Straight Pill

[evolvedForm]

My friend asked me this hypothetical today, and I think it would make for some good debate on here. I'm refining it for this forum.

Suppose scientists develop a pill that would eliminate homosexuality all together. But, the pill only eliminates the genetic tendency towards homosexuality (supposing there definitely is one) in babies. Homosexuality would probably still exist but in a much more narrow form, given that the genetic aspect is erased. And note that it would not "cure" adult gay people, as if it were sent from heaven in response to one of Jerry Falwell's prayers.

Jokes aside, assume for this question that homosexuality will only be 0.5% of the population after the pill comes out.

Should gay people approve or reject it? Do you think gays would want to rid the world of people who share the same highly problematic* sexual orientation? Would they want to spare future generations of gays the same hardships they themselves had to go through? If they accept this option, would they be selling out gay pride?

Or, would they instead defend their lifestyle, holding it up as a model for future generations, remaining true to the "gay pride" mantra? If they choose this option, would they be acting selfishly by promoting heir own freedom at the expense of future generations? Or, would they be justified in affirming homosexuality, even though it is arguably a much more difficult lifestyle?

I don't know how real the possibility of this is, but it seems as though it could feasibly become a reality in the future. As a straight, very libertarian male, I don't think it's an easy ethical decision. I am interested in what gays and nongays think.


I'm not looking for people to comment on whether or not gays are selfish enough to ignore future generations, for that would be missing the point. I want to see what you think is the most ethical decision, first. Then, want to see what you think gays would choose given the situation. I won't listen to obviously anti-gay responses though. There are a couple reasons I'm including the second question, one of which is because i fear there aren't many gays here to speak for themselves. But I don't know that, and that's the other reason.




*I'm assuming in this post that gays in general have harder lives than straight people. I think that's a safe assumption.

[evolvedForm]

I'm calling mispoll on myself. Scratch the second question from the records. Too big of a generalization.

[Phil153]

In my opinion our genetic makeup shouldn't be modified except for serious diseases. For example, a predisposition to depression or addiction shouldn't be tampered with, but schizophrenia should be.

I would class homosexuality as a low level mental illness. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with the ability to have normal lives and normal personalities. So I'm against the idea of a pill.

I think most of these homosexuals would bristle at the idea that their sexual preference is abnormal or undesirable, and would be strongly opposed to a pill to "fix" them. They believe their "diversity" is normal. Most of today's society probably agree with them, due to postmodern propaganda and the homosexual's strong control over Hollywood and the media.

[hmkpoker]

I believe there should be another option on your second poll: different gays will voice different opinions.

Tha being said, I believe that the pill should be allowed to exist, and it should be the right of the parent to decide whether or give it to their child (I assume that we're taking is for granted that the pill has no adverse side effects, yes?)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion our genetic makeup shouldn't be modified except for serious diseases. For example, a predisposition to depression or addiction shouldn't be tampered with, but schizophrenia should be.

I would class homosexuality as a low level mental illness. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with the ability to have normal lives and normal personalities. So I'm against the idea of a pill.

I think most of these homosexuals would bristle at the idea that their sexual preference is abnormal or undesirable, and would be strongly opposed to a pill to "fix" them. They believe their "diversity" is normal. Most of today's society probably agree with them, due to postmodern propaganda and the homosexual's strong control over Hollywood and the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man you are weird. I was actually interested to see what your response to this question would be, as I honestly don't know how I would feel about this. I think I can say with almost certainty what the "Official Gay Community" would say, and that is that "Homosexuality is not a disease, doesn't need a cure, and you guys can kindly go eff yourselves."

But back to your response, I find it hilarious that you decide to arbitrarily decide that addiction and depression are only "minor" things and should not be treated, whereas "major" illnesses like schizophrenia deserve treatment. Since you seem to have some system (although I can't imagine what it could be, from the example given) to determine which are the really bad conditions and which aren't, please sort the following list into "Treatable by gene modification" and "Not treatable." For the sake of argument, lets just assume all of these are 100% genetically determined and the technology would exist.

Diabetes, CHF, lung cancer, skin cancer, breast cancer, arthritis, hypertension, scoliosis, sickle-cell, male-pattern baldness, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntington's, dwarfism, deafness, blindness, and, oh lets say color-blindedness.

