Fixing your homosexuality?
 

I had an interesting thought recently that I am sure will spark some debate...

There are two main opinions on homosexuality.

1. Being gay is a choice. (I believe this to be wrong)
2. Being gay is a biological fact caused by genes when you are conceived, (I believe this to be true, but we haven't found these genes yet, to my knowledge, so I'm dropping it in 'Opinion')

If number one is true, then being gay is a choice and Fred Phelps has bested us all... what a dark day for humanity that would be.

If number two is true then I am sure that one day we will discover which gene it is that causes homosexuality, and also how to 'turn it off' with gene therapy. (Much in the way we hope to be able to 'turn off' cancer genes someday - not that I'm comparing being gay to cancer...)

This, I'm sure, would be a HUGE deal. On one hand there is nothing wrong with gay people or being gay, and it would be commiting social genocide. The gay culture of the world would be eradicated permanently. No more childhood insults on the playground, no more coming out of the closet, no more rainbow coalitions. I'm not sure, (my anthropology is not very strong) but it may be the first time in human history that an entire culture has been wiped off the map, down to the last individual, within a few generations.

On the other hand, this culture came about from faulty biological construction... (This assumes that natural forces want things to, ya know, reproduce and whatnot. A pretty logical conclusion) which alters a mindset of an individual... making them incapable of thinking clearly on the subject of sexuality. Shouldn't this biological failing be cured by 'fixing' the genetic defets?

I'm not taking a side in this, just voicing two different opinions. I can't come down on either one fully, but I'm leaning towards number 2 - even if you let people choose whether or not to accept therapy - and they most assuredly should get that choice - without the ability to reproduce and pass on their 'flawed genes' the gay culture would be destroyed in a few generations.

Has anyone else thought about this, or does anyone else have any opinions the matter or on whether any one side is 'right'?

Honestly, I'd be in favor of 'fixing' it. It doesn't advance society, and it would cause less conflicts in today's world.

I am bisexual, and am not homophobic at all (yes, it is possible to be both). The only downside I see is that it would reduce the richness of human life by a slight amount.

I believe that homosexuality and therefore sexuality is biological. I think that there is a genetic start to homosexuality but I don't think anyone will be able to turn that gene off. If they were able to turn the gene off, wouldn't one theoretically be able to turn the gene on? While I think sexuality has a genetic base, I don't believe that is the only factor.

This isn't an argument on nature vs nurture, ColonelSpecial, or I'd be inclined to agree with most of your points.

Situation is a headline in 'tomorrow's' news:

HEADLINE: WE CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO 'CURE' GAY PEOPLE.

How would you react if this was true?

Regardless of whether it is a choice or a naturally occuring phenomena, I see no reason to force a "cure" on those who are neither contagious nor looking to be cured.

Mmm, eugenics. This always works out well.

It doesn't bother me one way or another. I'm not gay, so whether a gay man or woman could be "cured" or not means very little to me. I have some gay friends and it may or may not affect them, but that is their fight and not mine.

Forced or done at birth? NO.
Voluntarily at adulthood or parental consent? Sure.

@Charlatan: The entire point of this is not whether or not we should cure current gay people, but whether we can prevent the 'gays' from ever occurring again. A la, after this generation, they would entirely die out because no one would be growing up gay.

Really Jozrael? You don't see anything at all wrong with that idea?

(Did you look up "eugenics" and the word's historical context? You should.)

What she said.

@Supple Cow: I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of eugenics, no. I'm familiar with the subject.

The MEANS to which people employ the betterment of the human race are usually too dirty to justify the ends though. Let us assume that we had a way to extract and edit gene that 100% caused sickle-cell anemia. Obviously, we would change it (notwithstanding ethical obligations about whether or not changing ANYTHING in a human's DNA is wrong). We can now cure humanity of one of it's ILLS through no damage to its members whatsoever.

