If homosexuality were proven to be genetic, would you consider it a defect?

[CriticalThought]

Let's assume over the next few years a series of studies were released which showed that a certain set of genes in mothers greatly increased their probability of having gay children. Let us also assume that probability was so great, that based on a women's genetic profile you could predict with near perfect accuracy that she would have gay children.

Would such evidence of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality change your current feelings about it?
Would you see it as a disability or defect?
Would you seek to have a potential wife tested to see if she carried the genes? If you are a woman, would you want to know whether you carry such genes?
Would your political views on issues like gay rights or same sex marriage change at all?
Would you equate homosexuality to conditions like alcoholism and argue that it needs to be treated the same way?

 

[joko104]

Isn't there already a long thread going on this topic?

However, the answera to your stained theoretical are all "no."

Nor do I see how, given your theoretical, there is any relationship to alcoholism, unless you are claiming that is predictable and testable genetics too.

 

[MadLib]

I feel the same way about this as many people feel about Asperger syndrome. If it were genetic, it would not be a disease but simply a different way of experiencing the world.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Would such evidence of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality change your current feelings about it?

No. Knowledge of the cause of homosexuality would have no bearing on my opinion of it, which is based entirely on my understanding of the effects of homosexuality.

Would you see it as a disability or defect?

I already do. That's why I'm interested in learning the cause.

Would you seek to have a potential wife tested to see if she carried the genes?

Yes. But since the majority of homosexuals-- especially male homosexuals-- have heterosexual siblings, and I consider homosexuality to be a very minor defect, this information would not be a deciding factor in my decision to marry.

Would your political views on issues like gay rights or same sex marriage change at all?

No, I would consider this to be irrelevant to my political views.

Would you equate homosexuality to conditions like alcoholism and argue that it needs to be treated the same way?

No. Alcoholism is a moral and psychological failing that genetics contributes to, and the preferred treatment is psychological and moral in nature. Homosexuality is not a moral failing, but merely the malfunction of the part of the brain responsible for sexual urges. If there were a medically responsible and ethical treatment to cultivate healthy heterosexual urges within homosexual patients, I would support developing it and making it available to people who wanted it; I would encourage homosexuals to avail themselves of it, especially if they are uncomfortable with their orientation.

The problem with treating homosexuality as a medical condition is that the people who want to cure it are approaching it incorrectly-- they are trying to treat the presence of homosexual urges, which occur periodically in most people, rather than trying to treat the absence of heterosexual urges. Or, worse, they attempt to "treat" behavior that is in no fashion medically problematic.

 

[joko104]

No. Knowledge of the cause of homosexuality would have no bearing on my opinion of it, which is based entirely on my understanding of the effects of homosexuality.



I already do. That's why I'm interested in learning the cause.



Yes. But since the majority of homosexuals-- especially male homosexuals-- have heterosexual siblings, and I consider homosexuality to be a very minor defect, this information would not be a deciding factor in my decision to marry.



No, I would consider this to be irrelevant to my political views.



No. Alcoholism is a moral and psychological failing that genetics contributes to, and the preferred treatment is psychological and moral in nature. Homosexuality is not a moral failing, but merely the malfunction of the part of the brain responsible for sexual urges. If there were a medically responsible and ethical treatment to cultivate healthy heterosexual urges within homosexual patients, I would support developing it and making it available to people who wanted it; I would encourage homosexuals to avail themselves of it, especially if they are uncomfortable with their orientation.

The problem with treating homosexuality as a medical condition is that the people who want to cure it are approaching it incorrectly-- they are trying to treat the presence of homosexual urges, which occur periodically in most people, rather than trying to treat the absence of heterosexual urges. Or, worse, they attempt to "treat" behavior that is in no fashion medically problematic.

Am i accurate that your SOMEWHAT negative emotions concerning gays (that you don't seem to translate to any bigotry against gays) may be based upon your life experiences and personal observations?

Most people I know who agree gays should be treated equality, no discrimination nor any of that, BUT also have some internal reservations and concerns about gays and/or bis usually is because of negative personal experiences or observations about other people they know or themselves. Those negative internal concerns also tend to be specifically primarily about gay men. That applies to myself and my perspectives. You?