You dont have to sort them all, although the more complete your list the more clearly I can get a picture of which things you deem to be 'really bad' afflictions and which ones people ought to be able to suffer through.

[Fast Food Knight]

Not intending to hi-jack, but...

There's a theory I recently heard about that was showcased on 60 Minutes. The idea is that gayness is not genetic, but that it is a result of when a woman carries a boy in her womb that her body has some sort of defense mechanism against the foreign male element. Sounds crazy, but the (rather extensive) studies show that for each older brother a given man has, his chance of being gay goes up by 33%, suggesting that this defense mechanism grows stronger and stronger with each male that she carries.

It is interesting to note that this 33% increase only applies if the younger brother in question is right handed. Didn't really address lesbians.

The full article is
here. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml) <font color="green"> </font>

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]

Man you are weird. I was actually interested to see what your response to this question would be, as I honestly don't know how I would feel about this. I think I can say with almost certainty what the "Official Gay Community" would say, and that is that "Homosexuality is not a disease, doesn't need a cure, and you guys can kindly go eff yourselves."

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is basically what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
But back to your response, I find it hilarious that you decide to arbitrarily decide that addiction and depression are only "minor" things and should not be treated, whereas "major" illnesses like schizophrenia deserve treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe I talked about a predisposition. We should be VERY careful before messing with genes that control our minds. Some of the greatest artists and scientists, and some of most influential leaders, have been "sufferers" of these mental afflictions such as depression, addiction, Asperger's and bipolar. By removing these "undesirable" traits and creating a society full of "happy, normal people" we run the risk of removing a source of human creativity, experience and perspective. That's all I'm saying. We should also be reluctant to mandate that one state of mind is superior to another, except in the case permanent impairment of functioning.

[vhawk01]

Ok, I suppose I agree with you there. We had a case that we discussed in our medical ethics class that dealt with a deaf couple who wanted to have a child. The issue was whether it was ethical or not for them to select for a child who would be deaf. They were deaf, their friends were deaf, and they were part of a 'deaf community.' Since you could make the argument that being deaf, while not the norm, is a state that isn't far removed from simply 'being different' and is not necessarily a handicap (at least many deaf people see it that way) it seems analogous to what you are saying. And I think I agree with you. We should be reluctant to classify one state as necessarily normal or superior to others.

However, I do think that you might be mischaracterizing clinical depression a bit. Clinical depression is every bit as severe and serious a condition as schizophrenia.

[Metric]

Interesting question. Two points:

1) I think gay people would indeed be offended/incensed by the pill, and understandably so.

2) Point #1 is virtually irrelevant. The vast majority of children are not born to gays, but to straight couples who would not be incensed by the pill, and would probably view it as a cheap way to ensure their new bundle of joy avoids some unpleasantness associated with being gay down the road, and perhaps to increase the probability of continuing their line/legacy. It would just be thrown in with the rest of immunizations a typical child receives (assuming an idealized pill with no side effects, of course).

[guesswest]

I have to say, whilst the gay community is surely right to be incensed by the suggestion that homosexuality is an illness - if it were my kids I might be tempted by this option, not because I think there's anything 'wrong' with being gay or that I'd think any less less of my kids if they were, just that they'd have a lot less [censored] to deal with from society. Plus it'd up my chances of having grandchildren.

[chezlaw]

what about a religon pill.

Who would administer a pill casusing a greater chance of belief in god?

who would administer a pill making belief in god less likely?

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
what about a religon pill.

Who would administer a pill casusing a greater chance of belief in god?

who would administer a pill making belief in god less likely?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Fascinating question. I dont know if I would do either but it feels like I should.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what about a religon pill.

Who would administer a pill casusing a greater chance of belief in god?

who would administer a pill making belief in god less likely?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Fascinating question. I dont know if I would do either but it feels like I should.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think administering both are wrong and so is the gay pill. imo the test is whether or not its reasonable to believe that a person not giving the pill would wish they had been.

Its not reasonable to believe that:

Religous people wish they had been given an anti-religon pill. ditto non reliogous

Gay people wish they had been given an anti-gay pill (though they're probably fairly keen on anti-bigotry pill)

In contrast, it is reasonable to believe that deaf/dumb/blind etc etc people would wish to have been given treatment to prevent these conditions.