This is obviously slightly more complex than that because homosexuality is not an ill, persay. Rather, it's effects are not wholly negative on the human race. It may not benefit our evolutionary capabilities but I'd wager most homosexual people don't feel they are 'sick'. Thus, the situation is arguably more complex.

I'm still in favor of it. I wouldn't be ok with affecting a single existing human, but the possibility to remove this argument from my grandchildren's lives? It'd be quite nice. One less form of discrimination in their world is how I see it.

Should we all be the same color too? Eyes and hair? Body type? Part of what makes life rich is that there are differences between us. You argue that life would be better, but better according to whom? Things would be simpler without different cultures and economic systems, too, but the Holocaust didn't really work out to be the best idea, if you remember.

The idea that we should "correct" homosexuality to create "one less form of discrimination" is just plain abominable and it is motivated by the same kind of ignorance that gives us the whole "why can't they just be like us?" mentality. So far, that mentality has inspired things like wars, terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing. I agree that these are not desirable things, but you're throwing out the baby with the bath water on this one. Trust me.

Homosexuality is only an issue with procreation when a society has such low levels of procreation that the species is put in danger. Even the more liberal polls only put homosexuality at 10%, and the human race is not really in any danger from that.

The cause? I don't find the cause relevant, but I suspect it's generally caused by genes, environment, or some combination of the two. Neither or wrong, of course. I'm a liberal. Being a liberal was probably caused by genes, environment, or some combination of the two. No one wants to kill me for being liberal. 'Cept a few conservatives. Hmm.

The only failing is in fear leading to loathing in closed-minded people.

What if they find a gene for being "liberal" or "conservative"? Should we correct for one of these things too?

@Supple: I understand there are fine differences between many things. I've not argued for homogeneity. I understand that this would be reducing the variety of life: I cited that as the only negative that I could see, and wanted to weigh it against the perceived positives. The Holocaust is absolutely not like this. The Holocaust hurt 6 MILLION people, while this would not injure -one-. As I said, I would not be okay with imposing on even -one- person for this.

I don't see why that notion is abominable. Please back up your reasoning for the attack on my position with a quantitative position. the ignorance comment is more difficult to dissect. On the one hand, I -am- bisexual. On the other, I -don't- want everyone to be the same. The large motivating factor about this is that homosexuality, while it is a lifestyle, is also not positive from an evolutionary standpoint. We're reducing the gene pool by a good 10%. While I would never force a homosexual person to breed, this isn't a good thing from the health of a species viewpoint. This is an entirely different viewpoint than the one you are painting me with.

I'm confused about the baby and bath water metaphor, sorry. And trust me doesn't add to your argument.

Ok, so, from my point of view:

Perceived positives: Measurable improvement in the genetic health of the species.
One less form (sexual orientation) of discrimination.

Perceived negatives: Measurable reduction in the variation of human culture.

Are there any more positives or negatives that I'm missing? If not, which of the above weighs most heavily?

EDIT: Couple posts while I was posting.

@Will: While it's not an issue, it does lead shrink the gene pool slightly. I'm not trying to make a case for an actual issue here, I'm just noting it as a minor positive. I don't think the human race is in any danger whatsoever. And I don't think this thread is on the cause, though I agree with you there (granted, you cover -all three possibilities- xD).

@Charlatan: A gene for liberalism/conservatism would not have the same 3 effects I stated above as the one on homosexuality. Also, the negative (reduction in human culture), would be massively bigger, in my opinion.

