CP : Skewed

Visit our sponsor: Vitamins, Supplements, Nootropics

Home

News

Join the revolution!

Convergence08 1 2 3 Next >

Amazon.com Widgets

CP

Skewed

There's been a fear that if a genetic component to homosexuality were discovered people would abort "gay" fetuses. In some insanely PC places it's even against the law to abort them (before any certainty can be found) but nobody else.

But there's another possibility. There does seem a genetic component, especially since the condition crops up in all historical periods in all cultures -- suggesting it's no simply an environmental product. Also, even though it tends to work against reproduction and in some societies can cause the gay person to be killed outright, it still exists. The probability, it seems to me, is that it's an aspect of some useful property.

Suppose a gene was in fact found and simply removed from sperm or egg cells or from the fertilized cells that were then re-implanted. Then suppose the persons so "treated" -- say several millions over a few years -- turned out to be lacking in some quality: no ability to express emotion, no understanding of are or no ability at all to understand symbol use despite normal intelligence, or no sense of time, and so on.

Then what....? What will people do...but accept the occurance of gayness in order to be completely human. Or will there be more intense research on eliminating it?

Published Monday, June 18, 2007 2:43 PM by CP

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

	aldersondrive2007 wrote on June 21, 2007 10:01 PM When ever the question comes up of whether it is genes or choice as far as homosexuality, my answer to it is... Who cares! (oh, the wackos on both extremes, I suppose). It is the governing philosophy of this culture (and many others) that is the real problem. Here is how I look at it. The sexual preference of others doesn't do any harm to me, as long as the individuals in question respect my rights, just as I respect the rights of other individuals. As a matter of fact, let's say in any town I lived in, there happened to be a large percentage of the male population that was gay. That would actually be a good thing for any straight man. How? Mathematically, there would be a higher probability that more single available women would not have hooked up with anyone, because of the fact many of the single available men would have hooked up with each other. Also, male or female, on average gay people contribute to a lower birthrate than would otherwise be the case (not 100%, because many lesbians and gays do become biological parents, but in many cases it is because they did so before "coming out"). The lower birthrates can contribute to a leveling off of the population relative to the growth in technology, which contributes to a higher standard of living because of the relative future labor supply dianamics. So, the above just reflects a couple of rational reasons why it isn't a bad thing at all, as a matter of fact, maybe even a good thing! All arguments on the otherside are usually based on non-conscious, bicameral musings of invalid "authorities" that just call it "sin" or whatever.
	CP wrote on June 22, 2007 8:24 AM Nevertheless this is a matter of great concern to many. I'm concerned with what they would do in the quite likely circumstances that any genetic component is likely to be important for other effects. The laws specifically prohibiting it or imposing serious penalties seem usually to have originated among tribes such as Middle Eastern groups (Jews, Arabs) who found themselves not very numerous and surrounded by advanced and populous countries. Thus they wanted to increase their population and not waste their "precious bodily fluids" on nonproductive sexual activities. That such rules may be enforced beyond any usefulness has to be taken up with adherents of those faiths. At present, in Western countries, Westerners mustn't evene discuss the issue while Moslems can freely practice whatever values that wish. But that's a different matter. The situation is complicated by the flexibility of human behavior, making it possible to consciously choose homosexual behavior for whatever reason. One could also choose to kill the guy next door because one thinks his shoes are ugly. The distinction between an innate tendency and an activity chosen as a response to some outer situation merely confuses the matter.
