Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/14/2009 09:30:50 PM · #2952

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let us assume our hunch about homosexuality is correct. We discover it is a genetic predisposition which is triggered by environmental conditions (if the conditions are met, the gene is expressed and your son is gay). We have discovered what the environmental trigger is and find that it occurs very early in life, before a year of age. You have a son and discover he has the genetic predisposition to homosexuality. In what manner would you use the knowledge of knowing what the environemental trigger is for your son?

Your post suggests that homosexuality is an abnormality, that cannot be explained genetically. This, however, has shown to be false.

Exactly. It's like saying being a girl or having dark skin is triggered by environmental conditions subject to a "cure." Can you not recognize that viewing anyone different as defective humans is the problem at hand? It's a learned bias inflicted by cultural conditions and indoctrination, and the primary source of discrimination and conflict. What if Hershey discovered a genetic predisposition for people who don't like chocolateâ�� should they cure that, too?

Message edited by author 2009-11-14 21:31:39.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/14/2009 09:41:04 PM · #2953

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This changes the subject a bit ...

We're discussing the issue of equal legal rights for adult human beings, not eugenics. You could propose a similar hypothetical for any other trait you like -- it would be just as irrelevant a distraction (highjack) to the topic at hand.

No kidding. Besides wouldn't it make more sense to attack the actual problem, which behavioral (ie discrimination) rather than look for ways to appease the discriminators? It would be like telling rape victims to stop wearing skirts and start buying burqas.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/14/2009 10:01:48 PM · #2954

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we lived in a society where homosexuals are seen as equals in the eyes of society in all regards, why would I even contemplate a need or desire to prevent my child from growing up to be homosexual?

~Terry

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/14/2009 10:16:03 PM · #2955

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wow......just, Wow...

How 'bout if we do that for Christians?

Oh, wait!

That's a choice, not a genetic predisposition!

So.......that means discrimination's a choice, too.

11/15/2009 02:17:17 AM · #2956

Holy crap, you guys. The possibility of such a time is not science fiction. It is very likely a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental factors play a role in homosexuality just like it does in many, many other traits of human personality. Discovering the gene (or genes) is well within our grasp. Discovering the environmental trigger is likely to be harder, but is not impossible. The thought experiment did not show any judgement on the trait, that was purely projected by Vitamin B, Scalvert, and maybe yanko (not sure there).

Nobody has the intellectual bravery to even answer the question? There is no right or wrong answer. Terry actually answered and said he'd just ignore the information (I guess that's what he's saying).

I can't believe when I start a reasonable course of conversation the natural reaction is just to pig pile on me. What is the harm in my question? Look back at it. Where do I judge anything? I'm basically getting at the question of whether there is any reason one would choose homosexuality or heterosexuality for their son if they could do so?

Get a grip, people.

11/15/2009 02:39:38 AM · #2957

I'd be a bit outraged that money is being spent researching which gene "turns someone gay", to tell you the truth. I'd MUCH prefer the genetics behind diabetes or cancer and how to turn THAT off be the subject of the research.

I would never want to know if a child had a "homosexual" gene and try to decided if there were some trigger to turn it off. Would you? Oh, and is this hypothetical information that we are on the edge of discovering only for males?

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 02:40:21.

11/15/2009 02:54:47 AM · #2958

Originally posted by Melethia:

I don't think anybody is doing any research so they can turn anything off. Wouldn't discovering a genetic predisposition wind up giving the movement a lot more momentum? I'd think that the research being done (whereever that is) would be supported by the gay community. And while I do actually think we are further along in understanding homosexuality vs. lesbianism (there is no guarantee they are the same thing genetically), I just wanted to keep the story simple in the same way it's tiresome to write "his or her" all the time. You can make it about your daughter if you want.

You would be very surprised what parents want to know and control about how their children are brought up. Baby Einstein is a multi-million dollar line of DVDs because there is weak evidence that classical music helps develop babies' brains. We all want what we think is best for our children. I'm just getting at whether people think there is a "default" on this matter or whether it doesn't matter at all (which probably is never true, even if you take discrimination out of the picture).

You are a little less involved on this thread Deb. Do you think I crossed some line by asking the question? Am I somehow being denigrating (which I believe I have never been on the three zillion posts on this thread)?

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 02:57:13.

11/15/2009 03:17:04 AM · #2959

I think we're moving a bit close to "playing God", yes, with designer babies. It is very disturbing to me, but I can always hope that I'll be dead before it comes to be. The older I get, the more disillusioned I get with what is "good" in the world. Seriously.

As to whether you personally crossed a line in this debate? I don't know - I'm not a debater. You put out a position, asked for arguments/responses. I'd say that's fair game.

