A hit at the anti-gay theists
Offline Well, it so happens that before arriving on the forums today and reading Glamourkat's whole thread on whether or not homosexuality is a choice, I also read (out of pure coincidence) about the experiments on flies to determine the possible "gay gene", which have been remarkably successful, in the sense that we now know for sure where the gay gene should be located, it's only a matter of time until we isolate it ("we" as in the people interested in actual development of humankind). So I'm pretty much started when it comes to gay people.
However, this has left me very very cold. In nature, we have quite a few better examples that should be discussed about. I'm talking about persons that are perfectly naturally developed, except for the sexual organs, which, for certain reasons, are the opposite of what should be (I'm not going to post a picture).
Clearly, if, in the case of homosexuality, there's a bit of doubt, in this case, nobody in his right minds can say that it's a matter of choice.
Now the questions are:
1. How are those persons regarded?
2. What should they do (refering to sex)?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Oh come on !
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused......
Are you talking about intersexed/transexuals?
You were a tad vague.
[*blip*]
Just out of curiousity.. and no-- I do not have any underhanded purpose in asking this question.
If a particular gene is isolated and genetic engineering progresses to such a degree that it allows for this particular gene to be altered (I believe that genetic engineering must take place at very early states of development)--
Whose choice should it be whether or not to leave a child straight or gay? Or whether to change him/her?
Granted, this ethical question comes up with a lot on most issues regarding 'designer babies'-- yet, this particular attribute, I believe, falls within a ambivalent middle ground.
Granted.. this is all based upon the conditional statement "If" a gene is found.
So anyways.. there is the ethical dilemma of the day.
I'm going back to work now.
[*blip*]
This supposed gay gene. Does it just make you gay, or does it tell you your sexuality?
Glamourkat - it took me several hours to find a suitable article, and I can say that I didn't find any to satisfy what I want to say. However, this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality) gets pretty close. I repeat, I'm NOT going to post a picture, due to obvious reasons.
Rhad - I'd say that it depends on what we will establish homosexuality to be in the future. Right now, we are not entirely sure why homosexuality develops, but, for instance, if we find in the future that it is a natural mechanism that serves a certain purpose, it might be wiser to not tamper with it (humanity has had some hard times not understanding the purpose of some natural mechanisms, but understanding enought to modify them). And we will have a different application of morality then, one similar to "is it moral to kill a person?" If we discover that homosexuality is simply a genetic malfunction, that it serves no purpose and that it can be included in the category of genetic syndromes, then again we have a clear moral situation. But until these questions are answered, we're safe from having to think of morality. Besides, nobody has yet been able to modify a human to be gay or straight, so relax
Ophios - I don't know, the gene hasn't been precisely isolated yet. But it seems to be placed within the genes that control sexual behavior alltogether.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
It seems there are very few genes that say
If you have gene X you will do action Y
Its more a if you have a whole pile of genes and are in a particular situation you are more likely to act in a certain way.
In other word nature + nurture may make you act in a certain way