	Mr. Farlops wrote on June 23, 2007 3:10 PM First, homosexuality may not be strictly genetic. It may also be due to biochemical influences in the mother's womb. There have been studies of identical twins in which one twin is gay and the other is straight. Homosexuality is biological (You don't learn or choose to be straight or gay.) in origin but it is not strictly genetic. So even if you've elimitated all of genes (And there might be many.) that predispose embryos towards it, you won't necessarily eliminate the possibility that it may occur in obstensively straight embryos. It's like this, suppose you elimate all the genes that predispose embryos towards genetic forms of blindness. The baby may still be born blind (Or gay or lesbian) because the mother's womb had some tempurature or hormone imbalance or because the mother was exposed to some chemical or disease. Anyway, we already hear stories out China and India of families aborting female children in favor of male ones. Some causes of deafness and blindness are genetic as well. These are the tough choices we face. Alderson wrote, "As a matter of fact, let's say in any town I lived in, there happened to be a large percentage of the male population that was gay. That would actually be a good thing for any straight man. How? Mathematically," Um, But what if an equally large percentage of the female population was lesbian? I'm not certain of this but I think it's rare to find homosexual communities and neighborhoods in large cities where there ratio of gays to lesbians is heavily skewed one way or the other. The pattern so far seems to be that gays and lesbians tend to amass in neighborhoods together for mutual support, economic and political power Thus you're eligibility as a single, straight man is about the same as it would be anywhere else.
	CP wrote on June 23, 2007 8:02 PM I wish you'd cleanse your minds of implanted biases. The question I've asked doesn't require you to rush to the defense of gay people against Us Evil Conservatives. Let me explain once more. 1. Since homosexuality appears universal, it probably has a genetic COMPONENT. 2. Since it appears in every known society and has shown up in written records about as far back as these go, its genetic component may have some other function. 3. The condition itself then may be due to the occurance of other factors with a particular genetic situation. 4. Many people oppose homosexuality. If a genetic component is identified they may cut out and kill -- sorry -- CHOOSE to abort a fetus with that gene, which is likely many more than there are gay people. Perhaps, even the gene will be deleted in the lab and a fetus reimplanted. 5. If the gene is actually important in some other way -- which I'd bet it would be -- what are such people going to do when they have kids lacking in some important human traits? You do not have to defend gay people to answer this question. No need to go over all the various bits of research and theories: Since the question is hypothetical, it should be approached that way. I do see an answer to a part of it: those on the left would ignore the plight of everyone either victimized by the situation or objectively concerned with helping these and begin to demand the lynching of scapegoats and the enacting of complex legislation against everybody sane. But what will the anti-gay people then do and what will normal, tolerant people do? Will some demand genetic engineering to place the function on another, perhaps an invented gene? Or will they simply realize that in this case they should let well enough alone? The question is hypothetical: WHAT IF this is the case, then what do you think people will do?
	zentinal wrote on July 20, 2007 5:07 PM The question you pose is very interesting. As far as I know, no one is studying (a) Whether or not the more or less constant presence of homosexuals in the general human population contributes positively towards the survival of the species or of individuals. (b) Whether or not the presence of some degree of homosexual tendencies in an individual contributes positively towards the survival of that individual or of society as a whole. These are two related, but very different questions. So, yes, it would be prudent to examine this closely before we start either aborting embryos carrying a 'gay' gene or even using that as a factor for screening eggs and sperm before fertilization.
	CP wrote on July 20, 2007 8:31 PM That's what I had in mind. I don't think that a condition that tends to operate against reproduction and tends to get its posessors killed or otherwise injured would keep cropping up if it did not serve some useful function. I don't think it's simply a learned behavior or people who try it would soon learn not to in short order and have little trouble not doing it. It makes me think that there are maybe more than one genetic and perhaps environmental factor and that only in a couple of (fairly frequent) combinations does the "classic homosexual" situation result. In other combinations the same factors probably have positive, maybe even crucial effects. The connections simply aren't obvious, even in the long span of history, because countries that have long written records don't seem to have picked up on them -- which suggests that nearly everyone has the genes in some form or another. I suppose experimentation with primates is needed -- but suppose the genes are peculiar to humans and account for some of our abilities?
