The Ultimate Experiment in Homo/Hetero-Sexuality - Surrogate Experiment

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Yes, I was referring to an idea I scanned across, without going back to find and credit it, but I believe it was yours.

There would be a lot of hand-wringing, because it's eugenics, which is and always has been controversial. I mean, from a very zoomed back impersonal place, I think that most parents would rather birth an infant that does not have, say, Down's Syndrome, and if there were an easy way to push a genetic button to move a fetus from that path, to one of NOT having that condition, I think most would make that choice, yeah? Unlike homosexuality, I think that most would agree that Down's Syndrome is quite a challenge to live with. But then if you talk to people who have had children, siblings, close friends or relatives who have it, they'd want to strangle you for saying that their loved one should optimally not exist in the state that they are in, because they love them for who they are. And really, I do think that somewhere in all of this is the fact that it makes for a healthier, more socially adapted person, to be able to accept and love people not just in spite of their differences, but even because of them. Not merely tolerant, but really accepting. Perhaps "flawed" (arguably, whatever that means) individuals help teach us how to love, even when it isn't necessarily easy.

But compared to something like a serious mental or physical disability, variations on gender or sexuality don't really hamper one's ability to live a good and happy life, so long as they receive love and support from the environment around them. The ONLY handicap is one created by judgmental others. Which makes me question, if the flaw is within them, or within other people?

I have no preference for straight people over LGBTQ+ people in the slightest. But I also don't think that a trait that puts one in a minority, makes one somehow inferior. I have no desire to see all individuals around me in my population be as identical as possible. In fact that idea disgusts me. I don't like to be bored, and that sounds about as boring as anything could possibly be.

Good answer, thank you for the courteous reply. This is, I'm afraid, something that we're going to have to face one of these days that will affect who we are as human beings, it's right up there with AI. As competitive as people are about getting their kids into the "right" pre-school to give them every possible advantage, there's a whole lot of money at stake in the future "Do you want to maximize the odds your baby will be an astronaut?" industry. It's an interesting thought experiment to think through exactly what attributes you would like to maximize in your own offspring. For me, the kid had better like dogs.

[silibran]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Indeed, it's always been my worry that if science ever definitively discovers a single root cause of "what makes gay people gay" then there will be groups who believe that society has some kind of imperative to correct this so that there will no longer be gay people.

I mean, we had a dude up-thread asking the question along the lines of whether any parent would choose to have a gay child if they could easily render said child hetero, in the womb. Even in the absence of a cause, there are people wondering about a "cure"...not to mention these wackadoodle conversion camps that exist.

About the ONLY area in which I am even vaguely, slightly, sort of willing to touch that idea with a ten foot pole is if there were a way for the gay individual him, or her self, to be able to declare as a fully autonomous adult that they no longer wish to be gay, and would like for some kind of a "cure" if such were available to them. (Assuming it exists, works, and doesn't do more harm than the intended purpose of it.) But I would hypothetically support a person's right to change their OWN sexual orientation, just as I support a person's right to make decisions about their own gender.

Which brings me to this... There are some funny people in this thread, conflating transgenderism and gender performance and gender expression, with sexual orientation. Please, people who don't have any or many LGBTQ+ friends, hear this and understand it. There are many, many gay men who do not speak, act, dress, or in any way appear "feminine." There are many, many lesbians, who do not speak, act, dress, or in any way appear "masculine." There are transwomen (people assg. male at birth who transitioned to female) who identify as lesbians and are only sexually attracted to women, before and after their transition. There are transmen (assg. female at birth, transitioned to male) who identify as gay men and have only been sexually attracted to males before and after transition. There are non-binary people who perform no gender expression at all, who may or may not be attracted to only one gender...either one, or any, or none at all. It is utterly pointless to try and say that transgenderism, homosexuality, and/or non-traditional gender expression/performance, are somehow the same thing. Which is one reason that the clunky acronym gets on my nerves, to be honest. These things are all separate things. If there are causes to be found, they are not likely to be the same.

And if you believe, that most gays or lesbians give it away because they are either "flamboyant" or "butch" somehow, odds are very high that you have met plenty of gay people that you never knew were gay. Because nothing about them made it "obvious" (to you) and they didn't bother to tell you. I'd lay a bet too, that you also may have assumed some people to be gay because of mannerisms they had or a haircut or something, and they were not.

I like your post. However I sincerely doubt there is a single cause of anyone being gay. People should know that most gay people are simply that way and have always been that way. Being gay is not a choice of lifestyle.

[EternalHell]

My answer is Bruce Lipton.

He proved that environment influences genes.

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by EternalHell

My answer is Bruce Lipton.

He proved that environment influences genes.

He "proved", did he?

Googling him, it's difficult to find anything that isn't one of his own sites. He only has a couple journal publications after 1982 and never got tenure at any university. For having "proven" something he doesn't seem to have done any actual research on the topic that ever got published anywhere...except his own websites, perhaps.