ChatterBank1 min ago
If a pill could be found that prevented the birth of homosexuals, would it be widely used?
192 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/275felq
/// Dr Dreger and her colleagues are concerned that medical attempts to prevent homosexuality will arise in the future if sexual orientation is found to be determined by human biology.///
/// 'Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn, could very well lead to new means of pathologisation [treating it like a medical condition] and prevention,' they warned in a recent paper.///
/// Dr Dreger and her colleagues are concerned that medical attempts to prevent homosexuality will arise in the future if sexual orientation is found to be determined by human biology.///
/// 'Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn, could very well lead to new means of pathologisation [treating it like a medical condition] and prevention,' they warned in a recent paper.///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is a website dedicated to keeping an eye on the more ludicrous excesses of the Daily Mail.
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/
McMouse/Mike...all that is now.......I am talking about the value of a homosexual gene to the human race at the conception of mankind. If a homosexual gene was placed in each sperm. then the human race would have lasted one generation.....not very advantageous I would have thought
I am not suggesting that there is a homosexual gene, I am just replying to the hypothesis set by the questioner.
I am not suggesting that there is a homosexual gene, I am just replying to the hypothesis set by the questioner.
-- answer removed --
I'd rather have ten normal homosexuals in this world than a single, fully reproductive narrow-minded, homophobic bigot. Such a pill would only be widely used by the latter. I like to think there aren't many of them in the medical profession, but maybe I'm wrong.
As for homosexuals having no useful biological/reproductive function, hmmm! Is this why my lesbian colleague plans to have at least one child in her future, probably using sperm donated by a gay man?
And am I also to understand from your statement, Squad, the donated blood products, bone marrow and organs from homosexuals are biologically useless? Sorry, if I needed a kidney I wouldn't really mind who it came from (although, maybe not from one of the aforementioned bigots, but then they'd be unlikely to donate one in any case).
As for homosexuals having no useful biological/reproductive function, hmmm! Is this why my lesbian colleague plans to have at least one child in her future, probably using sperm donated by a gay man?
And am I also to understand from your statement, Squad, the donated blood products, bone marrow and organs from homosexuals are biologically useless? Sorry, if I needed a kidney I wouldn't really mind who it came from (although, maybe not from one of the aforementioned bigots, but then they'd be unlikely to donate one in any case).
You know what's great about the responses to this thread?
The fact that so many see the idea as abhorrent.
With regard to the 'homosexual gene' - of COURSE if a whole generation were gay, the number of child births would be reduced, but not to zero. To assume that, you would have to believe that no gay man or lesbian would want children. As we can see, this isn't the case.
So leaving that aside, the question of the gay gene becomes irrelevant, because there's no way that a whole generation COULD be gay.
As to whether the take up of an 'anti-gay' pill would be popular...of course it would. There are still plenty of people who either a) hate gays or b) fear for the safety of their children in a world where gay murders and prejudice still exist.
But in the end, I think the character of Karen Walker (from 'Will & Grace') best sums it up when she said:
"For God's sake...you can't get rid of the gays...think what it'd do to the fall line!"
The fact that so many see the idea as abhorrent.
With regard to the 'homosexual gene' - of COURSE if a whole generation were gay, the number of child births would be reduced, but not to zero. To assume that, you would have to believe that no gay man or lesbian would want children. As we can see, this isn't the case.
So leaving that aside, the question of the gay gene becomes irrelevant, because there's no way that a whole generation COULD be gay.
As to whether the take up of an 'anti-gay' pill would be popular...of course it would. There are still plenty of people who either a) hate gays or b) fear for the safety of their children in a world where gay murders and prejudice still exist.
But in the end, I think the character of Karen Walker (from 'Will & Grace') best sums it up when she said:
"For God's sake...you can't get rid of the gays...think what it'd do to the fall line!"
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
This is a rather interesting post from the Mail article:
"If people's sexuality is inbuilt that would mean that it's not a lifestyle choice, you can't be 'cured' of it and you can't 'recruit' others.
It means it is as natural as hetrosexuality and that if humans are the product of a creator gay people were intended to be just that way.
Seems odd that any one would persecute anyother for the way the were born."
- say if science COULD identify the 'gay gene'...it would rather trample on all those who claim it's a 'lifestyle choice'.
"If people's sexuality is inbuilt that would mean that it's not a lifestyle choice, you can't be 'cured' of it and you can't 'recruit' others.
It means it is as natural as hetrosexuality and that if humans are the product of a creator gay people were intended to be just that way.
Seems odd that any one would persecute anyother for the way the were born."
- say if science COULD identify the 'gay gene'...it would rather trample on all those who claim it's a 'lifestyle choice'.
"For the life of me I cannot see what advantage homosexuality bestows upon race as it is a recipe for racial oblivion. "
You're right in a sense, it doesn't produce a 'racial advantage'.
But I think (and most people seem to agree with me) that determining how our children develop on the basis of 'racial usefulness' is a really, really nasty path for human civilisation to go down.
As others have pointed out, it's also very narrow-minded to define 'racial advantage' as 'ability to reproduce'. If nothing else, this essentially implies that this is the only benefit to the race that heterosexuals can contribute (ergo that anything else they do in their lives is just pointless for the species).
You're right in a sense, it doesn't produce a 'racial advantage'.
But I think (and most people seem to agree with me) that determining how our children develop on the basis of 'racial usefulness' is a really, really nasty path for human civilisation to go down.
As others have pointed out, it's also very narrow-minded to define 'racial advantage' as 'ability to reproduce'. If nothing else, this essentially implies that this is the only benefit to the race that heterosexuals can contribute (ergo that anything else they do in their lives is just pointless for the species).
-- answer removed --
"I pity this to-be child."
I don't. He or she will have a far better pair of parents than many of the kids around here. They are both educated, tolerant, fair-minded women who will give their child a better start in life than most of the heterosexual, 'puff-hating', chain-smoking, foul-mouthed, dole-scrounging excuses for parents in this world.
I don't. He or she will have a far better pair of parents than many of the kids around here. They are both educated, tolerant, fair-minded women who will give their child a better start in life than most of the heterosexual, 'puff-hating', chain-smoking, foul-mouthed, dole-scrounging excuses for parents in this world.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.