I'd just as soon leave things the way they are. It would seem that homosexuality has a genetic base, for the simple reason that there is often a cluster of behaviors that are associated with homosexuality.
Take the classic cliche gay guy - lisps, flutters, runs like a woman - these are real, verifiable characteristics which you will find in all cultures, though they don't necessarily mean "gay" (important point - read twice - don't necessarily mean "gay"). This seems to point to a genetic base for the predisposition.
Now, there are other classic cliche gay guy elements. Artistic, empathic, creative, warm, loves life and loves to share that love . . . the world and the arts community and the whole huge edifice that is culture has an enormous debt to the classic gay guy. Or girl - let me make that point too.
Eugenics (supple cow is justifiably appalled at the casual throwing around of this as a viable human choice) never works. There are many instances within history of entire cultures being wiped out within a short span. The natives of Newfoundland (if you could find them) would tell you all about that. No need to experiment on something as delicate as the human social animal. After all, what happens next? The "god-gene"? We find what makes fundamentalists tick, they infect the race with that mindset, and we all go up in a conflagration of mutual destruction fueled by minor differences in religious belief systems.
No, my friend, we may be potential parents or grandparents of the next round of homosexuals. Deal with it not by eradicating them before birth but by celebrating what they will add to the lives of our other, more likely to reproduce progeny. After all, they will have more disposable income (often because they don't raise families) so they can be rich uncles, cultural mixers, patrons of the arts and science . . .

Ob-a-ma, Ob-a-ma, Ob-a-ma.

Sorry couldn't resist.

And as odd as I find this topic, in years to come I am sure, prechild birth, along with every other genetic code that can be and will be genetically modified for mom and dad to customize little Johnny or Janey with, will be the option too turn off gayness in all it's rage and glory.

By then someone will have created God in a petrie dish and he will give his blessing.

For authenticity purposes, God won't be gay. He will be sporting green Doc Martens though

Why is homosexuality something to be fixed? If there is a genetic cause for it, why would the perception be that something is broken?

I was trying to figure out a way of phrasing this. You beat me to it.

You know what, I'm not going to repeat what I said above. I'm going to give another reason.

Perhaps I'm prejudiced somehow, but I feel that heterosexuality is the 'default'. With liberalism and conservatism, they're two sides of the coin. I feel that homosexuality is unnatural, and while not wrong or anything to be ashamed of, it's not the -default-.

Keep in mind while saying that I am bisexual and think there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. For some reason, if there was a genetic cause, I would still view it as a flaw.

You see the only negative as "reducing the variety of life" but you also conspicuously say that you "feel" heteronormative and that you "feel" homosexuality is unnatural. Well, there's your answer. You just admitted that your argument is based on what you "feel" to be the way things should be. I am telling you that there is no one way that things should be, no matter how small or insignificant it may be.

By 'ignorance' in this case, I am referring to the inability to put oneself in someone else's position. Some people are born without this ability or with a very deficient amount of it - these people have some form of autism. Other people stubbornly resist mentally putting themselves in another's position because it makes them uncomfortable. Either way, the result is the same. Cockamamie "solutions" to the world's conflicts that sound all too rational but are ultimately based on some feeling or notion that 'my way is the best way' (or, even worse, the only way).

As for your assertion that not reproducing hurts the evolution of the species, I will simply give you two things to think about: (1) what about infertile men and women and those couples who choose not to reproduce? (2) The world is actually overpopulated and we aren't doing such a good job as a species of preserving our habitat. Think about various parasitic organisms and how the most successful ones are good at reproducing but not too good, since the ones that reproduce too fast end up killing their hosts and then dying out anyway. Is that quantitative enough for you to understand?

The other point you make about eliminating discrimination is not as positive as you might think, and this is directly related to the baby in the bath water saying. The saying is about how when you are trying to get rid of undesirable things (like dirty bath water), you ought to be careful not to toss out the good things with them (like the baby you bathed in that water). Is this making any sense yet? I don't disagree that reducing discrimination is a positive thing. I am telling you that removing a whole kind of people is not the way to achieve it.

Your whole argument smacks of 'the ends justify the means' but even the end you suggest is unrealistic and solipsistic. There has been discrimination at every time in history against one kind of person or another. Discrimination will never be over. A purely quantitative argument cannot even begin to address the human factor (which is why I have largely been ignoring your simplistic argument up until now and trying to address the big picture). All we can do is try to keep up with evolving cultures and accept each other for what we are. You seem to think that preventing more homosexual or bisexual people from being born will solve some kind of problem you perceive, but there are many people on this planet who do derive happiness from homosexuality and yours is not the only viewpoint. Given that, can you justify taking that aspect away from society as a whole?