 

[MaggieD]

Let's assume over the next few years a series of studies were released which showed that a certain set of genes in mothers greatly increased their probability of having gay children. Let us also assume that probability was so great, that based on a women's genetic profile you could predict with near perfect accuracy that she would have gay children.

Would such evidence of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality change your current feelings about it?
Would you see it as a disability or defect?
Would you seek to have a potential wife tested to see if she carried the genes? If you are a woman, would you want to know whether you carry such genes?
Would your political views on issues like gay rights or same sex marriage change at all?
Would you equate homosexuality to conditions like alcoholism and argue that it needs to be treated the same way?

Answer to all: "No."

 

[Temporal]

It's amusing to see people talking about a cure, when it's not even a disease.

The answer to all of the above is no.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Am i accurate that your SOMEWHAT negative emotions concerning gays (that you don't seem to translate to any bigotry against gays) may be based upon your life experiences and personal observations?

On the contrary, I wouldn't say that I have any negative emotions toward homosexuals or homosexuality. My views on homosexuality-- right or wrong-- are based on evolutionary logic; our ability to be sexually attracted to other people evolved to encourage reproduction, and thus the inability to become attracted to people we are capable of reproducing with is a deficiency and an evolutionary obstacle. It's more difficult for homosexuals to reproduce and they generally have fewer children than heterosexuals; I feel some pity for their inability to take pleasure in the act of conception.

I have some negative emotions concerning personally having sex with another man, but that's neither moral nor political and doesn't apply to what other people do as long as they observe basic social decorum.

Most people I know who agree gays should be treated equality, no discrimination nor any of that, BUT also have some internal reservations and concerns about gays and/or bis usually is because of negative personal experiences or observations about other people they know or themselves.

I don't have any reservations about bisexuals; their heterosexual urges are functioning correctly, so their homosexual urges are, at absolute worst, extraneous and may in fact serve their own beneficial purposes. In fact, if those beneficial purposes were adequately demonstrated to me, I would argue that strict heterosexuality is also a deficiency, albeit a lesser one.

Those negative internal concerns also tend to be specifically primarily about gay men. That applies to myself and my perspectives. You?

I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of having sex with another man, but otherwise I am not concerned with gay men. I also don't understand the perverse fixation that most men my age and under have developed with lesbians; it seems to me that people should primarily be attracted to people who might want to have sex with them.

But I don't really have a lot of "experience" with homosexuality except being acquainted with a handful of homosexual people.

 

[Helix]

___________________________________
no

 

[Thunder]

here's the thing: there are two most important qualities of living things.

#1. they need food to survive.

#2. they reproduce.


there is a reason why there are no species on Earth that have all their males being homosexual.

am I saying that homosexuality should be treated like an illness, or a disease? naa, its just not worth the drama.

but clearly, heterosexuality makes more scientific sense, in regards to the natural state of a living species, than homosexuality does.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Kori - I appreciate your argumentation and the point you're making, but you're assuming that what's typical is inherently good.

Let's look at high IQ. If you have a particularly high IQ, you are prone to mental illness, sensory disorders, poor socialization, and indeed, lowered chances of reproducing.

And yet we don't consider having a high IQ to be a problem, despite all of the potential problems with it, and the fact that it's atypical.

It has its own benefits. So might homosexuality. And I know you said you may consider heterosexuality also a deficit if the positive sides of homosexuality were demonstrated to you, but why does either one HAVE to be a deficit? Why can't they just be different?

On a related note, just because it's normal doesn't mean it's good, and vice versa. It's evolutionarily normal for humans to cheat (i.e., the enduring nuclear family you treasure so much is a SOCIAL concept, that is in fact counter to our evolutionary sexual make-up). It's evolutionarily normal for us to do all kinds of harmful and counter-productive things. And we fight those things. Why? Because it hurts people, or causes people to hurt themselves. And that is how we define a problem, or a "defect." If it has harms without a sufficient counter-balance.

