A Nightmare Scenario for Homosexuals

After reviewing several research documents, I've come up with a very sinister scenario that could make some pretty strange bedfellows of both liberals and conservatives. Here it is:

What if homosexuality is 100% genetic as the gay-rights community hopes to prove? What if the genetic composition can be identified before birth? What if parents perform DNA testing on the unborn, and then decide to abort any child that has the gay gene?

The majority of the gay-rights advocates are also pro-abortion. In america, fetuses have no rights, therefore it's legal for parents to discard them for any unwanted trait. Ask yourself: Do parents typically want to have a homosexual child? Under this scenario, homosexuality could be eliminated through genetic selection, if all parents don't want gay children, and if all parents agree with abortion.

So I have a poll. Please treat others with respect.

This poll compares sanctity of human life vs. the right for a woman to choose (abortion) vs. the right for people to collectively (though not purposefully)eliminate a minority through genetic control based on the cumulation of individual decisions. It is not purposeful, but under the conditions it could very well result that homosexuals are eliminated this way, or at least their numbers reduced. It's like a scenario from hell that could happen if gayness is indeed genetic. How could anyone justify protecting unborn gay children through government intervention and allow others to be aborted? It's a terrible paradox.

I voted that no fetus should be aborted gay or otherwise, because I am a Christian that believes in the sanctity of life. I take what I am given, and if I receive a gay child, I will do everything I can to love it and help it. It is God's issue to deal with the gayness himself, if He indeed creates people to be gay, and commands them not to be what he created them to be -- that is his job. My job is to be the best parent I can be. I do not agree with the behavior that could result, and the only christian option for the child would be celibacy. At the same time I would question why God created someone to be genetically predisposed to do this, but then we are all born sinners not of our own choosing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It would be best to have a child that will not be homosexual.

So if givin the chance why not do what is best?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who cares? People will do what they will do.

I highly doubt that homosexuality is 100% genetic, and if it were able to be pinpointed in a fetus, I doubt that abortions would ever eliminate even half of them.

Though they may well be hammered with unrelenting propaganda from day one. If that's the case, they'd probably be better off being aborted in the first place. The world isn't such a great place to be, to begin with, let alone when you've been tagged at the outset for brainwashing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you were to go fuck yourself, would that make you homosexual?

No, I suppose not. But test the hypothesis for us instead of continuing to post your anti-gay bigotry here.

 

SW said:

I would never abort a gay fetus, would you approve of it if people do abort gay fetuses?

 

Abortion isn't something that is personally appealing to me. But this is only my opinion and, not having a womb, a rather unqualified one. But, again, the title of the thread isn't really your topic, is it?

I mean, you don't really want to discuss abortion and gay fetuses. You want to drive home your anti-gay bigotry a little further. You assume that because atheists like myself and SL are not opposed to homosexuality that we're automatically for abortion as all atheists must.

But this would be an example of yet another logical fallacy from you, Woody. I've spoke out against abortion more often than not. I don't find it to be a solution that should be easily had when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. But nor do I use this as a wedge to divide or segregate those with whom I disagree. I don't fall into the trap of false-dichotomies that religious nutters such as yourself seem to dig.

In fact, it would probably surprise or perhaps disappoint you to learn that I'm generally conservative in my politics. Just because I'm atheistic and anti-religious, you falsely assume (as is typical with you) that I'm some kind of bleeding-heart liberal. I spent 12 years in the military and another 7 working in the juvenile justice field as a treatment manager/case worker. You probably assumed that since I was an admitted college student that this meant I was some young kid in his mid-twenties.

So, while you keep posting your "anti-fag" threads (next thing you know, you'll be protesting at soldiers' funerals with Phelps), we'll keep laughing at you when you fall on your face, tripping over your assumptions; making a fool of yourself with your logical fallacies; and criticizing your pseudoscience.

What's your next thread going to be, Woody? "Why fags shouldn't be allowed to work alongside straights?"

 

Moderator action.

Opening post has no religious content.

Thread moved to EMJ.

 

SW said:

No, You already told me you were a family man. I assess you are probably late 30s to early 40s. Is this incorrect?

So after all the smoking gun rhetoric, how do you vote? Why don't you check-out how people voted in the poll, just left click on any number on the right side of the bar diagram and it will give you the voters names and how they voted? I voted that a gay fetus should never be aborted by anyone. I'm in the same bed with Medicine Woman -- a chilling thought.

I need to add some information to the opener to help clarify the issues -- it's sanctity of human life vs. the right for a woman to choose vs. the right for people to collectively eliminate a minority through genetics.

 

So abortion is not a religious issue? OK, EMJ is fine with me.

 

I saw this poll more as having an anti-abortion point behind it than anti-gay. Most people who are against homosexuality do not seriously consider the possibility that homosexuality is genetic or in some other way inherent.

I do not think that abortion should be illegal. It is the business of the state to enforce order, not morality; though for most reasons, including the one in question, I would not support the abortion of a fetus. However, it is a personal decision. If every pregnant woman carrying a baby with gay genes decided to abort, and this caused homosexuality to disappear among humans, then that's what would happen. So what? What makes this any worse than any other abortion? Is it genocide? Should these women be tried for conspiring to kill off the "gay race?"