I've read your points, agree with your reasoning on some, disagree on others. I'll make a fuller post in the morning. I'd just like to note that I'm NOT an ends justify the means person. I don't think the means here are objectionable at all. I wouldn't be ok with negatively affecting a single person (directly...if a gay couple feels the need to adopt a gay child, I can understand indirect negativity there).

Ok, last thing to think about and then I'm done for the day.

If the means aren't objectionable, just focus on the ends. What do you think will happen to all of the gay people who area already alive? Do you think the discrimination against them would increase because all the whackos have already been told we can "fix" them? I certainly think that that's the most likely outcome of this little experiment. Is that the end you are seeking? If not, how do you propose we avoid that or how do you justify it? That's pretty direct harm, IMO.

Fixing homosexuality? Why would it need to be fixed in the first place?

If we could 'turn off' homosexuality, would homosexuals become attracted to members of the opposite sex? One would assume so.

There is no reason to 'fix' it. It may not further the human race, but there are more than enough heterosexuals for that to happen.

I think Homosexuality may be genetic, but that doesn't mean that you have to be gay.

Ah... "be it, just don't BE it." Nice.

Why change something so fundamental to a person that doesn't actually change their quality of life? I mean, I know that there are people who cannot and will not tolerate gay people, who will try to make their lives a living hell, but there are those who will extend that same treatment to people of different races. While we're "fixing" gay people just to make everyone else comfortable, let's tinker with our skin color genes, too! Make everyone a nice even comfortable shade of white. Then nobody has a reason to go torture others! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay! :mad:

Ah...here is what I'm looking for. It could be...and I'm not saying that it is, only that it could be...that the "gay gene" is nature's safety valve to prevent overpopulation of our species. Nature takes a look at the situation and turns "on" x amount of gay genes. theoretically...gay would equal no reproduction. If we start to manualy override that switch, then we really have no idea of the ultimate consequences.

Plus...quite frankly...I don't need the additional competition in trying to talk the panties off of the cute girl at the end off the bar.

But what if she's gay, Bill O' Rights? ;D.

And @ Supple Cow: In this situation, we would not be able to affect living individuals, only newborn ones (really embryos). And unfortunately, I have to leave for today, so continued defense of my position isn't really possible today >.<.

I knew my position wouldn't be very popular here at TFP, but I look forward to giving you people more opportunities to change my mind tomorrow! xD.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why can't the truth be somewhere in the middle? (And, no, I'm not speaking for just bi-sexuals, here. Although, the existence of bi-sexuals should be brought into the discussion.)

Human beings are complex and varied, including their sexuality. Whatever sexual orientation and inclinations an individual may have, it is likely multi-caused.
-----Added 8/10/2008 at 09 : 36 : 17-----
Seriously, there probably are some biological factors involved here, as well. Because, it seems to me that whether you're a "liberal" or a "conservative" (or even whether you're a "believer", an "agnostic", or an "atheist") involves more than just your upbringing and your environment. It seems to involve, to some degree or other, the way your brain is wired.

I understood exactly what you meant. I am saying, pretend that the world governments have banded together and decided to deactivate the gene that leads to homosexuality and none of the remaining ethical scientists have been "taken care of" (you have to realize that most scientists would not agree to this). Now stop reading and really imagine this world.

"Hey Jozrael, I'm a bigot and they already fixed all the baby gays. Weren't you a homo once? Didn't you say you like it both ways? If God wanted homos on his good earth, he wouldn't have given us the gift to fix all them kids. What? You turned down the procedure? Well I'd say you better un-turn it down or else we've got a little pickle on our hands." (Threatening mob collects... crowbars and other weapons materialize and so on...)

What about the people who are, so to speak, left behind? Is the discrimination also "taken away" for them or is it maybe going to be a lot more dangerous and awful to be who you are?

