I personally believe that gay people are humanity perfected, and that they contain masculine and feminine traits in one package actually makes them superior. Thus, I'd choose to have a gay child over a straight one. That gay people haven't been driven stark raving mad by this relentlessly hostile culture speaks to a tremendous inner strength.

I certainly hope the "gay" option will be in my fetal-planning checklist in this dystopian future. There will be plenty of heterosexual people to overpopulate the earth, so I look forward to the opportunity of "curing" my unborn child of heterosexuality.

A nice sentiment.

However, I don't think your noble intentions does much to change the vicious landscape this is shaping up to be. How can you be sure that your gay-engineered child of yours, once of a certain age, won't rebel against this decision you made before his/her birth that has subjected him/her to what will be perceived as unnecessary abuse and discrimination. This is the world gay people live in, and we should be working to change that, not simply to add more gays.

Likewise, I am guessing there will be hetero-engineered children who will rage against this attempt to fix their sexual identity, either politically, psychically, and/or sexually. What will we call these people who are supposedly "made" straight but simply are not, by whatever standard? What will they consider themselves? Will they be marginalized on both sides?

While I can see the first child's rage at being engineered into a persecuted minority, why would the "hetero"ized children be angry. I just don't believe I would be angry because my parents did something that prevented my being marginalized and persecuted by the general population. I just don't see that many heterosexuals wanting to be homosexual even if they were told at a later date they may have been born gay if not for some in-utero manipulation. Now homosexual being angry at this now I can also see, because they could be seeing the end of their "lifestyle". (I wanted to use race, or gender, but neither encompasses them completely).

"Humanity Perfected."

Good one. If we were any other species, we would have gone extinct long ago if we were all hoomosexual. It's unnatural- that is- it is against the continuation of a species- something inherent and necessary.

AlaskaBoy:

If we were any other species, we would have gone extinct long ago if we were all hoomosexual.

We'd also go extinct if we were all female. So what?

AlaskaBoy:

It's unnatural- that is- it is against the continuation of a species- something inherent and necessary.

If it were detrimental to the continuation of a species, we wouldn't see it expressed in our population or in the multitude of other species which demonstrate homosexuality.

AlaskaBoy: If we were any other species, we would have gone extinct long ago if we were all hoomosexual.

"We'd also go extinct if we were all female. So what?"

***We wouldn't be a species at all if we were all female. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, and doesn't deminish my point. That if we were all homoseuxal, there would be no development of our species.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~

AlaskaBoy: It's unnatural- that is- it is against the continuation of a species- something inherent and necessary.

"If it were detrimental to the continuation of a species, we wouldn't see it expressed in our population or in the multitude of other species which demonstrate homosexuality."


***Wrong. There are many things detrimental to our species which, because of modern technology and government, is allowed to take place. Homosexuality is indeed found in instances in other species. This does not, however, mean that that entire species will die out, it means that the instances of homosexual creates do not reproduce, and subsequently, do not pass their flawed genes on to the next species. There are other mental disorders found in the human genome. Again, this doesn't mean the entire human race will die out.

It has been proven and declared by the medical community that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

AlaskaBoy:

We wouldn't be a species at all if we were all female. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, and doesn't deminish my point.

Gender is not directly correlated to sexual orientation, however my analogy has as much merit as your "point" does. We're not all female and we're not all gay. So what? There's no danger that everyone is going to change their sexual orientation so your point is stupid and irrelevant.

AlaskaBoy:

Homosexuality is indeed found in instances in other species. This does not, however, mean that that entire species will die out,

So why bring it up? It's completely pointless.

AlaskaBoy:

it means that the instances of homosexual creates do not reproduce, and subsequently, do not pass their flawed genes on to the next species.

Ah, but even if a homosexual individual doesn't have progeny they often have siblings. The fact that this trait has been expressed in so many other species indicates that the genetic component may be beneficial in some instances. Of course, the causes are not well understood at this time so further study is necessary.

AlaskaBoy:

There are other mental disorders found in the human genome. Again, this doesn't mean the entire human race will die out.

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

The article in question would seem to contradict you.

Read "A Crooked Man" by Charles Beaumont for a taste of your hypothesized eugenics.

Half correct. It has not been "proven" not to be a mental disorder, however you are partially correct in stating the psychological community at large as stated it is not. There are presently medical groups which do not simply discount homosexuality as a disorder, but it has been taken out of the DSM.

Let us discuss the latter of the two claims. WHO didn't even take homosexuality off the list of mental disorders until 1992, and the UK and Russian governments didn't until the mid nineties and 2001, respectively- all because of political pressure than other reasons. Ego-dystonic homosexuality, a condition which had its roots in a socio political compromise with homosexual activists, wasn't even taken off until the late eighties, again- because of political pressure from activists.

Ultimately, the argument is that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, marked with defined differences in biologic makeup. If everyone in our species had a like-makeup, ours would have faded long ago.

AlaskaBoy:

Half correct. It has not been "proven" not to be a mental disorder, however you are partially correct in stating the psychological community at large as stated it is not. There are presently medical groups which do not simply discount homosexuality as a disorder, but it has been taken out of the DSM.