I wonder most about the anti-bigotry pill. Do bigots wish that they weren't, or do people like being bigots?

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think administering both are wrong and so is the gay pill. imo the test is whether or not its reasonable to believe that a person not giving the pill would wish they had been.

Its not reasonable to believe that:

Religous people wish they had been given an anti-religon pill. ditto non reliogous

Gay people wish they had been given an anti-gay pill (though they're probably fairly keen on anti-bigotry pill)

In contrast, it is reasonable to believe that deaf/dumb/blind etc etc people would wish to have been given treatment to prevent these conditions.

I wonder most about the anti-bigotry pill. Do bigots wish that they weren't, or do people like being bigots?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using pretty much the same test - I struggle with the religion one since if god doesnt exist I want the anti-religion pill, if god does exist, presumably you would want the pro-religion pill...I started wandering down a kind of pascal's choice argument but it's the middle of the night so didnt make much sense to myself. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[_TKO_]

I am straight, and I answered no/no.

Homesexuality is the illness; homophopia is.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what about a religon pill.

Who would administer a pill casusing a greater chance of belief in god?

who would administer a pill making belief in god less likely?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Fascinating question. I dont know if I would do either but it feels like I should.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think administering both are wrong and so is the gay pill. imo the test is whether or not its reasonable to believe that a person not giving the pill would wish they had been.

Its not reasonable to believe that:

Religous people wish they had been given an anti-religon pill. ditto non reliogous

Gay people wish they had been given an anti-gay pill (though they're probably fairly keen on anti-bigotry pill)

In contrast, it is reasonable to believe that deaf/dumb/blind etc etc people would wish to have been given treatment to prevent these conditions.

I wonder most about the anti-bigotry pill. Do bigots wish that they weren't, or do people like being bigots?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, and agree that this is the measuring stick that is sort of commonly accepted in ethical debates. I just want to hijack for a second to another point you made in this post. It is easy to say, from your perspective as a hearing person, that 'deaf people would certainly wish they had not been born deaf.' But imagine a child with two deaf parents and whose family friends are mostly deaf. Perhaps that child would wish to share in that? Obviously it seems bizarre and cruel to 'inflict' deafness on a child unnecessarily, but I don't know that it is always so cut-and-dry. Thats why in these cases, I usually would default to the parent to make such a decision. But then you have the same problem again, that parents certainly do not always act in the best interest of their children.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
I am straight, and I answered no/no.

Homesexuality is not the illness; homophopia is.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am straight, and I answered no/no.

Homosexuality is not the illness; homophobia is.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYFMP.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am straight, and I answered no/no.

Homosexuality is not the illness; homophobia is.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYFMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I suck (no pun intended). Thanks.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think administering both are wrong and so is the gay pill. imo the test is whether or not its reasonable to believe that a person not giving the pill would wish they had been.

Its not reasonable to believe that:

Religous people wish they had been given an anti-religon pill. ditto non reliogous

Gay people wish they had been given an anti-gay pill (though they're probably fairly keen on anti-bigotry pill)

In contrast, it is reasonable to believe that deaf/dumb/blind etc etc people would wish to have been given treatment to prevent these conditions.

I wonder most about the anti-bigotry pill. Do bigots wish that they weren't, or do people like being bigots?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using pretty much the same test - I struggle with the religion one since if god doesnt exist I want the anti-religion pill, if god does exist, presumably you would want the pro-religion pill...I started wandering down a kind of pascal's choice argument but it's the middle of the night so didnt make much sense to myself. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
That's tricky. I think we need a truth pill. Would you take a pill that would reveal the truth to you? I guess yes, i sure would. Somehow the thought of administering it to someone else seems wrong - I think many would rather not know he truth - not at all sure though. The solution is for me to take the truth pill, then I'll know what to do /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what about a religon pill.

Who would administer a pill casusing a greater chance of belief in god?

who would administer a pill making belief in god less likely?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Fascinating question. I dont know if I would do either but it feels like I should.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think administering both are wrong and so is the gay pill. imo the test is whether or not its reasonable to believe that a person not giving the pill would wish they had been.