Just for the record, we all know that gay and lesbian couples can and do make their own children too, right?

I don't see any more reason to "fix" homosexuality than I do to tool around with heterosexuality.

This is not an issue to me. I would never ask anyone to change. Nor will I change for anyone other than myself.

Arriving a little late to the party...

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a bisexual woman. I came to and accepted the realization that I was attracted to women in high school and not long afterward came to realize that I am equally attracted to both men and women. That being said, I'm currently in a monogamous, long-term relationship with a woman and am living, for all intents and purposes, as a lesbian woman. Naturally I am biased against this idea. To be frank, I am deeply disturbed by it (but not surprised).

In the years since I came out, I have wondered about the causes and factors behind human sexual orientation and have toyed with some ideas. I don't think it's a "choice"—forgive the tired old line, but I'm not choosing whether to feel a purely physical, sexual attraction to one sex or the other (or both); it just happens, down to the fundamental level of brain chemical transmission and physical response, even as I am free to choose how to, or whether to, express that attraction or not. I don't think it is purely genetic either. I believe there are certainly environmental factors involved, especially in observing that homosexuality occurs in other species of animals. I don't doubt that factors of population density and reproduction rates may have something to do with it:


In the end, I strongly believe that it's dangerous to assume we can know with 100% certainty what causes something like homosexuality. I personally believe this kind of false certainty carries the same potential consequences as historical "certainties" like absolute and fundamentalist religious doctrine, the "scientifically proven" superiority of any single race and the Earth-centered universe.


Jozrael, I admit this fascinates me. I don't want to steer this discussion too much into the personal if you don't feel comfortable taking it there, but I am curious. In identifying as bisexual, do you reap any reward in your life with that identity? Is it detrimental or destructive to your existence in any way? How do you feel about yourself not being "normal" when you apparently feel that heterosexuality is the norm? Do you see yourself as flawed or unnatural? Would you prefer not being flawed in this way? If there were a way to change your own sexuality to be a "normal" straight person, would you take that opportunity and if so, at what cost if any?

Just curious.

The second idea was that since humans are a part of nature, and reproduce by breeding, that there would be something inherently 'wrong' with being homosexual and inaility to breed. (In terms of implied natural order - being that all species reproduce; not in social order - where it should be completely acceptable)

Yes, through science we can allow homosexuals to copulate... this is not a normal process of nature. (In most scenarios)

Because that makes the possible arguments infinitely more complex. : ) I chose to keep things very simple when proposing this hypothetical.

This whole controversy is a mixture of which is the correct path in the intended natural world and the correct path in the social world. I don't think anyone (well, most - I don't know everyone here) here considers homosexuality something that reflects badly on a person, but the prupose of life is to reproduce.

I am finding all these thoughts extremely interesting though... I no longer have to debate myself in my head, I can watch it on my computer!


EDIT: @ spinelust.

I knew this would arise and prepared for it ahead of time. The argument could be made that by being homosexual your viewpoint on this matter could be 'flawed', meaning it's biased and unscientific. Much like in saying that a crazy person doesn't understand that they're crazy, and so cannot hold an opinion on the subject at hand. (I am not comparing being gay to being insane, simply drawing a connection to two situations where bias could occur...)

Just a topic for more discussion.

reproduction as a "goal" is a kind of teleological fallacy: because reproduction happens, it must have to happen.
it's meaningless because even if the logic that lets you talk about a "requirement" can be demonstrated as not being circular--and i don't see how it could be demonstrated--it can be stated, but not demonstrated---there's still a register or level mistake involved with mapping aggregate patterns onto individuals--it's like you don't understand the difference.

if a characteristic or tendency appears only at the level of the aggregate, there's nothing that follows from it for any number of individual patterns of behavior short of the aggregate itself.

unless you're worried about being gay spreading to everyone, there's nothing to talk about.

but if you want to play .....you could say that the overarching goal of a species is to die, because that also happens with alarming regularity. so mapping this from the aggregate to the individual, i could argue that it is a requirement that you die.


no wait: i know-----let's "fix" people who think about "fixing" things they're uncomfortable with. attempts to "fix" things like that have resulted in WAY more damage than not attempting to "fix" things like that, so if there's a Problem, a Mutation, it's with that subpopulation who thinks that "fixing" this sort of thing is a good idea. and since it is a system requirement that everyone die, there's not a real problem with speeding the plow.

this is a fool's game.
anyone can play it.

