Zodiac Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Then I'd have to deal with it with the help of the people who are close to me. I'm coloured so I've already been through a lot of situations where I got discriminated just because I had a different skincolor, and although I don't like it and will never get used to it, you just deal with the fact that there are people on this earth who are just that dumb and you just have to develop a stronger personality with the help of your friends/family, so you don't let the idiots get you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Originally posted by Zodiac so you don't let the idiots get you down. .......and if all else fails.....you kill the idiots...... But seriously, I don't understand what people have against homosexuals.....i mean......they're still people....and the're not hurthing anybody.....so why treat them like dirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Didn't reead the earlier posts, but: 1) I'd be thankful. 2) I'd get rid of the "gay-gene". I saw this documentary of deaf people a while back. They were very angry because some deaf parents had decided to give their deaf child a operation that (with the help of some gizmo) made them able to hear. The reasoning was as simple as it was retarded: "there's nothing wrong with us, we're normal people. Deaf people aren't defective and we can be just as happy as people who are able to hear!" I mean...jesus! You won't help your own child because that would make you feel "disabled". How disgusting! Same thing here - the only question that matters is this: would it make my childs life better? The answer is obvious: Yes. My child would be better of not being gay/deaf/blind/schizophrenic/whatever. The problem is really defining how far one can go. Is it okay to alter the genes to make him smarter? IQ 120? How about an IQ of 220? That would be even better! He'd probably live a great life and benefit the world around him as well. Who draws the line and where? You don't have to be able to draw the exact fine line between the "no-no's" and the "acceptables" in order to make the call in an individual case. You don't have to know where exactly the line between a slap and assault & battery goes when the victim has a iron bar driven through his skull. I could not care less about the whole "God intended him to be gay/deaf"-argument if my childs interests are at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 I would have it removed for a few reasons. Clearly the Bible states homosexuality is wrong so therefore according to my own religion I cannot allow my child to be a sin if I have that option. Another reason is because being gay is more often than not a disability in society. They are scorned in life. They are more accepted then they were years ago but there are still too many people who hate gays. My family is included in this. My grandfather HATES gay people and is very outspoken about it. There are other who feel the same way but don't say so publicaly. A third is that I am the last reproducing male of my line so to carry on my families linegage I need reproducing heirs. Stupid but a part of my life. I do not judge people solely on being gay. I do allow it to reflect a person. An example is that most gay people I know fit the gay stereotype. The males act like females and have high pitched voices that know about clothes and arts fartsy stuff. The women are butch and are rocker types. This seems to be the exception to the rule because when I lived elsewhere these people were around but not prevelant. So to answer your question yes I would like to have the gay gene modified/removed. BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioshee Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 How does a totally ridiculous, hypothetical question qualify as a “serious discussion”? Well I guess since the moderator started it… So to play along 1. I wouldn’t care because where I like to put my thing doesn’t define “who I am”, and even if it did who cares “who I am” … I sure don’t. 2. I think I might have it removed, but not without adding the gene that gives the kid a third arm. Think of the career opportunities you would have with three arms. I would probably pick drummer of a rock band. Plus if I ever did have kids I would totally treat them like science experiments anyway. Training two of them in different ways to test genetic vs. environment effects, making them wear weird jumpsuits in public, time depravation... stuff like that. So gene altering would definitely not be out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior .......and if all else fails.....you kill the idiots...... w3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Well, you couldn't have a tormented childhood. I read that children can not be sure of their sexuality until they are like 13...But anywayz..... 1) I would be happy. I don't want to be gay, not that there is anythign wrogn with them though. They are just like you and me, and they leave more girls for us to choose form 2) Well, I would talk it over with my wife. But I think I would, because children often make fun of gay adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 although when you are a child your sexuality isnt known yet, homosexual tendencies show when you are young , thus being made fun of, alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by ioshee How does a totally ridiculous, hypothetical question qualify as a “serious discussion”? Somebody seems a little bitter that they got their thread moved........... :rolleyes: I don't understand why you're having trouble that your thread which wasn't a serious discussion was moved while the threads that are serious remain........................................... It wasn't even closed or anything......they just sent it to the swamp....you can still post in it there........