If we "turned off" all the gays (and wandering into stereotypes here - apologies in advance), what would the net effect be on the arts?

11/15/2009 03:48:29 AM · #2960

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Suppose I asked, if there was a cure for religious people would you undergo the procedure? It would be a simple operation to fix your brain so that you can be a rational human belng free of the disease that is religious belief. Would you give such a question much validity given the negative assumptions contained within?

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 03:59:18.

11/15/2009 03:57:26 AM · #2961

Originally posted by Melethia:

I find it interesting that someone who believes in God is asking questions about genetically changing God's creations. Whatever happened to God works in mysterious ways? Maybe homosexuals and everyone else are here for a reason and are part of God's plan? Yet here's Jason trying to screw it all up. So much for faith.

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 03:59:57.

11/15/2009 03:59:27 AM · #2962

Originally posted by yanko:

Suppose I asked, if there was a cure for religious people would you undergo the procedure? It would be a simple operation to fix your brain so that you can be a rational human belng free of the diease that is religious belief. Would you give such a question much validity given the negative assumptions contained within?

Well, please be clear that I wasn't talking at all about changing a currently homosexual person. The thought experiment was concerning a child with the predisposition, but without (as yet) the environmental trigger. I think it's a big difference. Their sexual orientation has not yet been determined.

Some people have speculated there is a genetic basis for religious people being religious. If it's true, it would be very complicated (just like homosexuality is likely to be). I'm not somehow offended by your question though. Do also note I never, ever used the word "cure". That's BS. I do get the negative assumptions in your own example, but I challenge you to quote the portions of mine that would equate to such language.

11/15/2009 04:50:34 AM · #2963

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
Suppose I asked, if there was a cure for religious people would you undergo the procedure? It would be a simple operation to fix your brain so that you can be a rational human belng free of the diease that is religious belief. Would you give such a question much validity given the negative assumptions contained within?

Well, please be clear that I wasn't talking at all about changing a currently homosexual person. The thought experiment was concerning a child with the predisposition, but without (as yet) the environmental trigger. I think it's a big difference. Their sexual orientation has not yet been determined.

You're right, it's a big difference, but I think you have it backwards. I didn't say you would be forced to undergo the procedure. I only asked if you would. In your example the child doesn't even get the choice.

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 04:57:33.

11/15/2009 05:37:55 AM · #2964

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Some people have speculated there is a genetic basis for religious people being religious. If it's true, it would be very complicated (just like homosexuality is likely to be). I'm not somehow offended by your question though. Do also note I never, ever used the word "cure". That's BS. I do get the negative assumptions in your own example, but I challenge you to quote the portions of mine that would equate to such language.

You've already argued that homosexuality = harder life, so one would assume that given the choice a caring parent would naturally choose the easier life, (i.e. heterosexuality) for their child. That seems to be where you're going with this. The problem is you're religious, you're anti-gay marriage and you're the one asking this question. It would be like a white person who was against civil rights for african americans asking a question about choosing skin color and making a point that black skin = harder life. In other words, sincerity is dead on arrival. So the onus is on you to overcome that disadvantage. Frankly, I don't think you got bad responses. Certainly not the kind that would require people to get a grip. But hey at least we know your emotional chip is working. :)

Message edited by author 2009-11-15 06:20:39.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/15/2009 07:15:17 AM · #2965

Went for a nice long bike ride. Decided I should probably find the front fender - it's muddy out there. But thought about the "would you change your child" thing. No way. And frankly, Doc, I'm suprised you'd consider such a thing since it is indeed trying to "play God". But then I realized that you see homosexuality as a flaw, a problem, a defect like a tendency toward pigeon-toed-ness, which can be corrected with special shoes; not an "as is", like eye color or handed-ness. Therein lies the difference in reactions, I think. I do not see homosexuality as a "flaw" or a "problem" that needs to be or can be "corrected".

Homosexuality, as an "as is", like handed-ness or eye color, does not intrinsically cause any physical problems; other genetic predispositions, like my example of diabetes, or perhaps breast cancer, certainly do cause real physical problems. Even pigeon-toed-ness can cause physical difficulties. Yet one could argue that it is still playing God to try to turn those things off before they start. How far does it go?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/15/2009 08:21:08 AM · #2966

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But why would you even go there? By default, by us knowing that you feel that homosexuality is immoral and/or an aberration, how would we *NOT* think that "making it go away" was the core intent of your hypothesis?

The reaction and responses you got were conditioned.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody has the intellectual bravery to even answer the question? There is no right or wrong answer. Terry actually answered and said he'd just ignore the information (I guess that's what he's saying).