	zentinal wrote on July 23, 2007 10:18 AM This issue is entangled with some deep and serious ethical considerations. Thought Experiment: A research team determines the genetic factors which largely influence, but do not explicitly determine, sexual orientation. They discover that the presence or absence of one or more of these factors strongly influences whether or not the resulting person will experience same-sex attraction, to what degree, and the degree to which that attraction is under conscious control. How such research could ethically be carried out, I have no idea, but let's run with this. As part of their research, they uncover means and methods to identify those factors in unfertilized ova and sperm, and the means to sort out ova and sperm carrying those factors. Lastly, the sorting methods they discover are safe enough that, at least at first, they can be carried out in an outpatient scenaro, with minimal oversight from the OB/GYN, at minimal cost. How would this play out in society? Much of the legal work surrounding sexual orientation stems the idea that homosexualty is part of the normal range of healthy sexual orientation, that homosexuality is not a disease or a defect. How do you square the right of homosexuals to exist as a type of human being, with a parent's right to determine the genetic makeup of their offspring? Would a country that approved this method of reproductive intervention be guilty of aiding and abetting genocide? Is there a way of preventing this scenario from coming to fruition without evidence that homosexuals as a group, and homosexuality as a set of behaviors, aids the survival of the species?
	CP wrote on July 23, 2007 2:47 PM I'm not personally sure how to square the parents' and children's rights; however, the feminists have determined that the unborn have no rights and can be killed on whim. That seems established, so that will probably be the basis for genetic engineering decisions. I'm not opposed to genetic engineering, though it could lead to idiocies like a fad for bizarre hair patterns and eye colors. I'd personally get rid of body hair on women -- but others wouldn't, so genetic variation would continue along with a higher proportion of muscular strength, more acute senses, greater intelligence, and more frequent special abilities. Since it's also legal for gay couples to adopt or give birth, it might be that some of them would prefer gay kids, meaning that they would not become extinct and that whatever now unknown functions they serve won't be wiped out. But this depends pretty much on an open market and personal choice, which is what A CERTAIN political element wants to get rid of. Note that such groups as the Russian marxists started out around 1920 preaching free sex and equality blah blah blah and ended up by the 1950s as stodgy conformists using psychiatry in an effort to control homosexuality (yes, they tried to get rid of it) and the like. Controlled market, you know.
	zentinal wrote on July 24, 2007 9:25 AM "I'm not personally sure how to square the parents' and children's rights; however, the feminists have determined that the unborn have no rights and can be killed on whim. That seems established, so that will probably be the basis for genetic engineering decisions." An interesting point, but not quite the one I'm getting at, since in my scenario, and in your original scenario, we're talking about sorting out or altering eggs and sperm before fertilization, and thereby short circuting the thorny issue of abortion. Referring to your original question, "What will people do...but accept the occurance of gayness in order to be completely human. Or will there be more intense research on eliminating it", my guess is probably both. Not just both, but almost every gradiation between the two extremes. Even if incontrovertable evidence of the necessity of homosexuality were uncovered and presented, some percentage of societies will, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it. These same societies will then become a crucible, a test bed, for the rest of the world to watch, I'm sure with some alarm. In an older, less interconnected world, this scenario would play out in relative isolation, mainly affecting those living within that society. In the modern world, the repurcussions would spread, allowing the rest of us (assuming its 'them' not 'us' doing this) to learn from their mistakes, but what a terrible cost for those lessons!
	CP wrote on July 24, 2007 2:17 PM "In the modern world, the repurcussions would spread, allowing the rest of us ...... to learn from their mistakes, but what a terrible cost for those lessons!" I don't really see any way to gain control over biology except this. Maybe computer modeling will become so accurate experiments aren't necessary -- but sooner or later an alternative will have to be put into effect or what's the point? All I can see is a century or so of radical biological experiments fueled in part by the desire to cure disease and age, in part by the desire to improve intelligence and strength and such, and by faith and political based manipulations that will be passed off as improvements (and may in some cases be such). We're here for the begining but we won't see the results because, as I've said, effective life span extension won't happen till mid-century or later. Expectancy fulfillment and some "artificial" life lengthening, yes, but not enough for us to see what will finally develop. As to my original question, I guess that some will search for a different way to achieve whatever the gay factors provide and others will decide that it's best left as it is.