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioshee Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I said that because I didn’t know hypothetical situation threads were allowed here. It opens the door to some interesting thread possibilities. I’m glad to see that most people here are sticking to the terms of the hypothetical instead of arguing whether or not it is possible (as C’Jais did when I gave him a hypothetical situation in another thread.) I understand why they moved my thread and I’m cool with that. There does seem to be a rather subjective view of what the word “serious” means on this forum. I’m just trying to question the system. “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” -George Bernard Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 No, I wouldn't be angry because they'd have saved me from what very possibly could've been an extremely miserable childhood and Yes, I'd have them screened and have the gene removed. I have nothing against anyone's who's homosexual (I know a couple people who are, nothing wrong with them) but I wouldn't want my kid to suffer in his childhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by CagedCrado Im not racist, i truly dislike some native americans, WTF? You just contradicted yourself in the same post. Maybe you are not a racist, but you sure are an angry young man. BTW, Gay people are not "Icky", I don't think sexual preference should earn you such a label. I am a christian, and in the bible it is wrong to engage in sexual relations among members of the same sex. But this is a world of evil we live in, there is nothing we can do to change the world, it is how we live in it that counts. Also, I may not agree with a gay man's sexual preference, but I find it rude for me to condem him to a fate he has already chosen, or had chosen for him, depending on how you look at it. I have had gay freinds, they respected me for being heterosexual, and I returned the favor by respecting their sexual preferences as well. None of them ever made any kind of advances on me, and turned out to be some pretty trustworthy freinds. Now back to C's question. 1) I would be very shocked, maybe even disturbed. Not sure if I would even tell my wife, but maybe someone in a professional field. 2) I really do not know how I would react, but If I had kids, I would probably do the same thing, because I would want grandchildren too, and also based on my religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar Same thing here - the only question that matters is this: would it make my childs life better? The answer is obvious: Yes. My child would be better of not being gay/deaf/blind/schizophrenic/whatever. The problem is really defining how far one can go. Is it okay to alter the genes to make him smarter? IQ 120? How about an IQ of 220? That would be even better! He'd probably live a great life and benefit the world around him as well. Who draws the line and where? You don't have to be able to draw the exact fine line between the "no-no's" and the "acceptables" in order to make the call in an individual case. You don't have to know where exactly the line between a slap and assault & battery goes when the victim has a iron bar driven through his skull. Luc, you should watch the movie "Gattaca." Deals with this subject very well, in addition to being a very good movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by ZBomber I read that children can not be sure of their sexuality until they are like 13 A little worried there for a minute Z? Welcome to the sexual awareness group. Originally posted by ZBomber I don't want to be gay, not that there is anythign wrogn with them though. This whole thread and mainly this post by Z sounds an awfully much like a certain episode with a certain actress named Paula Marshall. (EDIT: Forgot the most important part - a certain episode of Seinfeld) BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Or "Seinfeld". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonedemon Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 This raises the entire ethical debate about whether or not we should manipulate genes just because we can. I´m divided on this. Introducing genetically manipulated genes into the genepool of mankind is something I am very wary to do. What would happen to evolution? Is it the next step or is it pushing it aside? What will happen after a couple of generations and so on. On the other hand it will probably benefit the blind/Schizos/deaf/whatever. 