Let us discuss the latter of the two claims. WHO didn't even take homosexuality off the list of mental disorders until 1992, and the UK and Russian governments didn't until the mid nineties and 2001, respectively- all because of political pressure than other reasons. Ego-dystonic homosexuality, a condition which had its roots in a socio political compromise with homosexual activists, wasn't even taken off until the late eighties, again- because of political pressure from activists.

Ultimately, the argument is that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, marked with defined differences in biologic makeup. If everyone in our species had a like-makeup, ours would have faded long ago.

Of course it can't be "proven" what is a mental disorder. The definition of "mental disorder" is relative to what we have decided a "normal" mental state is, meaning it is fairly arbitrarily defined. To say that it is "proven" that something does or does not belong to an arbitrarily defined category is meaningless.

Not to mention the definition has clearly changed over time. When I was growing up, all of these kids being classified with Aspergers syndrome would have been called "just a little shy" while all the kids classified with ADD would have been called "rambunctious." They didn't become "mental disorders" until drug companies had pills to sell.

Considering we as a species are very quickly overpopulating the earth and going to make it basically uninhabitable within a hundred years at the current growth rates, I would say if anything homosexuality is a cure to our problem, not a "disorder."

Musidorus:

I personally believe that gay people are humanity perfected, and that they contain masculine and feminine traits in one package actually makes them superior. Thus, I'd choose to have a gay child over a straight one. That gay people haven't been driven stark raving mad by this relentlessly hostile culture speaks to a tremendous inner strength.

I certainly hope the "gay" option will be in my fetal-planning checklist in this dystopian future. There will be plenty of heterosexual people to overpopulate the earth, so I look forward to the opportunity of "curing" my unborn child of heterosexuality.

I'm glad that you would make that option. That's what alot of people don't realize with this, the choice can go both ways. I personally feel everyone should be able to do with their child what they want as long as it is safe to their health. I'm sure there will soon also be other genetic engineering choices to make, and every parent should be free to make their own in the interests of their child.

I would say however, that there is no reason to be hostile or feel superiority over others. A balance of masculine and feminine could be good for some situations and bad for others, that's why everyone is different, there is group strength in individual uniqueness.

first of all homosexuality is found in every species we take the time to look.

including worms, and i seriously doubt they choose to be gay. And worms have not gone extinct because some are born gay.

Then the question is, if you are calling it a defect, what would also classify as a defect? Blue eyes are inferior as people with blue or lighter colored eyes have worse eye sight and higher rates of eye problems than those with darker eyes. Should we be screening for this?

Left handed people don't live as long as right handed people (by about a year) so should we protect these children by eliminating them in the womb or fixing them?

we should always look to maximize the genetic diversity in our species not curtail it. so gay people don't have as high a rate of having children as heterosexuals, its not like the world in underpopulated and there are more heterosexuals that do not have children than all homosexuals combined.

AlaskaBoy:

We wouldn't be a species at all if we were all female. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, and doesn't diminish my point.

PhysicsGirl:
Gender is not directly correlated to sexual orientation, however my analogy has as much merit as your "point" does. We're not all female and we're not all gay. So what?"

***First of all- you're confusing "gender" with "sex", and are you you being serious right now?! "Gender is not directly correlated to sexual orientation?" You have to be kidding right now. Why do you think homosexuality is a deviation? What do you think deviation even means? Sex is EXACTLY correlated with sexual orientation.

Secondly, you miss the point again, so allow me to put it another way that perhaps you'll understand. If we were all female, it wouldn't matter if we were homosexual or not- everyone would have XX chromosome pairs, and sexual reproduction would be impossible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~

AlaskaBoy:
Homosexuality is indeed found in instances in other species. This does not, however, mean that that entire species will die out,

PhysicsGirl:
So why bring it up? It's completely pointless.

***Firstly, It was originally your point- not mine. You first stated that "If [homosexuality] were detrimental to the continuation of a species, we wouldn't see it expressed in our population or in the multitude of other species which demonstrate homosexuality."

Secondly, the original point still stands: If every part of that species was homosexual, it wouldn't reproduce. Since only very small portions of certain species indicate homosexual behavior, it means that the majority does not, ergo the species continues because of the normal, natural cycle of reproduction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~

AlaskaBoy:
it means that the instances of homosexual creates do not reproduce, and subsequently, do not pass their flawed genes on to the next species.

PhysicsGirl:
Ah, but even if a homosexual individual doesn't have progeny they often have siblings. The fact that this trait has been expressed in so many other species indicates that the genetic component may be beneficial in some instances. Of course, the causes are not well understood at this time so further study is necessary.

***I have no idea where you are getting this from. There is neither data indicating that being homosexual is "beneficial", (except that it does not exist in the vast majority of people), nor scientific evidence that homosexuality is hereditary, so I don't know where this "sibling" component is coming from.

Ultimately, flawed and mutated genes are what science is looking more and more at in describing someone with homosexual tendencies. There are now defined and marked differences in brain behavior and brain physiology than other people. Fix this, and you could address homosexuality in general, the point of the article.