Should We Eradicate Homosexuality with Gene Replacement Therapy?

The OP puts himself in a box...

if homosexuality is genetic, it means "God made them that way" and he can't discriminate against gays because it's genetic.

BUT if it's "chosen"....like religion or political affiliation...he ALSO can't discriminate against them anymore than we could discriminate against Lutherans or Republicans.


That's why he won't choose one.

 

None of which is true....but that doesn't matter to you does it?

1. You are forced to pay nothing for their "lifestyle".

2. NOT ONE church has been forced to perform a gay marriage.

3. I'm sorry, but we aren't going to teach kindergartners to hate...no matter how much you desire it.

 

Your desire to link homosexuality with pedophila is meaningless as a child can't consent.

Even if it's a choice, why do you care if two men are gay with and for each other ?

 

As far as the gene therapy goes I think there are many other things that should be worked on before this is even a question.

Which is more important, curing type one diabetes or homosexuality?

 

no they are not, they are demanding the same rights as you and I

 

I hope science finds out what gene defect you have.

 

it will be up to the parents to decide if technology ever gets that good...... not the governments

 

Sadly, there is no cure for those who obsessively hate homosexuals......in some cases, it's because they themselves are what they hate.

 

Though I support SSM, you dodged TheImmortal's responses. Incest is not at all something to fear, it's not abuse as you claim. Why would he fear it if he doesn't have to participate? Same with beastiality....

 

It's dishonest, AS.

How many OPs has he done about incest or bestiality?

No...it's about linking those to homosexuality, same as homophobes do with pedophilia, despite the fact the majority of cases of pedophilia are straight men abusing little girls.

 

What if said person whom you want to "eradicate" this gene from doesnt consider it a defect, and they are prefectly happy with how they are?

 

I may agree with you, but I disagree with the way Buddhaman made his argument. He ignored the points presented and deflected. I am just calling he or she out on their style of debate, is all.

- - - Updated - - -

I may agree with you, but I disagree with the way Buddhaman made his argument. He ignored the points presented and deflected. I am just calling he or she out on their style of debate, is all.

 

Incest can lead to deformed children. Why should that child suffer unnecessarily ? Two gay dudes bumping ugliest doesn't effect a third person directly.

 

If homosexuality is found to be genetic and can be safely changed through gene therapy should we? Hm well since most likely this would be done by the parents before birth it would be their decision. It cannot be denied that most parents want a good life for their child and they would do anything to make that life easier for them in general. Being a homoesxual is a very hard road to be on in our world. In some places you are killed outright in others there are laws that harm your interests. So from a parents point of view if it can be done safely and affordably there would be little reason not too. But consider other things that will also be able to be changed such as Gender, base intellect, and physical traits. Is it moral to manipulate these things, if so then it would be moral to manipulate sexuality as well.

 

Why not for the sake of liberty and individual choice? You wouldn't be opposed to an adult seeking gene therapy to change their sexual orientation one way or another, would you?

 

I doubt you really want it eradicated when your girl wants her friend to join in for a night of fun.

 

According to common Biblical interpretation, sin brought about the imperfection in the physical body for all mankind. It's actually just as easy for us to accept that homosexuality is innate as it is to attribute it to environmental conditions and behavior. Either way, sin is responsible. No, not always the sin of the afflicted, but one man's sin for sure (Adam), has brought us to the point in human "development" that man is wrought with all sorts of mutations, some fatal, some benign in many ways.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the OP is a great question. Many have replied with deflections. People so dedicated to individual choice over one's own body should fully support this type of gene therapy, should it ever exist.

 

This thread makes me cringe at humanity.

Definitely time to walk away from this joint why I still have at least some faith that not all of America's parents first met at a family reunion.

 

No...personal choice is not the issue here.

 

We want more heterosexuals in the world because... this would lead to more procreation and our species is suffering from underpopulation? We want more heterosexual men in the world because... there's not enough competition for attractive women?

Eradicating homosexuality is akin to eradicating blue eyes. It's an evolved trait, not a defect. Don't mess with it. I, for one, have always been thankful I had a bit less competition for dates as a red-blooded American male, and I was always distrustful of other ostensibly heterosexual men who wished that all the gay men in the world were straight, since this is clearly contrary to their own self-interest.

To the original poster: Child abuse is repugnant because it is a form of rape. Incest is repugnant because it leads to birth defects in offspring and it often involves child abuse. Bestiality is repugnant because it is a form of animal rape.

Ultimately, the worst a homophobe can say about homosexuality (apart from the falsehood that it is linked to pedophilia) is that it is "gross." However, I can think of many heterosexuals with whom it would seem "gross" to have sex, so should we try to stop anyone ugly from having sex?

ken2esq

 

So this is where you went after getting run out of town on the thread about gay adoption and parenting. Is there no end to the idiotic ideas that you can come up with? Homosexuality is not something that needs to be eradicated or cured. Bigotry and stupidity does though.

In addition, the research on the genetic link to homosexuality is still in it's infancy, it's thus far inconclusive. However, to say that people are either gay by choice, or it must be genetic is a dumbed down, gross oversimplification and once again demonstrates your pathetically poor understanding of the complexities of human sexuality

 

If it's not a choice then what else could it be other than genetics? Environment, unlike genetics, does not force you to act a certain way. Environment may influence you but it would still be a choice.

No it wouldn't. If you were genetically predisposed to be attracted to males and we wanted to curb the behavior of men who have sex with men (or women who have sex with women) then an effective way to do so would be to remove that genetic predisposition.

I was referring to gene therapy.

Is this your opinion on all gene therapy? For instance if a parent can choose the color of their child's eyes or hair or height or the size of their nose... are you also against that type of genetic manipulation? Or is it just sexual orientation you have an issue with genetically modifying?

 

Not in all cases. Once again, I didn't say I disagreed, it's just that deflecting doesn't make things any better.

 

No but I am part of a religion whose dictates were written down well before I existed.

Marriage

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/24/las-vegas-schools-consider-teaching-kindergartners/
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-state-law-requires-LGBT-history-in-textbooks-2354578.php
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/14/calif-gov-signs-landmark-law-to-teach-gay-history/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...g-elementary/2012/01/29/gIQA8YLFqQ_story.html

 

That's perfectly fine. I was more referring to parents doing so before the child is born.