1:I´d feel weird, like I am not exactly what I was supposed to, but It would dissapear rather quickly. Not grateful, or anything else for that matter. Perhaps I´d be angry on them for them thinking me to be wrong 2:No, they are born that way. That´s the way I will love them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 What the Heck? I'd be furious with the f****ing immature. There's nothing wrong with being it in the first place. That's what bothers me about today's society. It's not "you like other girls, so what", it's "you like other girls, but let's treat you as if there's nothing wrong with you". Same goes for races, fetishes, foreigners, accents, foreign religions, handicapped people, you name it. It's not a bad thing in the first place, it's part of life. You're not going to "protect" the people from something that's not bad in the first place. My school is pretty mature about it (I know this girl who likes boys and girls, and everyone is fine with it). It's not about protecting people from facism. It's about stopping prejudice and facism itself. Altering genes like that should not be legal. Period. *Reads rest of thread* Okay, someone here have issues. People like LucSolar: Although we have freedom of religion, bullying, discriminating against, and proscecuting people who like the same people as they are themselves is against US laws. You can't force your kid to be "normal" because of some religion. It's not about your freedom of religion, it's about his freedom of religion. Adam and Steve Of course he didn't or humans would not have reproduced. But does that mean that everyone who was not like Adam and Eve are going to Hell? Then get a life. "Homoesexuality is bad" Uh... right. It doesn't make you different, it's just who you like. It doesn't affect you at all if some girl likes another girl instead of some other boy. The problem is on your side here. It's like segregating in the 60's because "light and dark couldn't go together"..you're different in a way, too, everyone are, wheter or not you realize it. About the deafs: Well, they are probably right. If I figured out I was going to have a telepath gene, but my parents didn't help me have it, I wouldn't be mad. Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle There's nothing wrong with being it in the first place. That's what bothers me about today's society. There are problems with being gay. Factual problems. And I'm not only talking about the fact that you can't reproduce (which happens to be perhaps only the most important thing in life), I'm talking about the way it affects your life because of how the world treats you. Saying "well...the world is wrong" doesn't help. The world is what it is period It's not a bad thing in the first place, it's part of life. You're not going to "protect" the people from something that's not bad in the first place. I'm sure you're totally fine with "not being able to reproduce" and "men having sex with men" but you must realize that the world we are living in isn't. This is reality, not a naive fairytale. People like LucSolar: Although we have freedom of religion, bullying, discriminating against, and proscecuting people who like the same people as they are themselves is against US laws. You can't force your kid to be "normal" because of some religion. It's not about your freedom of religion, it's about his freedom of religion. Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say. That I should let my unborn child him/herself make the decision about whether or not he wants to be born gay 20 years after being born?? Religion? "Homoesexuality is bad". Uh... right. It doesn't make you different, it's just who you like. It doesn't affect you at all if some girl likes another girl instead of some other boy. You're not taking into consideration the world we're living in (once again). It does not matter what *you* think. It's completely irrelevant. Homosexuality DOES make you different. How else can you explain the ****ty treatment gays get? They are often seen and treated as "sinners" or "freaks" or whatever. If something causes the world to hate you, then you are indeed different. You're hated and discriminated against because you are gay. It's as simple as that. About the deafs: Well, they are probably right. Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people. OMG! Are you serious? "Letting my baby hear will make ME feel like there's something wrong with ME, so I won't help my child." NEWSFLASH: You're f'king deaf! THERE *IS* SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU. YOU CAN NOT HEAR! If I would go blind right now I'd sure as hell have a problem. A blind person can not see. Seeing makes your life easier and more enjoyable. Seeing = a positive thing, Blindness = negative thing. Being blind = being disabled. I have nothing against homosexuals. I know a few and they're all ok. I treat them no differently than heterosexuals. That's one thing. Another thing is that they're life would definetly be easier and happier if they could reproduce, have children, a normal family, a NORMAL LIFE. What defines "normal"? The world we live in, that's what. A deaf person could live a happy life... but if the world was such that everyone would keep spitting on him because he's an "disgusting invalid", then I sure as hell would not wish that my own child was deaf. This crap about "accepting people the way the are"... It's SO NOT RELEVANT! If my child turns out gay...fine. I won't be getting any grandsons, but hey - I'll love him just the same. (But if I could, I'd definitely take out that gene. My childs best interest is my priority, not some vague philosophy of life.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people. All the other stuff you said is up for debate (if a bit naive), but this... I laughed quite hard at this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 If being Homosexuality was caused by a gene. Than it is a terrible evolutionary flaw. Up there with being fat, balding, and getting cancer.. What better way for a species to go extinct than to get its poles crossed... For that matter I think being gay is a choice people make regardless of what they say.. People choose one way or the other for whatever reason...It's easier to pan it off as "I was born this way" than to set down and explain why...If you think and tell other you were born that way. Than you release yourself from being at fault for being at odds with society... Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years... The Greeks and the Romans were openly homosexual and it was excepted as normal as being heterosexual maybe even more so. Alexander the Great was gay... Doesn't mean it's logical and in humanities best interest, but it's a free country and people can do what they want in their privet lives.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacky_Baccy Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Posted by Cosmos Jack If being Homosexuality was caused by a gene. Than it is a terrible evolutionary flaw. Up there with being fat, balding, and getting cancer.. What better way for a species to go extinct than to get its poles crossed... I've always wondered about that... I'm tempted to think myself that it's a naturally evolved way of reducing [localised] over-population, but that's probably just me... For that matter I think being gay is a choice people make regardless of what they say.Answer me this: What person in their right mind would choose to put themselves in a minority group which is regularly discriminated against by a lot of people, which often has to pay coinsiderably more for life and medical insurance (often for no good reason but the unfounded fear of the company selling it), which isn't entitled to the same civil rights as the 'straight' majority group, and which is shunned by large swathes of society for being different? People choose one way or the other for whatever reason...It's easier to pan it off as "I was born this way" than to set down and explain why...If you think and tell other you were born that way. Than you release yourself from being at fault for being at odds with society...Have you ever considered that they might not know how to "explain why" because they were born that way? Can you explain why you're attracted to women and not men? Gay people (and heterosexual people, for that matter!) can not help what their sexual orientation is - a gay person no more 'chooses' to be gay than a straight person chooses to be straight. Alexander the Great was gay... Doesn't mean it's logical and in humanities best interest, but it's a free country and people can do what they want in their privet lives.. I'm glad you think that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonedemon Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Long ago I read an article about sexuality in a pop-science magazine(therefore I can´t credit it, sorry). It was a about some research done in sexuality and it´s nature. It did describe sexuality as a "floating" thing. It cold change as fast as in 6 weeks. Therefore you could be gay for ½ year and afterwards "reverse" to heterosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 I think it is more to do with chemical releases and re-uptakes in the brain than with genetics. Seratonin and endorphines, for instance. These same reward processes tell us what our favorite ice cream is, drive us to jump out of airplanes, and even remind us of unpleasant experiences like foods that we have revulsions for. With 6 billion people in the world and the rich unwilling to share the wealth, perhaps homosexuality in a minor percentage of the population is a good thing... exponential increase in world population is bound to create problems for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacky_Baccy Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Posted by Bonedemon Long ago I read an article about sexuality in a pop-science magazine(therefore I can´t credit it, sorry). It was a about some research done in sexuality and it´s nature. It did describe sexuality as a "floating" thing. It cold change as fast as in 6 weeks. Therefore you could be gay for ½ year and afterwards "reverse" to heterosexuality. Of course sexuality isn't fixed, just as much as it isn't a simple black and white area (or black, white and grey for that matter). That 6-week figure sounds highly suspect to me, although I can see how it could possibly be more accurate if applied to an infant... I don't believe for one second that a gay person can become straight in 6 weeks (or at all), but nor do I believe that it's impossible for a gay person to be genuinely attracted to someone of the opposite sex, just as a heterosexual person might be (and vice versa on both points). This thread has actually got me thinking about a lot of things, and has made me look at familiar points from different angles, so I think I like it more now than I did before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 On the causes of homosexuality: Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com (which is by the way damn slow today)) had a few paragraphs about an experiment where scientists altered the environment of some fruit flies ever so slightly (I seem to remember that they heated it up a bit). This caused the functions that normally put the males off courting other males to cut off, making them bisexual. It was, however, turned on again when their environment was reset. But for the life of me, I can't seem to be able to find the article, so don't pin me on the heat thing... As for C'Jais' question: #1: Who knows? Who honestly knows how he/she would respond to shocks? Can you tell me how you would react if the bank that you work in was robbed? If your mother/father/girlfriend/boyfriend/brother/sister/someone else to whom you are emotionally attatched/all of the