What if, instead of aborting these fetuses, a special kind of therapy could modify their genes so that they become heterosexual? Would this be somehow wrong?

 

Baumgarten said:

This is getting into genetic engineering, and I have not fully thought through the consequences of genetically engineering the human race. That is a question to ponder for another day, but an excellent point.

If we start choosing what we think our children should be then we become even more accountable for the results. They can look at us and say -- you chose this for me, and I don't like it.

 

But to further your proposition that heterosexual parents could effectively "eliminate" a "plague", and if this became legally feasible, then I would imagine similar easy access to the fine print of the law: scientists identifying a "conservative" gene and a "religious" gene and liberal parents "disestablishing" a "scourge" -- likewise for a "liberal" gene and an "atheist" gene and conservative parents "prohibiting" a "humiliation". The madness of it all: makes you wonder just how very unbiased Nature is herself, uh?

 

This scenereo already exists for some conditions that can be detected in the womb, such as Down's Syndrome. Some people chose to abort, and others chose to have the child. I would say that people should have the right to abort their foetus for any reason, but it's unethical to do so for frivolous reasons, such as hair color or sexual preference.

Obviously, the people that object to abortion are the same ones that object so strongly to homosexuality, so I don't see where this issue would even come up.

It's also possible that homosexuality has several contributing factors including some environmental and cultural ones, as well as genes. In nature, primates (especially non-dominant ones) sometimes have sex with their own gender, they just don't make a cultural issue of it. If it is just cultural, I still don't see what the big deal is.

It's also possible that the (theoretical) gene for sexual preference also codes for something important, and only gets expressed as homosexuality in combination with other factors that are unpredictable, so you might be shooting yourself in the foot by aborting foetuses with a particular gene.

In any case, this brings up the controversial issue of eugenics and self-directed evolution.

 

Eugenics is a bad idea in general. It was a bad idea for Hitler, a bad idea for Planned Parenthood, and it's a bad idea for the advancement of any moral issue. However, as there is no specific "gay gene" (likely determining factors in utero include genetics and hormones) it would seem an even worse idea to abort for speculative morals.

What real benefit would the elimination of homosexuality bring to the species? After all, as a general statement of reality, homosexuals don't contribute any great portion to overpopulation, and in fact can do much (e.g. adoption) to alleviate some of the social problems that come from stupidly high birth rates.

 

It's perfectly fine to abort a gay fetus, as long as that's not te reason for abortion. So if it was possible to test for homosexuality in the womb, it would be best to restrict those types of tests.

 

This scenario is flawed for several reasons, not least of which is that the only people crazy and hateful enough to kill someone for being gay are also violently opposed to abortion. They'd probably wind up waiting until after the baby is born to kill it - actual human suffering seems to bounce right off of them - it's the periods before and after life that they are most concerned with.

Also, another minor issue that I have with your scenario is that I don't know of any gay-rights organization claiming or "out to prove" that homosexuality is "100% genetic". Most of those people have enough sense to leave science to scientists, they don't jump at the chance to pervert science and flaunt fake medical credentials to further political goals like the religious right. Check out HCR's website and news bulletins, they're the largest Gay-Right's group in the United States; see if you can find them touting that homosexuality is a purely genetic trait.

You homophobes sure do like to forget that not all genetic factors create immutable traits, nor are all immutable traits genetic. One can be genetically predisposed to certain types of cancer, for instance and never get it, whereas someone else, not particularly predisposed can still be as powerless to stop it’s development as anyone else. This doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone chose to develop or not to develop cancer.

 

Way to pull this estimate out of your ass, by the way, superb research. If you're ever in Phoenix I could take you out to a few of the evangelical churches in my area, or Log Cabin Republicans meetings in my area. It'd be fun to watch your head spin as you suddenly realize that not all homosexuals are just victims of a radical liberal ideology and decided to kiss members of the same-sex just to piss you off.

Please don't pigeon hole people like this, it's not particularly fair minded, and does nothing but show of how limited your personal experience with and understanding of this issue really is.

 

if there were a gay gene, it would be ethically wrong.
you have a lot of issues with gayness, woody, is it you dont like your latent homosexual feelings, it seems that way to me.
woody someones sexuality if total irrelevant, to what their like as a person, they are exactly the same as you.
no thats wrong thats insulting them.

 

With a name like preacher, I could assume you have a problem with your own religious identity, as many people do. Nope, that's wrong that's insulting them to put you in the human category (how do you like the sound of your own words?).

Nope, I'm not gay if that's what you mean. I don't have same sex fantasies and I've been married now going on 15 years.

It's rare that I would consider responding to you, but the issue as I see it is as follows: First of all I have great sympathy for my brothers and sisters in christ that are struggling with same sex attraction. I do not hate them because they are gay. Unfortuantely less than a third of them will be able to fully transform to heterosexual. That leaves two thirds that must struggle with SSA with no outlet for their sexuality. I think that is sad.

 

Clearly, in this scenario, homosexual foetuses will be protected by law, since homosexuality isn't a defect.

Therefore, the situation just won't arise.

End of discussion.