Homosexuality doesn't. Homosexuality is pretty neutral. Homosexuals can feel just as happy with their partners as heterosexuals, which is a necessary social ability for maintaining a healthy human psyche. True, they can't have kids, but plenty of them don't want to or care, and those who do, well, it's not that difficult to use a turkeybaster. This is not a significant enough harm for homosexuality to be considered a defect. It's arguable that it's a harm at all.

So, to the OP... "no" to all.

 

[radcen]

Would such evidence of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality change your current feelings about it? No.

Would you see it as a disability or defect? Disability? No. Defect? Yes... in that it does not propagate the species. To deny this is a prime example of unnecessary political correctness.

Would you seek to have a potential wife tested to see if she carried the genes? No.

If you are a woman, would you want to know whether you carry such genes? No.

Would your political views on issues like gay rights or same sex marriage change at all? No. Even though it is technically a defect, it's not so important to get all worked up over.

Would you equate homosexuality to conditions like alcoholism and argue that it needs to be treated the same way? No. See point directly above.

 

[StillBallin75]

Would such evidence of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality change your current feelings about it? No.

Would you see it as a disability or defect? Disability? No. Defect? Yes... in that it does not propagate the species. To deny this is a prime example of unnecessary political correctness.

Would you seek to have a potential wife tested to see if she carried the genes? No.

If you are a woman, would you want to know whether you carry such genes? No.

Would your political views on issues like gay rights or same sex marriage change at all? No. Even though it is technically a defect, it's not so important to get all worked up over.

Would you equate homosexuality to conditions like alcoholism and argue that it needs to be treated the same way? No. See point directly above.

I'm sorry, but personally the outrage about "defectiveness" has little to do with political correctness in my opinion.

I personally don't believe that just because something isn't conducive to the propagation of the species that that automatically makes it "defective." After all, even gay people are able to procreate if they so choose.

Or who knows, maybe the individual who isn't capable of procreating is the superior human being. He doesn't have to worry about birth control and all that bull****.

Or perhaps "defectiveness" is relative. If gays are defective, maybe straights are defective relative to bisexuals. After all they get to enjoy the best of both worlds.

 

[radcen]

I'm sorry, but personally the outrage about "defectiveness" has little to do with political correctness in my opinion.

I personally don't believe that just because something isn't conducive to the propagation of the species that that automatically makes it "defective." After all, even gay people are able to procreate if they so choose.

Or who knows, maybe the individual who isn't capable of procreating is the superior human being. He doesn't have to worry about birth control and all that bull****.

Or perhaps "defectiveness" is relative. If gays are defective, maybe straights are defective relative to bisexuals. After all they get to enjoy the best of both worlds.

Ok. Be sorry. And yes, it is your opinion. You also assume that it is a negative point, when in fact it is not. It is neutral. It is merely a point that it doesn't mesh with nature's clear need to continue to propagate. Period. I stand by my opinion that to deny this is political correctness and denial.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Reproduction is a necessary biological function. It has nothing to do with what's typical, because extraordinary talents are similarly atypical; it's a matter of functionality, and the sex drive of exclusive homosexuals is malfunctioning. It only fulfills some of the necessary functions of sexual attraction; it may fulfill those functions as well as exclusively heterosexual sex drives, but it doesn't fulfill the other functions at all.

 

[StillBallin75]

Reproduction is a necessary biological function. It has nothing to do with what's typical, because extraordinary talents are similarly atypical; it's a matter of functionality, and the sex drive of exclusive homosexuals is malfunctioning. It only fulfills some of the necessary functions of sexual attraction; it may fulfill those functions as well as exclusively heterosexual sex drives, but it doesn't fulfill the other functions at all.

Necessary for whom? Certainly not for the individual. For the species? Perhaps, but then again there are folks who possess genetic defects in the form of recessive traits that continue to be passed down as well. And as an individual, I couldn't give less of a **** about the rest of the species, half of them are morons who are passing their genes down to the next generation anyway regardless of what I do.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[StillBallin75]

Ok. Be sorry. And yes, it is your opinion. You also assume that it is a negative point, when in fact it is not. It is neutral. It is merely a point that it doesn't mesh with nature's clear need to continue to propagate. Period. I stand by my opinion that to deny this is political correctness and denial.