Its not reasonable to believe that:

Religous people wish they had been given an anti-religon pill. ditto non reliogous

Gay people wish they had been given an anti-gay pill (though they're probably fairly keen on anti-bigotry pill)

In contrast, it is reasonable to believe that deaf/dumb/blind etc etc people would wish to have been given treatment to prevent these conditions.

I wonder most about the anti-bigotry pill. Do bigots wish that they weren't, or do people like being bigots?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, and agree that this is the measuring stick that is sort of commonly accepted in ethical debates. I just want to hijack for a second to another point you made in this post. It is easy to say, from your perspective as a hearing person, that 'deaf people would certainly wish they had not been born deaf.' But imagine a child with two deaf parents and whose family friends are mostly deaf. Perhaps that child would wish to share in that? Obviously it seems bizarre and cruel to 'inflict' deafness on a child unnecessarily, but I don't know that it is always so cut-and-dry. Thats why in these cases, I usually would default to the parent to make such a decision. But then you have the same problem again, that parents certainly do not always act in the best interest of their children.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting example, I don't know - but its reasonable belief not certainty. You treat people who you reasonable believe would have wished to been treated if they hadn't been. As with all ethics that leaves many dillemas - some of which are insoluable.

imo a good person does their best, that's more important than being right. i.e. its better to do the thing they wouldn't have wished for believing its what they would have wished for then to do the thing they would have wished for believing its what they wouldn't have wanted.

chez

[TomCollins]

You realize how millitant deaf people are about any treatments to make people able to hear again? Multiply that by about 100 and you'll get the gay response.

[Andrew Karpinski]

The outlook that homosexuality is an 'illness' of any sort is laughable. Sexuality, like all behaviour, is learnt and I am highly skeptical that your genetics have anything to do with it. There is NOTHING wrong with men having sex with men.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there should be another option on your second poll: different gays will voice different opinions.



[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed that in a post immediately, but it got pushed to the bottom just as rapidly.

[ QUOTE ]

Tha being said, I believe that the pill should be allowed to exist, and it should be the right of the parent to decide whether or give it to their child (I assume that we're taking is for granted that the pill has no adverse side effects, yes?)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the pill works perfectly.

So you're saying it's ethical for the pill to exist. So would you take the strong stance that it's unethical to withold it (from the market)? Do gays deserve the right to have a say in the matter? I mean, they have a whole culture of their own and they wouldn't want to see it destroyed. In a sense, it's almost like if there were a "white pill" that "cured" blackness. What would you think about that?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we need a truth pill. Would you take a pill that would reveal the truth to you? I guess yes, i sure would. Somehow the thought of administering it to someone else seems wrong - I think many would rather not know he truth - not at all sure though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many people would choose to take the pill, and immediately regret it.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The outlook that homosexuality is an 'illness' of any sort is laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct

[ QUOTE ]
Sexuality, like all behaviour, is learnt

[/ QUOTE ]

WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW is that wrong

[ QUOTE ]
and I am highly skeptical that your genetics have anything to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

also wrong



[ QUOTE ]
There is NOTHING wrong with men having sex with men.

[/ QUOTE ]

back to right

[yukoncpa]

I wish they would perfect a gay pill. I’d really like to be gay for a day. I mean, I understand these guys get way more sex than I could ever hope to get. Gay guys seem to be super smart. If only I could be gay for one day.

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish they would perfect a gay pill. I’d really like to be gay for a day. I mean, I understand these guys get way more sex than I could ever hope to get. Gay guys seem to be super smart. If only I could be gay for one day.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're the dumbest human ever.

this whole topic is so [censored] disgusting it makes me sick. How is this any different that what Hitler tried to do?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different that what Hitler tried to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. No one is being murdered
2. No one is being imprisoned
3. No one is being forced to work
4. No one is treated as a second class citizen as a result of their enjoyment of other men's buttholes.

He talking about a hypothetical pill which fixes the hypothetical defect responsible for homosexuality. It's not that different to treating an embryo for down syndrome or schizophrenia, except for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different that what Hitler tried to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. No one is being murdered
2. No one is being imprisoned
3. No one is being forced to work
4. No one is treated as a second class citizen as a result of their enjoyment of other men's buttholes.

He talking about a hypothetical pill which fixes the hypothetical defect responsible for homosexuality. It's not that different to treating an embryo for down syndrome or schizophrenia, except for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Phil your still making up this 'defect' stuff. It's kind of expected from some religous types who think in terms of design but from someone who presumably doesn't think evolution is an evil conspiricy it's a bit silly.

