like the world desperately needs more baby makers right now.

Answer 9

first and most importantly, do you think this world has a problem with not having enought babies? I think we have more than enough babies. We have a hard time feeding the people that already exist on this planet. Not to mention overcrowding in cities, etc.

I think that being gay is natural and IS NOT a defect. I do not subscribe to medical intervention on children (below the age of consent) that is not to cure an illness or defect.

When a person comes of age they can make their own informed decisions regarding their bodies.

♂♂

Answer 10

ACTUALLY, I find homosexuality VERY helpful to society. Less people reproducing- are earth is already overpopulated!

Though, I don't think there is a 'homosexuaity gene' so I don't think it can be 'corrected' as you say.

ALSO, more people adopting. Which is great.