Well, SmokeAndMirrors did a pretty good job of explaining my position and what's wrong with this particular statement, so I guess that's that.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

And as an individual, I couldn't give less of a **** about the rest of the species, half of them are morons who are passing their genes down to the next generation anyway regardless of what I do.

Yes. You do realize that you are contributing to this state of affairs, do you not?

 

[radcen]

Necessary for whom? Certainly not for the individual. For the species? Perhaps, but then again there are folks who possess genetic defects in the form of recessive traits that continue to be passed down as well. And as an individual, I couldn't give less of a **** about the rest of the species, half of them are morons who are passing their genes down to the next generation anyway regardless of what I do.

It's all a matter of perspective.

That's some rational objective thinking.

 

[joko104]

This propogating the human race concept as a strike against gays is just goofy.

Gays aren't sterile!

That means they most certainly can have children.

ALMOST EVERYONE confuses being gay as singularly being a sexual issue. It is not. Nor is the instinctive complusions for sex the same instinct as for having children.

OMG it may come as a true SHOCKER!! but it actually IS physically possible for a lesbian to have sex with a man and lesbians in fact do so specifically to have children.

And while he might have to do a bit of sexual fantasy while doing it, a gay man really can have sex with a woman. However, it doesn't really take one gay man to affect the number of babies in the world, because men can't have babies.

Homosexuality does NOT limit growth or maintance of the human species - not even a little bit. Whether a woman is straight, gay or bisexual does not in the slightest affect her ability to have babies.

The ONLY thing gayness does that affects population is that lesbians rarely have unplanned and unwanted children. I count that as a plus, not a negative. They only have children when they want to have a child.

I suspect if you eliminate incidents of sexual assault, the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies and abortions amongst lesbians is next to zero. How is that a negative??? In fact, in terms of children a very strong case could be made favoring lesbian over straight mothers in terms of social overall good. Wouldn't it be nice if all children were truly wanted?

I could try to look it up, but domestic violence and child abuse is lowest - much lower - for children who have two lesbian parents.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Reproduction is a necessary biological function. It has nothing to do with what's typical, because extraordinary talents are similarly atypical; it's a matter of functionality, and the sex drive of exclusive homosexuals is malfunctioning. It only fulfills some of the necessary functions of sexual attraction; it may fulfill those functions as well as exclusively heterosexual sex drives, but it doesn't fulfill the other functions at all.

I think you'd have a hard time finding a single human being who is ideal for propogation in all ways. You can't look at this from the perspective of an individual. You have to look at it from the perspective of the make-up of the species as a whole.

Looking at it from that broader perspective, is a 1-5% gay population harming the viability of humanity on an evolutionary level? No. Not in any way, shape or form. Their population is way too small for it to make any noticable difference. And that's setting aside that fact that most gay people aren't sterile, and they can and do choose to have children through natural means or otherwise.

In addition, homosexuality may serve a function. It provides a natural "adoptive" population. Also, there's a correlation between women with high sex drives and fertility, who have a high number of male gay relatives. It's possible whatever genetic or epigenetic factors relate to homosexuality have a postive reproductive effect on women.

But of course, all that is assuming I buy into the notion that propogation is inherently good. I don't. It just is. It's a neutral, mindless force. That doesn't make it inherently good. Like I said, what's natural is not always good and vise versa. And how we judge defects is based on whether they are "good" (beneficial to the individual) or "bad" (detrimental to the individual) as whole - which is to say, these positives and negatives must apply to the whole group relatively equally. Reproduction is neither here nor there, means different things to different people, and has no inherent value.

 

[Temporal]

Reproduction is a necessary biological function. It has nothing to do with what's typical, because extraordinary talents are similarly atypical; it's a matter of functionality, and the sex drive of exclusive homosexuals is malfunctioning. It only fulfills some of the necessary functions of sexual attraction; it may fulfill those functions as well as exclusively heterosexual sex drives, but it doesn't fulfill the other functions at all.