Why not just admit you don't like people who are different to you?

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
imo a good person does their best, that's more important than being right. i.e. its better to do the thing they wouldn't have wished for believing its what they would have wished for then to do the thing they would have wished for believing its what they wouldn't have wanted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give me a non-extreme example of someone doing something, believing it's what they wouldn't have wanted?

It sounds like the wanting happens after the believing, making it hard for the wanting to be part of the believing.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
imo a good person does their best, that's more important than being right. i.e. its better to do the thing they wouldn't have wished for believing its what they would have wished for then to do the thing they would have wished for believing its what they wouldn't have wanted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give me a non-extreme example of someone doing something, believing it's what they wouldn't have wanted?

It sounds like the wanting happens after the believing, making it hard for the wanting to be part of the believing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Intervening to prevent a baby that would be born with HIV having the virus.

Its reasonable to believe that if the person had been born with HIV they would have wished you had intervened.

chez

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil your still making up this 'defect' stuff. It's kind of expected from some religous types who think in terms of design but from someone who presumably doesn't think evolution is an evil conspiricy it's a bit silly.

Why not just admit you don't like people who are different to you?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't find it bizarre that these people get sexually aroused by members of the same sex, to the point of wanting to put their penis in another man's rectum?

Humans have strong natural sexual urges. 95% (or whatever the number is) of males are biologically wired to be sexually and emotionally attracted to females.

Sexuality is a huge part of the human psyche, and to stray so far from our biological wiring and social conditioning is indeed an aberration. To overcome such strong natural wiring, something must have gone haywire in their developing brain or psychosexual development. In that sense they're similar to a psychopath or someone with Asperger's who is unable to feel and express certain emotions because something is wired wrong in their head.

We certainly shouldn't saying that homosexuals are "normal" when they stray far from normal biological and psychological functioning. And we shouldn't encourage children to think of homosexuality as a normal part of human behavior, when in fact it's more akin to an illness.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't find it bizarre that these people get sexually aroused by members of the same sex, to the point of wanting to put their penis in another man's rectum?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I find it bizarre, even revolting. Others don't find it revolting.

The thought of sexual activity with someone we don't find sexually attractive is pretty revolting. I used to find the idea of sex with 40 year women pretty revolting, now I'm grateful. So what?

as to the rest, homosexuals aren't straying from their biological wiring, nor should they. I don't really understand why you want people to be the same but I accept that you do, I'd just rather you avoided the silly idea that there's something wrong with people who don't conform to how you would like things to be.

chez

[Andrew Karpinski]

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You don't find it bizarre that these people get sexually aroused by members of the same sex, to the point of wanting to put their penis in another man's rectum?
"

Is it any weirder than a man wanting to put their penis in a womens mouth?

"And we shouldn't encourage children to think of homosexuality as a normal part of human behavior, when in fact it's more akin to an illness."

There is absolutely no difference between this opinion and saying "white people having sex with black people is disgusting".

It is bigotry and despicable.

[Sykes]

Hey Phil, I have a strong urge to kill you. I do not do so because the laws of society says it's wrong to harm another. However, the laws of nature say "survival of the fittest".

Which law should I choose? Which law do you want me to choose?

Choose wisely.

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different that what Hitler tried to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. No one is being murdered
2. No one is being imprisoned
3. No one is being forced to work
4. No one is treated as a second class citizen as a result of their enjoyment of other men's buttholes.

He talking about a hypothetical pill which fixes the hypothetical defect responsible for homosexuality. It's not that different to treating an embryo for down syndrome or schizophrenia, except for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think #4 is not true, you're a [censored] [censored].

And I was referring his drive to create a superior race. How is that any different then what you're doing?

[vhawk01]

And actually you could make an argument that this pill does EXACTLY #1 as well. I assume we all feel some relationship to, say, who we are. Not our physical bodies, mind you, but how we think and feel. So, if I were to do something to you, right now, that made you a completely different person, and the 'you' that you are right now was gone forever....how different is that from killing you? Your body will still be there, it will just have a far different 'self' than it does right now. How different would it need to be before you would consider me to have killed 'you'?