Bullshit! It's a non-question. Those of us that see it completely differently than you don't see sexual orientation as a condition for a parent's love any more than they would see left-handedness as an aberration that would make you not love your kid.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I can't believe when I start a reasonable course of conversation the natural reaction is just to pig pile on me. What is the harm in my question? Look back at it. Where do I judge anything? I'm basically getting at the question of whether there is any reason one would choose homosexuality or heterosexuality for their son if they could do so?

Yeah, okay......you want to tell yourself that was a reasonable course of conversation, you go right ahead.

Look at it from our view......you put it out there that if we could "fix" our gay kid before it really takes hold, would you?

In my case, absolutely not.

Now.....if I could fix him from becoming Christian, yeah.....you bet!

How's that feel?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Get a grip, people.

See, that's the thing Jason......we do have a grip. Those aberrant gay people? The ones that are our friends and family? Those smart, funny, loving, exasperating, men & women who make this life rich, enjoyable, and challenging are just that. Regular people who help make the world go 'round. We don't tell them they're wrong, immoral, in need of "fixing" to be like "normal" people.

No, we hate it that we have to spend time fighting people like you for them so that they can just lead "normal" lives without people like you who want to deprive them of basic human rights, and their rights to everything in society that is a constant daily hurdle such that you cannot even imagine.

Personally, I'm embarrassed that this supposedly intelligent, evolved society still has so many people who feel the way they do about anyone different, and how they really go way to far in the way that they treat gays.

The rest of us just love them for who they are.

How much more of a grip do we need?

see

Canon PowerShot S95

11/15/2009 09:04:34 AM · #2967

Jason, we find out a child has the â��Hoâ�� gene, now what do we do. We know enough about the human brain to know, we know little. Do we force control over all that we perceive to be a environmental trigger, when in fact doing so will likely be one of the triggers (push-push back of free will). LOL lets face it Doc, It doesnâ��t mater how well you teach right and wrong, how you punish or donâ��t punish, I guarantee you will still have your 5 year old with chocolate dripping down the face, look you dead in the eye and say, I didnâ��t eat any cake.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/15/2009 10:02:31 AM · #2968

I may be wrong, but I think Jason's question is very simple, at core. Addressed to Shannon, Richard, et al, it goes:

"If you discovered your newborn child had a predisposition to homosexuality (genetic component) and lacked but the environmental trigger to complete the acquisition of the trait, would you or would you not take steps to see that the triggering event was never realized?"

I think the question is more about the depth of commitment of the resident "liberals" than it is about anything else. I don't think it's right to make the knee-jerk assumption that the question is born out of Doc's belief that homosexuality is a correctable "flaw", because that misses the point. It's not about what *he* thinks, it's about what *you* think, if you're really honest.

And that's a question NO-body is willing to answer, apparently...

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/15/2009 10:05:55 AM · #2969

Huh, I thought I answered it. The answer was no, I would NOT do anything to "stop" an environmental trigger.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/15/2009 10:16:32 AM · #2970

Originally posted by Melethia:

Huh, I thought I answered it. The answer was no, I would NOT do anything to "stop" an environmental trigger.

Sorry, you did, yup. I was limiting my thinking to the resident-antagonists-of-doc :-) You ain't one of them...

R.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/15/2009 10:21:09 AM · #2971

That's OK, Robert. As a non-skilled debater, my input is often overlooked or ignored. I'm good with that. :-)

see

Canon PowerShot S95

11/15/2009 10:35:52 AM · #2972

LOL, and I guess in my round about way my answer was, It's not possible.

Louis

Nikon D800

11/15/2009 10:51:37 AM · #2973

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I may be wrong, but I think Jason's question is very simple, at core. Addressed to Shannon, Richard, et al, it goes:

I think it would be fair to turn the tables on a question like this, and ask someone who believes homosexuality is a flaw, or who contemplates prenatal changes in people "having" homosexuality, or who in essence have the opposite view of it that Deb has, what they would do if they discovered their son or daughter turned out to be gay. Would they seek a psychiatric cure? Would they pray? Would they accept their child's choice of partner?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/15/2009 11:10:24 AM · #2974

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Baby Einstein is a multi-million dollar line of DVDs because there is weak evidence that classical music helps develop babies' brains.

Disney Corp. is in the process of issuing multi-million dollar refunds to purchasers of Baby Einstein products because scientific research has shown they have no measurable effect on intelligence.

I still say your "thought experiment" may be an interesting idea to explore people's attitude towards eugenics, but it is irrelevant to the topic of this thread and thus constitutes a (successful, so far) attempt to divert/highjack the discussion.