Just because the function is not known does not mean there isn't a function, or there's a malfunction. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, especially since homosexuality spans the globe.

In order for it to be a malfunction, you'd have to point out a mutation or abnormality. The behavior in of itself does not qualify... and most psychiatric associations do not consider it a disease anymore.

I've read theories that homosexuals provide a support role to communities, since in a "natural" setting they'd be less likely to reproduce. I've also read that, due to the corpus collosum being more dense in homosexual men, there is a spiritual purpose tied to the left and right hemispheres being more joined. This would correlate to the "two-spirited" philosophy of many Aboriginal nations, and the fact that, historically, homosexuals have been the shamans and medicine people of many tribes.

Just something to think about. Maybe not reproducing is conducive to higher spiritual achievements? After all, having children is an earthly attachment.

 

[joko104]

Just so it isn't lost in the flow of this thread, only women affect population numbers. Men are not the factor in population, it is women. Lesbians can and do have children. So the preserving the human race thing is actually a non-existent "issue." It is no issue at all. Lesbians aren't sterile and being gay does not eliminate a maternal desire to have children. This might be a hard concept for men to grasp, but it is obvious.

 

[joko104]

Reproduction is a necessary biological function. It has nothing to do with what's typical, because extraordinary talents are similarly atypical; it's a matter of functionality, and the sex drive of exclusive homosexuals is malfunctioning. It only fulfills some of the necessary functions of sexual attraction; it may fulfill those functions as well as exclusively heterosexual sex drives, but it doesn't fulfill the other functions at all.

Sex drive and the desire for children are the same only apply if in animalistic measures in which there is no grasping that sex produces children. Rather, there is a primovial instinct for sex which unwittingly lead to offspring. Humans evolved past that thousands of years ago.

The ONLY possible way to claim it is a "defect" is to also state complete opposition to birth control, total opposition to planned parenting, and total support of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies as many as possible starting at puberty. Thus, any mentality against any of those also would be considered a mental defect.

 

[radcen]

This propogating the human race concept as a strike against gays is just goofy.

Gays aren't sterile!

That means they most certainly can have children.

ALMOST EVERYONE confuses being gay as singularly being a sexual issue. It is not. Nor is the instinctive complusions for sex the same instinct as for having children.

OMG it may come as a true SHOCKER!! but it actually IS physically possible for a lesbian to have sex with a man and lesbians in fact do so specifically to have children.

And while he might have to do a bit of sexual fantasy while doing it, a gay man really can have sex with a woman. However, it doesn't really take one gay man to affect the number of babies in the world, because men can't have babies.

Homosexuality does NOT limit growth or maintance of the human species - not even a little bit. Whether a woman is straight, gay or bisexual does not in the slightest affect her ability to have babies.

The ONLY thing gayness does that affects population is that lesbians rarely have unplanned and unwanted children. I count that as a plus, not a negative. They only have children when they want to have a child.

I suspect if you eliminate incidents of sexual assault, the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies and abortions amongst lesbians is next to zero. How is that a negative??? In fact, in terms of children a very strong case could be made favoring lesbian over straight mothers in terms of social overall good. Wouldn't it be nice if all children were truly wanted?

I could try to look it up, but domestic violence and child abuse is lowest - much lower - for children who have two lesbian parents.

Oh, wow, you're killing me here. :lamo Your rationalizations are so utterly and completely lame and so naive and off the mark. Nobody claims that gay people can't have kids. Of course they can. And some even do. The physical ability to have kids is so not the point, and domestic/abuse rates are not related to the conversation in any way, and are just a poor attempt at diverting attention.

The point is that homosexuality does not serve nature well. That's all. Neutral. Nothing insidious about it. It just is. Yet it is today's faux tolerance that people should be politically correct as not to offend that places so many in states of denial. Heterosexual men and women all over the world are born with physical defects that make them unable to have kids. Those are no less "defects", and everybody understands that, and nobody treats them any differently as people because of them. It should be the same here.