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
There is NOTHING wrong with men having sex with men.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily true. However, what it is true is that men have sex with men is no more wrong or right than women having sex with men. That is, if men having sex with men is wrong, then so would be women having sex with men (or any other combination of the genders, for that matter).

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Phil, I have a strong urge to kill you. I do not do so because the laws of society says it's wrong to harm another. However, the laws of nature say "survival of the fittest".

Which law should I choose? Which law do you want me to choose?

Choose wisely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can people really be as stupid as you are? I guess they can. Reread this thread - I actually advocate AGAINST a gay pill.

This isn't an issue of the "laws of nature" vs "the laws of society". Pull your head out of your angry, hateful ass and actually try to understand what people are saying.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different that what Hitler tried to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
4. No one is treated as a second class citizen as a result of their enjoyment of other men's buttholes.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think #4 is not true, you're a [censored] [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people are disgusted by homosexuality. Others think it's abnormal. These people tend to look down on homosexual behavior. Many others have no problem with it.

But under the law, no one is treated as second class citizen because they're gay. You don't know the meaning of the term or have the faintest understanding of history if you think that's the case. Gays have equal protection and standing under the law. There is specific anti hate legislation to protect them.

[ QUOTE ]
And I was referring his drive to create a superior race. How is that any different then what you're doing?

[/ QUOTE ]
So if someone had a pill to remove down syndrome from fetuses, would that be Hitler's work too?

The issue is whether or not homosexuality (hypothetically resulting from genes) is a mental defect. I and others believe that it is, in the same way as a lot of fetishes are. Somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, the wiring in people's brains relating to sexuality gets [censored] up. But just because it's a defect doesn't mean gay people are any less than others, in the same way that people with depression or diabetes or Asperger's or 6 toes or bizarre sexual preferences are no less than any other person. And I wouldn't support the use of this, as I've stated in earlier posts in this thread.

[soon2bepro]

Whats the problem with people choosing their baby's genetic predispositions? They already pretty much choose their psychological profile...

[CommanderCorm]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats the problem with people choosing their baby's genetic predispositions? They already pretty much choose their psychological profile...

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, the influence of education on the child´s personality goes notoriously wrong. There´s no way to "choose" your childrens psychological profile.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats the problem with people choosing their baby's genetic predispositions? They already pretty much choose their psychological profile...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, you tell me. I think the Slippery Slope argument applies better here than anywhere else. What things are and are not ok to select for? Skin color, intelligence, good looks, size of reproductive organ? What is the cost going to be? Can only rich kids become super smart/handsome/endowed?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, just that it is FAR more complicated than 'so what, let em do what they want.'

[guesswest]

I've never heard of a legal situation where the 'slipperly slope' argument actually does apply, and this is no exception. It's the same line of thought that goes into notions like stem cell research legalization leading to us all cloning ourselves for organ harvesting/fun. It's an argument that rightly applies to individual compulsive behaviour, not laws.

We make one illegal and not the other, in accordance with legislative consensus derived from public opinion, I really feel it's that simple.

[Youre A Towel]

OP, you make the point that the gay lifestyle is "highly problematic" in the sense that gay people are less likely to be happy. I think you are probably right about that. But I think looking at the REASON gay people are less likely to be happy is of critical importance. Some like Michael Levin have suggested that gays are unhappy because they are misusing their bodily organs (in a way other than for what nature intended), and that such activity could only lead to unhappiness.

I think that kind of view is ridiculous, and that it's far more likely that gays are unhappier because much of society holds the gay lifestyle in contempt, and even many of those who profess not to mind it choose to ignore such characteristics rather than accept them.

Fifty years ago, the American mainstream (at the very least the South, but the North too really) was in a similar situation with African Americans -- the examples of outright, vitriolic racism were probably pretty rare, but a lot of Americans were uncomfortable with the idea of having their kids in the same schools as "negroes," sharing water fountains with them, etc. I imagine that this type of treatment made African Americans LESS happy on the whole than their white counterparts (obviously there were exceptions, and there was certainly a large and thriving black pride movement), but I think most of us would agree that mainstream society was mostly to blame for African Americans' "unhappiness."


