Homosexuality

1337_KR3W

1337_KR3W

1337_KR3W

Soldato
Joined
24 Jan 2003
Posts
2,560
Location
Cornwall
Following the popular thread about homosexual adoption, and unproved (afaik) theories to it being genetic, and to the contrary a choice, if such a treatment was available to cure this deficiency be availble, or psychological treatment to those that make the choice?
Obviously it should not be forced on an individual, but if they do not wish to remain homosexual should the treatment be made available to them?

Also to take it a step further, if it is a genetic trait, should screening be available for IVF, or for two parents in the way that downs would be?
 
I hadn't thought of the similarity, although surely the reoccurance of homosexuals is contrary to Darwins theory should it be genetic?
 
If such a treatment existed and wasn't forced on individuals, that means that people can choose to have it, perhaps because of their own pressures. For such a reason I would not disagree with it. For it to be forced on people, suggests that homosexuality is wrong and as such we enter the realms of society's moral authority, which a whole other debate.

Screening for homosexuality? Why? You're suggesting homosexuality is wrong and therefore should be stopped at birth, instead of giving the child a choice to be who he/she wants. Surely this falls into the scope of the anti-abortion lobby and 'murder'? I could genuinally understand if there was something which could stop the child developing normally (severe brain damage), or had severe disfigurment to the point they couldn't function, but a homosexual is still a functional member of society.
 
Last edited:
It bothers me about as much as screening embryos to find out what their favourite colour might be. Absolutely useless.

Coming next: The Blacks!
 
1337_KR3W said:
I hadn't thought of the similarity, although surely the reoccurance of homosexuals is contrary to Darwins theory should it be genetic?
Click to expand...
what evolution got to do with homosexuality, loads of animals are gay as well it doesn't mean they're devolved

B@Th*nG
 
Is it wrong to want grand children? No. If you children turn out guy then you're genetic line ends there. So parents should be allowed the choice of screening "gay embryos"
 
They will not continue the species if they cannot reproduce, surely unless evolution made us asexual the gay gene would gradually die out?

I am sure i remember a documentary showing that wealthy people would go as far as to chose eye colour and hair in IVF, although not afaik legal.

I am not trying to imply that homosexuality is wrong, but is it a disability?
 
were doing something similar to this in Philosophy and ethics at school, well weve just started sexual ethics. And how some people dislike the term, sexual preferance, as its not something they choose, its something they are, either straight, bi or homo sexual.

its definatley an interesting argument youve brought up there, some what adapted from x-men 3, like fini suggested.

Cant help this thread should be moved to speakers courner? possibly.... as this can spark an interesting debate.

Surely the term deficiency, is some what dergogatory? and some may take offense by reffering to their sexuality as such.

I havent got an opinion yet, my brains rebooting :p switched it off when i got in from school you see, lol
 
squiffy said:
Is it wrong to want grand children? No. If you children turn out guy then you're genetic line ends there. So parents should be allowed the choice of screening "gay embryos"
Click to expand...

At the same time you should never place those expectations on your children - gay or otherwise.

I'm straight and I'm not exactly going out of my way to procreate.
 
1337_KR3W said:
I hadn't thought of the similarity, although surely the reoccurance of homosexuals is contrary to Darwins theory should it be genetic?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. For many characteristics there isn't one gene which controls them. There's no 'gene for tallness' for example, and no 'gene for length of legs'.

However, these traits are still determined genetically - they're just caused by the combined effect of dozens, hundreds or perhaps even thousands of genes. Similarly, if sexuality is genetic then it would probably be controlled by a large number of genes. It could be that those genes individually all contribute effects which make an individual more likely to reproduce, and it just happens that together they make you not fancy people of the opposite sex. The genes themselves don't die out (because they're succesful at getting passed on through other bodies) and so the behaviour persists - despite the fact that the number of homosexuals who reproduce is smaller than among other sexualities.

Also, you're assuming that homosexuals don't reproduce. It probably doesn't happen so much any more, but when being gay was considered more of a taboo it would be far from common for a gay man to get married and have kids, because that's what was expected of him.
 
if you take into account the workings of the male and female gentalia, you can observe that sexual acts such as anal sex or oral sex, serve no real purpose, other than pleasure. so although it does limit the pro-creation side of homosexuallity , i disagree that it is a disability. Sorry im straying from the original topic.
 
Last edited:
Read some Dawkins if you want to learn about it on a genetic level.

I also find it strange when people use terms akin to 'unnatural' when talking about homosexuality. By the very fact that it exists it is natural.
 
Volcs said:
Read some Dawkins if you want to learn about it on a genetic level.

I also find it strange when people use terms akin to 'unnatural' when talking about homosexuality. By the very fact that it exists it is natural.
Click to expand...


Warning to potential readers of dawkins drivel... read with a liberal sprinkling of salt!

There is no conclusive evidence suggesting homosexuality is genetic.
 
I believe that it's social. Look back through history, Julius Ceasar was known for giving it (and his opponents would have you believe taking it) up the buttox.
 
jezsoup said:
Warning to potential readers of dawkins drivel... read with a liberal sprinkling of salt!
Click to expand...
I think that you're confusing Dawkins' writings on religion (powerful arguments, but with some large flaws) with his writings on evolutionary biology (the clearest layman's explanation around by a country mile).
 
Surely if a treatment was found to "cure" homosexuality then it would work both ways.

In such a circumstance I hope people would also be allowed the opportunity to "turn gay".

Why would a heterosexual want to turn gay?
Why would a homosexual want to turn straight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom