New 'cure' for homosexuality?:

To Sh76:

You’ve been taking a lot of heat on here. I just wanted to respond to some of the claims you seem to have made from a purely personal perspective:

I have yet to feel uncomfortable about someone, or being with them, just because they are homosexual. (Does that make me “innately” aberrant?)

I grew up being bigoted about gays—until I discovered that someone for whom I had both affection and respect was gay. My bigotry was apparently nothing innate, just acquiescence to social conditioning—and I abandoned it. A lot of the discomfort that straights feel in the company of gays (or even discussing the matter), may stem simply from conditioning in a community that holds homosexuality to be “innately” aberrant/unnatural. And the (conscious or subconscious) desire to be a “proper member” of that community/society/culture.

By the same token, a lot of the “awkwardness” (I believe that was your word) felt by homosexuals may simply be in reaction to living in a social/cultural matrix that belittles (at the very least) their homosexuality as aberrant and unnatural. Thus, such awkwardness is not about their sexuality per se at all. I personally have not met a homosexual person who expressed any regret over their sexuality (which is not to say that there aren’t any), but many who have expressed regret over the prejudice that affects their social (and sometimes familial) status.

—Anyone who does not fit into the area of central tendency that is often taken to define a given social/cultural matrix may well feel awkward, or be made to feel awkward, if that is their inherited matrix.

As in any other cases of prejudice, the proper approach (in my view) is to “cure” the social prejudice, not those against whom it is directed. They need no cure, in my view. (If any individual homosexual person wants to avail himself/herself of such a “cure”, that is, of course, up to her/him; I will not play the presumptive heterosexual there either.)

Originally posted by vistesd
As in any other cases of prejudice, the proper approach (in my view) is to “cure” the social prejudice, not those against whom it is directed. They need no cure, in my view. (If any individual homosexual person wants to avail himself/herself of such a “cure”, that is, of course, up to her/him; I will not play the presumptive heterosexual there either.)

What about when there is fairly general agreement about something. For example, ugliness. We all tend to be a little prejudiced against ugly people. Many people spend a lot of effort trying to look prettier / more hansom. Should it still be viewed as the fault of those who have the prejudice?
This thread was largely about whether or not a parent should have the right to decide their children's attributes, especially when the parents choice is likely a result of prejudice. So if a parent could choose their child's looks, should they be allowed to do so?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What about when there is fairly general agreement about something. For example, ugliness. We all tend to be a little prejudiced against ugly people. Many people spend a lot of effort trying to look prettier / more hansom. Should it still be viewed as the fault of those who have the prejudice?
This thread was largely about whether or not a parent should h ...[text shortened]... f prejudice. So if a parent could choose their child's looks, should they be allowed to do so?

I have difficulty with the phrase “should they be allowed”. By whom? Is there some socially compelling reason to enforce a prohibition?

My concern in my post was with certain claims that Sh76 made about the “discomfort” of straights, the feelings of “awkwardness” by homosexuals, and whether or not homosexuality stands in need of a “cure”. However, your questions do go to my comments about the social/cultural matrix, traits and behaviors that do or do not fit within the “area of central tendency” that some may take to be defining of that matrix (particularly by people within that matrix), and the desire to “fit in”.

The question “should they”—without implications of an enforced prohibition—is more ethical and philosophical. My discomfort with any tendency (or attempt) toward a prescribed monoculture leads me to say “No”. I understand the desire of people to fit in, and have their children fit in. I was raised to fit in—that is, that was the thrust of the familial and social conditioning/programming that I received. I bent myself to fit in (to be a “well-adjusted” individual) for a large portion of my life, with ultimately personally adverse results. I sometimes still am subject to vestiges of that, reactive behaviors in certain circumstances, though I try to be vigilant about it.

That’s the (vague) personal background. But if there were no such social prejudices to begin with, then people would not feel so compelled to alter themselves (and their children) to fit in with the prejudicial social/cultural matrix. I think that is the root of the matter. And I don’t have to be utopian (I am not) to want to strike at that root.

And the fact that any such prejudice is “fairly generally” held does not make it less pernicious, but likely—in effect—more pernicious.

By the way, your questions remind me of the film “Gattica”. Have you seen it?

Originally posted by vistesd
I have difficulty with the phrase “should they be allowed”. By whom? Is there some socially compelling reason to enforce a prohibition?

It is now possible if you have enough money to create a number of embryos and then pick and choose a number of your child's characteristics. It is only a matter of time before this becomes common place. Those who object seek to create laws to prevent such choice.
Additionally, according to the study that is the subject of the thread, treating a mother with certain medication, may result in the prevention of homosexuality in the fetus. Again, some may seek to prevent that medication from legally being used.

By the way, your questions remind me of the film “Gattica”. Have you seen it?
Yes, quite a while ago though.
I find such movies / stories tend to try to address the issue that choosing some characteristics may lead to overlooking other characteristics that may have equal or greater value. What they don't tend to address is the issue of whether the selected characteristics are really desirable or not.
For example, they may show that a person with strength of character and resolve outweighs a person with greater intelligence or beauty, but they don't necessarily show that lower intelligence is just as desirable as higher intelligence, or that beauty is not important or advantageous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is now possible if you have enough money to create a number of embryos and then pick and choose a number of your child's characteristics. It is only a matter of time before this becomes common place. Those who object seek to create laws to prevent such choice.
Additionally, according to the study that is the subject of the thread, treating a mother wi ...[text shortened]... is just as desirable as higher intelligence, or that beauty is not important or advantageous.

Well, I doubt that I would support such legal prohibitions.

Agreed about the film, of course. One film could hardly be entertaining, perhaps especially as a "message movie" if it did address all the surrounding issues.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is now possible if you have enough money to create a number of embryos and then pick and choose a number of your child's characteristics. It is only a matter of time before this becomes common place. Those who object seek to create laws to prevent such choice.
Additionally, according to the study that is the subject of the thread, treating a mother wi ...[text shortened]... is just as desirable as higher intelligence, or that beauty is not important or advantageous.

Sounds to me like about 200 years of science left at least to go from 'reversing homosexuality' to finding and choosing genes for 'good' character. That seems to me more likely to come about from cultural memes rather than genetic manipulation.
Also, if every woman looked like Marylin Monroe or Angelina Jolie, then after a few hundred years of such 'perfect' women, what would they do then? Holy smokes, did you see the left eybrow of that ugly broad, it's at LEAST a millimeter too long....

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I doubt that I would support such legal prohibitions.

Neither would I. But I am willing to listen to arguments for doing so if anyone has any.

Agreed about the film, of course. One film could hardly be entertaining, perhaps especially as a "message movie" if it did address all the surrounding issues.
I did enjoy the movie, and generally enjoy any movie that makes you think about the issues. My concern is that its argument against genetic choice is flawed.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Also, if every woman looked like Marylin Monroe or Angelina Jolie, then after a few hundred years of such 'perfect' women, what would they do then? Holy smokes, did you see the left eybrow of that ugly broad, it's at LEAST a millimeter too long....

And your point is? If your argument is against genetically improving looks, then you should equally be arguing against beauty products, plastic surgery, fashion and every other possible method of enhancing looks.
If every man wore a suit .....
Does that mean that choosing to wear a suit is wrong? Does it mean that teaching your children a sense of style is wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And your point is? If your argument is against genetically improving looks, then you should equally be arguing against beauty products, plastic surgery, fashion and every other possible method of enhancing looks.
If every man wore a suit .....
Does that mean that choosing to wear a suit is wrong? Does it mean that teaching your children a sense of style is wrong?

Do we really want everyone to be better?
All women to be tall blond Marilyn Monroe nordic type?
And men to be small black-haired with a little mustache and a spastic right arm type?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do we really want everyone to be better?
All women to be tall blond Marilyn Monroe nordic type?
And men to be small black-haired with a little mustache and a spastic right arm type?

The suggestions do not follow from the question. You are contradicting yourself. You are suggesting what is 'better' then trying to ridicule it as not being better.

To answer your question, yes, I see no reason why we would not want everyone to be better. Don't you?
Do I think Marilyn Monroe is the perfect beauty? No, I don't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The suggestions do not follow from the question. You are contradicting yourself. You are suggesting what is 'better' then trying to ridicule it as not being better.

To answer your question, yes, I see no reason why we would not want everyone to be better. Don't you?
Do I think Marilyn Monroe is the perfect beauty? No, I don't.

To contradict oneself is to say one thing first and another thing then. I haven't.

If you want me to spell it out, without irony or cynisism:
Trying to alter people, like curing homosexuals genetically (as this thread is all about), was the highest dream of the nazi party some 70 years ago.

This thread is about modifiying natural homosexuals to be like the homophobians want them to be - i.e. like them. And I find this very near the nazi desire.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
To contradict oneself is to say one thing first and another thing then. I haven't.

Yes you did contradict yourself. You asked if we want everyone to be better, then you suggest that being better is not better, or that your examples of 'better' are not better. Clearly a contradiction.

If you want me to spell it out, without irony or cynisism:
Trying to alter people, like curing homosexuals genetically (as this thread is all about), was the highest dream of the nazi party some 70 years ago.

This thread is about modifiying natural homosexuals to be like the homophobians want them to be - i.e. like them. And I find this very near the nazi desire.
You simply don't have an actual argument so you think that by linking it with the Nazi's you can make people think it is wrong.
Next you will be telling us that it is wrong to wear a mustache because Hitler had one.

Why are so many people religiously against genetic modification? ie they think it is wrong, but don't have and argument against it, so they make one up.

The issue you were responding too had nothing to do with homosexuality, it was about beauty, and choice.
The thread itself is not about modifying 'natural homosexuals', it is about whether or not preventing the condition (is that the best word? ) should be allowed / enforced, and whether or not the researchers or reporters were justified in using terms like 'abnormality' even if they enclosed them in inverted commas.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And your point is? If your argument is against genetically improving looks, then you should equally be arguing against beauty products, plastic surgery, fashion and every other possible method of enhancing looks.
If every man wore a suit .....
Does that mean that choosing to wear a suit is wrong? Does it mean that teaching your children a sense of style is wrong?

"improving" your looks through vanity beauty products won't force your children to be how you want them to be. I think such products are foisted on the public by intense advertising which is a whole other bed of nails.

I am talking about willy nilly changes to our DNA made by people who have no other desire but to 'improve' their looks or get rid of what they think unwanted characteristics or physical or moral 'improvements' which doesn't just change them but all their descendants.

These changes would be made by people with no wits about them and when advertisers get ahold of such technology, it would be the old greed wars all over again but now with unknown and unpredictable effects on mankind in general.

Someone asked what I thought the main problem was and I answered and nobody thought to even reply:

Genetic diversity. When you go about changing the DNA of humans, that change lowers the genetic diversity of the race. This diversity is what keeps us more or less one step ahead of disastrous attacks of the various virus and microbes rampant on Earth. Viruses have been around far longer than humans and have inserted their structures into our very DNA. Do you want to take the chance on even more such attacks because we were a generation behind in the battle against such attacks?

That is exactly what happens with GE food crops. You get a nice effect, drought resistance, maybe pest resistance, and you grow these crops by the trillions, in some cases where that crop is the main one feeding us. Then because you have basically one genetic strain feeding us, some new pathogen attacks one, and the entire crop is threatened because there is no defense and millions of acres of that crop can be destroyed.

Think potato famine in Ireland a couple of centuries ago. It also happened around the world with some GE crops.

The same thing could happen to willy nilly changes in DNA for stupid reasons where 100 years later the gene pool of the human race is drastically lowered in diversity.

That is the big picture reason why we embark on such projects to our own peril.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes you did contradict yourself. You asked if we want everyone to be better, then you suggest that being better is not better, or that your examples of 'better' are not better. Clearly a contradiction.

[b]If you want me to spell it out, without irony or cynisism:
Trying to alter people, like curing homosexuals genetically (as this thread is all about) tified in using terms like 'abnormality' even if they enclosed them in inverted commas.

[/b]twhitehead wrote: "You asked if we want everyone to be better"
If you know so much about my opinion - what exactly do I mean with better?

twhitehead wrote: "You simply don't have an actual argument so you think that by linking it with the Nazi's you can make people think it is wrong."
Yes, I like to examine the desire of the Nazi to turn people better, to be what they call arian. They also think that homosexuals as of lesser value than their norm. I can draw that paralell with some success.
If you think that wearing a moustache is bad then we should discuss that. However, in this I don't agree with you.

twhitehead wrote: "Why are so many people religiously against genetic modification?"
Genetically alter natural behaviour to another natural behaviour, I just don't see the point.

twhitehead wrote: "The issue you were responding too had nothing to do with homosexuality, it was about beauty, and choice."
I use irony to whow my point. You read me by the letter. Then I tell you again - it was irony.
If you don't like irony, then you have a ot of trouble in this Forum. I'm not the first one using it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
"improving" your looks through vanity beauty products won't force your children to be how you want them to be. I think such products are foisted on the public by intense advertising which is a whole other bed of nails.

But your argument (that I was responding to) should apply equally well to beauty products.
Your argument seemed to be that any attempt to improve looks would result in a world full of nearly identical people and that that would somehow be undesirable (though you did not say why).

These changes would be made by people with no wits about them and when advertisers get ahold of such technology, it would be the old greed wars all over again but now with unknown and unpredictable effects on mankind in general.
Little different from beauty products, clothes and plastic surgery then.

Someone asked what I thought the main problem was and I answered and nobody thought to even reply:
Genetic diversity.
I did reply. Admittedly it is two pages later, but it was only a day later and is the very next post from me.

When you go about changing the DNA of humans, that change lowers the genetic diversity of the race.
Not true.

If we were talking about cloning 'the perfect child' then you might have an argument, but we are not. We are talking about choosing to improve certain attributes of our children by various means:
1. Selection. A couple has more than one embryo then selects the one that best matches their desired characteristics. The child will have the exact same genetic makeup as a child that could have occurred by chance. This strategy has already been used extensively in China where there are more boys than girls. Genetic diversity has not changed as a result.
2. Medication or other means of modifying the environment of the growing child. This was the method suggested and implemented in the article this thread is based on. Again, no change whatsoever to genetics.
3. Genetic modification. This would involve selectively modifying specific genes to achieve a desired result. Unless widespread modification is carried out it is highly improbably that the overall diversity would be affected significantly and would be unlikely to lead to susceptibility to disease.