Obviously the prejudice against homosexuals is not nearly as strong, and the examples of their mistreatment much less overt, but I think the unhappiness you alluded to is rooted in a similar kind of discomfort on society's part. It is not a form of self-alienation (unless you believe that homosexuality is entirely a choice, a theory which has been almost completely discredited).

Cliff Notes: I agree that homosexuals are generally unhappier than heterosexuals. I think this is because of how society views them, not because of anything internal. I make no claims about a societal obligation to make homosexuals happier, although I think its pretty obvious that if society was more accepting of homosexualy that homosexuals would be happier.

[evolvedForm]

I agree with your main points. I also think the reason gays aren't as happy as they could be because of society. Also, let me clarify my point that it's not just about happiness, but pain and suffering. Gays almost certainly suffer, in general, more emotional and psychological pain. This is similar to unhappiness but I just wanted to make the distinction. Most of this is probably a result of having a hard time fitting in, or not being accepted by their families -- or even themselves. It's not likely to be any internal chemical cause, imo.

It seems that you imply that gays will soon be (are already?) accepted in society. You also make the case about blacks. Both groups have considerable legal status (with blacks obv having the edge) but I don't think either are accepted at the psychological level. 50 years ago blacks were still being beaten on the streets. It takes much longer than that to erase the memories, which linger in society's consciousness. There is still rampant racism, evidenced by the fact that we can't stop talking about racism. And long after gays attain full legal freedom, there will be the hangover of a society that was grounded, as it were, in anti-homosexual feeling. Gays will still be alienated by the majority because the predominant ethos of our society will not easily change.

Take Ancient Greece as an example of a society with a vastly different system of ethics; one that seems much freer, but that is still in some cases just as restrictive. In Athens it was perfectly acceptable for grown men to pursue teen boys. They could have wives, and most of them did; but they were free to have a paidika on the side. The boy, however, had the right to choose the man. The point of all this stuff, which sounds pretty disturbing, I admit, is that men were not looked down upon for this behavior. It was even encouraged. On the other hand, they were severely ridiculed if they had relations with other adult men. That, paradoxically, was considered perverse. The key is that boys are passive and men are active. The dichotomy makes it acceptable -- "natural," like a man and a woman.

The entire Greek ethics was founded on the active-passive dichotomy. To go against this would cause severe problems. In our society, it seems our ethics is a stricter man-woman dichotomy. As long as this is the case, gays and other kinds of people will struggle. And though there is growing acceptance, our society has not yet shed the old ethics, and it may never will, considering how deeply it has permeated our political, legal, and social institutions.

[Youre A Towel]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your main points. I also think the reason gays aren't as happy as they could be because of society. Also, let me clarify my point that it's not just about happiness, but pain and suffering. Gays almost certainly suffer, in general, more emotional and psychological pain. This is similar to unhappiness but I just wanted to make the distinction. Most of this is probably a result of having a hard time fitting in, or not being accepted by their families -- or even themselves. It's not likely to be any internal chemical cause, imo.

It seems that you imply that gays will soon be (are already?) accepted in society. You also make the case about blacks. Both groups have considerable legal status (with blacks obv having the edge) but I don't think either are accepted at the psychological level. 50 years ago blacks were still being beaten on the streets. It takes much longer than that to erase the memories, which linger in society's consciousness. There is still rampant racism, evidenced by the fact that we can't stop talking about racism. And long after gays attain full legal freedom, there will be the hangover of a society that was grounded, as it were, in anti-homosexual feeling. Gays will still be alienated by the majority because the predominant ethos of our society will not easily change.


[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree with this. I did not mean to imply that society in all of its totality will one day accept homoexuality, nor was I suggesting that racism is a thing of the past. However, racism is much less prevalent (and much less obvious/blatant) in today's society than it was 50 years ago -- most would call this "progress." Progress isn't necessarily destined to happen, though, and its certainly possible that in 50 years homosexuality will be even more self-alienating (due to society's failure to accept it) than it is today, if for example the Religious Right grows in size and/or power. In such a case, time would be progressing, even if society really wouldn't be in the realm of tolerance for homosexuals.

And again, my post was more an observation than a moral prescription. I personally think the country would be a better place if it was more tolerant of homosexuals, but obviously a lot of people strongly disagree with me (many of them for ridiculous reasons, unfortunately; like fear that acceptance might increase the likelihood that their kids become gay, for example, but I'll leave that one alone).