If gay is genetic, would you alter an embryo? (illegal, carry, gay people)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the age of technology, in medicine specifically we hear about choosing eye color, height and the sorts isn't far off.
If you could get a report on your unborn child and knew that it was going to be genetically predisposed to being gay would you intervene?
Alternatively, if you were a gay couple having a surrogate or test tube baby, would you alter a heterosexual child to be homosexual to identify with your own sexuality?
In the age of technology, in medicine specifically we hear about choosing eye color, height and the sorts isn't far off.
If you could get a report on your unborn child and knew that it was going to be genetically predisposed to being gay would you intervene?
Alternatively, if you were a gay couple having a surrogate or test tube baby, would you alter a heterosexual child to be homosexual to identify with your own sexuality?
Yes, I wish technology were already advanced enough to genetically engineer every aspect of our children. Right now it is such a crap-shoot. Hair color and eye color would be nice, but not such a big deal. My spouse and I might let those ride, but autism, genetic defects, sexual orientation, resistance to disease, predisposition to cancer, even natural lifespan and possibly intellectual capacity seem to all be at least partially determined (randomly) by genetics.
I support homosexual equality, but I would screen my children for a gene which would limit them to partnering with just 10% of the population. I don't believe it is a defect or disease, but I do believe it makes life harder for those oriented in that way. Maybe in 200 years this will not be the case, and altering that gene will be thought of in the same way we think of determining hair-or-eye color now. However, given today's world, I would alter the embryo or screen sperm or eggs carrying the homosexual gene.
I'm sure, in a century or two, people will look back on our time as the final benighted years of random childbirth.
Lots of good new questions on CD this morning. This one is great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derosterreich
If you could get a report on your unborn child and knew that it was going to be genetically predisposed to being gay would you intervene?
Meaning, intervention with no risks and no costs and the intervention would result in a heterosexual baby? Yes.
Why? Because even today, I think being gay is burdensome; gay people still seem to have to deal with a lot of hassles and discrimination, and difficulties meeting other gay people (shoot, it's hard enough for us flaming heteros to meet people....).
Also, it is less likely (not impossible) that this would result in grandchildren for me.
Yes, I wish technology were already advanced enough to genetically engineer every aspect of our children. Right now it is such a crap-shoot. Hair color and eye color would be nice, but not such a big deal. My spouse and I might let those ride, but autism, genetic defects, sexual orientation, resistance to disease, predisposition to cancer, even natural lifespan and possibly intellectual capacity seem to all be at least partially determined (randomly) by genetics.
I support homosexual equality, but I would screen my children for a gene which would limit them to partnering with just 10% of the population. I don't believe it is a defect or disease, but I do believe it makes life harder for those oriented in that way. Maybe in 200 years this will not be the case, and altering that gene will be thought of in the same way we think of determining hair-or-eye color now. However, given today's world, I would alter the embryo or screen sperm or eggs carrying the homosexual gene.
I'm sure, in a century or two, people will look back on our time as the final benighted years of random childbirth.
yes, I do believe the ending of your post is very true. I think you make some great points, that while many people here would not "intervene" on potential sexuality, I think 95% of people would intervene if they could stop mental retardation, cancer, defects, etc our they are simply being disingenuous.
I'm very curious to see if giving all things being equal would all the tolerant, gay-loving people continue with a gay child if they could change the outcome. Does your blood line not both you? Do you not want to carry on the family name if your only child is gay and happens to be male? Do you want them to be different than 90% of the people and frowned upon by the majority of the earth's people and religion?
I simply, on a biological level think if you accept homosexuality as a genetic trait then it is clearly a flaw. I am not saying they are below normal human, or should be outcasts, but simply from a biological standpoint they are flawed that they are unable to naturally reproduce with their mate and create offspring (the primal reason for relationship/companionship).
My stance is I would intervene on major traits, and probably be OK with randomness on things like hair color, eye color, etc.
I simply, on a biological level think if you accept homosexuality as a genetic trait then it is clearly a flaw. I am not saying they are below normal human, or should be outcasts, but simply from a biological standpoint they are flawed that they are unable to naturally reproduce with their mate and create offspring (the primal reason for relationship/companionship).
And yet, science shows that the likely causes of homosexuality are an evolutionary adaptation found in all animal species and actually increase the fitness of the parents of gay children. In other words, it's biologically useful.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,699 posts, read 41,742,544 times
Reputation: 41381
I'm on the record for being childfree. But if I had to choose between a straight healthy baby and a gay healthy baby, I'd choose to have the child modified to be a straight healthy baby. I know it is 2013 but gays are still fighting an uphill battle for general acceptance. Also I'd most likely raise the child in the upper Southeast US (TN, the Carolinas, or Virginia) and gay marriage is illegal in at least two of those states. I do not want my offspring not to be able to make their love with a person that happened to be of the same sex legal if they so choose because of a bigoted law on the books.
And yet, science shows that the likely causes of homosexuality are an evolutionary adaptation found in all animal species and actually increase the fitness of the parents of gay children. In other words, it's biologically useful.
I'm just curious, especially with so much misinformation and unfounded science behind all the of the homosexual culture, that is far from fact that it is genetic or learned behavior.
I'm surprised either how little people are religious anymore or how many people make arbitrary exceptions to religious beliefs because it is the flavor of the month political trend. (I'm not religious either)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I hope it never goes that far.