above was run over by a car and killed? No. And this has been very well-documented, as there, unfortunately, is a very rich source of data to be mined on the subject. #2: I wouldn't even get the problem in the first place: I am against such through-and-through scans (or rather access to the results) for a number of reasons, all of which are better discussed elsewhere. Scanning for specific attributes is OK, but homosexuality is not one of those that I'd want to get a read on. Originally posted by SkinWalker I sure hope things have changed since 1999 Always on the spot with the facts... You could sell a newspaper on that, Skin... I didn't read it all through (I know, Mortal Sin #8), but I did check the 'home' site: The US Civil Rights Commission, and read the first few lines, and based on that, I'd say that Skin is right. ChagedCrado: Like far too many people on these boards you suffer from what's by professionals called 'confirmation bias' (a quick browse of the Evolution/Creation thread should point out quite a few fundamentalists that suffer from the same problem), that is you see only what you want to. Curiously, I have a feeling that there is a strong correlation between fundamentalism and this disorder, though which way the contingency goes is a matter better discussed in another thread. The answer is obvious: Yes. My child would be better of not being gay/deaf/blind/schizophrenic/whatever. You cannot place homosexuality in the same group as diseases/disabilities, because it clearly is not. The problem is really defining how far one can go. Is it okay to alter the genes to make him smarter? IQ 120? How about an IQ of 220? That would be even better! He'd probably live a great life and benefit the world around him as well. Who draws the line and where? The crux of the matter indeed. But, to take your example, infact an IQ of much above average wouldn't neccesairily change its life for the better. There is (to my knowledge at the time of writing) little or no correlation between IQ and quality of life (though a high IQ could mean that it chooses a wierd hobby and gets bullied for it/gets a better job because it exploited its talents/ect). Regarding the IQ question I am reminded of a quote from the Harry Potter books: "It's not the gifts that we are born with that determine who we are, it is what we choose to do with those gifts." - Dumbledore. I think that this quote says it all. How does a totally ridiculous, hypothetical question qualify as a “serious discussion”? Well, look at the thread, and see if you disagree... It is en ethical question, as much as a rational one. And since ethics are completely disentangled from petty facts (as we see with many 'soul-claiming' anti-abortionists), it will make (has made) for a serious and entertaining debate. And I'm pleased to see that it's been (almost) devoid of mudslinging... I’m just trying to question the system. And in comes the Skeptic. Hurrah for that! And by the way, did you guys know that Hurrah is actually derived from an Arabian battlecry meaning 'kill them'? *Back to topic.* About the deafs: Well, they are probably right. If I figured out I was going to have a telepath gene, but my parents didn't help me have it, I wouldn't be mad. Those people are right. Deafs can live just as well as other people. They can live well, true, but the community that they can live in is very small. Because unlike homosexuals, they have a hard time even communicating with non-deaf people, because 'hearers' will have to learn an entirely new language (sign-language) in order to say anything to them, and, in most cases, 'hear' what they 'say'. Saying "well...the world is wrong" doesn't help. The world is what it is period While resignation can go a long way in many walks of life, it has never abolished any kind of discrimination. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Cosmos Jack If being Homosexuality was caused by a gene. Than it is a terrible evolutionary flaw. Up there with being fat, balding, and getting cancer.. What better way for a species to go extinct than to get its poles crossed... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've always wondered about that... I'm tempted to think myself that it's a naturally evolved way of reducing [localised] over-population, but that's probably just me... It's not an evolutionary flaw, and this is not an evolutionary thread... But anyway: The part of it that is genetic (because some part is for sure, we just don't know how much), is presumably a combination of several genes, much like the carcinogenic genes, making it fairly hard to select against, or a gene flaw, making it impossible to select against. With 6 billion people in the world and the rich unwilling to share the wealth, perhaps homosexuality in a minor percentage of the population is a good thing... exponential increase in world population is bound to create problems for the future. Lol. Good point, but it's probably not significant to global population... This thread has actually got me thinking about a lot of things, and has made me look at familiar points from different angles, so I think I like it more now than I did before A good thing, as this is exactly the point of a rational discussion... And to those of you saying that the purpose is 'to convince the other guy': Well, if you're right, then a broad enough perspective will reaffirm your knowledge, and convince 'the other guy'. Whew, that's my two Eurocents... Or rather two Euro, judging by the size of the thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.