Hm, interesting... so does this mean the opinions of any non-heterosexual participant in this debate are inherently "flawed" due to this implied bias? Should queers like me not be participating? ;)

In "knowing this would arise and preparing for it ahead of time," it sounds like you've prepared in advance to justify the refusal of contributions from those that would be most directly influenced by the outcome of this debate, whether the actions mentioned herein are taken or not. Are you saying that in this debate, the future and fate of the glbt culture should be taken out of the hands of its members by virtue of their membership in it? Perhaps fairness doesn't count for much in this context, but doesn't that seem a little unfair?

Using your same argument, however, wouldn't the opinions of heterosexual individuals who are already biased against gays, lesbians and bisexuals be similarly "flawed" and subject to the same scrutiny? Really, bias against gays, lesbians and bisexuals could include any position that argues homosexuality is somehow hurtful or negative to the human population in any way at all.

I find this is one of those topics where you will find little, if any, complete objectivity from any parties involved.

-----Added 8/10/2008 at 04 : 35 : 38-----
I do want to mention that I no longer live my life based heavily on any sort of sexual identity and am far less attached to it than I was when I first came out in high school. Back then I found it necessary to strongly assert myself (then) as a lesbian in a hostile environment of homophobic jerks. That is less important to me now and, truth be told, I'm more often concerned with not getting jumped for showing any sort of affection toward my spouse in public at the wrong place or time, depending on where we are.

These days I am much more all about "live and let live," feeling that my behavior and personal choices about how to channel that behavior count for a small portion of the influences that have led me to where I am in life today. I believe other individuals should have the same freedom and be able to do so just as freely as I have.

That being said, I feel the objectives of this debate—to determine whether homosexual behavior is genetic or chosen and to discuss the implications of being able to weed it out of the human population—fly directly in the face of my stated position. The pursuit of any single cause or reason for homosexual behavior seeks to categorize people in ways that I frankly don't think are nearly as necessary as many others seem to.

If homosexuality was genetic, don't you think it will weed itself out in a few generations? I mean, really, it's not like they're passing the gene.

Since others have expressed my views and feelings regarding the first and last of the above quotes, let me address the middle one with What?! Homos will copulate just at heteros do, when/if they get the itch. What is it you mean when you say through science and allow? The first seems silly and the second dangerous. What are you thinking?

Anybody who implies something needs "fixing" in regards to the naturally-occurring behaviors in the human race should probably check their bicep for a red-white-and-black armband.

...

Black, white, straight, gay... turns out we all bleed the same color.
-----Added 8/10/2008 at 07 : 33 : 08-----
There is a long, disgusting history of nervous humans putting groups of "different" humans into sociological cubbies.

The names and locations and groups change... the cubbies stay the same.

...

I'm not a starbelly sneetch.

There is no way you could get everyone to want to fix it. But, I'm sure there are people that if there was a pill the mother could take to eliminate the chance of having a gay son they would do it. Why did I only say son? Because I think it is caused by a hormonal imbalance in the mother. Either a natural or chemical imbalance is affecting the development of embryos. And that would mean, too much estrogen and the boy will like other boys. Too much testosterone and girls will like other girls (although it could be too much estrogen too). And I would bet that more people would feel comfortable having a lesbian daughter than a gay son.

But I could be way, way off. Actually I wouldn't doubt it at all.

Anyway, I don't think that it is moral to create designer babies.