Homosexuality: a flaw that should be corrected? (science, preference, diseases)

[Faint]

Before you get the wrong idea, I am all for gay rights. I also believe that homosexuality is a natural condition in not only our species but other animales as well...that is to say it is a trait that some are born with.

However, not everything that is natural is good for the species. Consider various hereditary diseases for example, such as a disposition towards breast cancer or diabetes.

With the advancements that are expected with genetic engineering, we may soon have the ability to eliminate homosexual sexual orientation from the genepool. What do you think about that?

Questions:
1) Is homosexuality a genetic flaw in that two members of the same gender cannot naturally reproduce offspring (not to mention that our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex)?
2) Does the world need homosexuality?
3) What would be the pros and cons if it was eliminated?
4) Should parents be able to decide the sexual orientation of their offspring?

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Faint

Questions:
1) Is homosexuality a genetic flaw in that two members of the same gender cannot naturally reproduce offspring (not to mention that our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex)?
2) Does the world need homosexuality?
3) What would be the pros and cons if it was eliminated?
4) Should parents be able to decide the sexual orientation of their offspring?

no, i can't justify my natural existence, i am not needed in the world. if i am not needed, it is a pro for me to not be here, and yes my parents would happily change a lot of things about me if they could.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by Mike182

no, i can't justify my natural existence, i am not needed in the world. if i am not needed, it is a pro for me to not be here, and yes my parents would happily change a lot of things about me if they could.

Cheer up you've always got Rocky Horror.

In fairness, I will answer my own questions:

Originally Posted by ME!!!

1) Is homosexuality a genetic flaw in that two members of the same gender cannot naturally reproduce offspring (not to mention that our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex)?

Yes, it is a flaw, though not necessarily a disadvantageous one, at least in this age of the world.

2) Does the world need homosexuality?

I couldn't say...but at least it cuts down on the population.

3) What would be the pros and cons if it was eliminated?

Pros: Each gender would know the other's preference, so we'd have less confusion at bars/nightclubs I suppose.
Cons: Less women for me and more dudes to compete with. Fred Phelps would just find something else to complain about.

4) Should parents be able to decide the sexual orientation of their offspring?

Sure why not? They made it after all. By the same token, I see no reason why parent's shouldn't be able to circumcize their males, or select hair/eye/skin color.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Faint

Questions:
1) Is homosexuality a genetic flaw in that two members of the same gender cannot naturally reproduce offspring (not to mention that our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex)?
2) Does the world need homosexuality?
3) What would be the pros and cons if it was eliminated?
4) Should parents be able to decide the sexual orientation of their offspring?

1)A genetic flaw? I suppose homosexuality is a 'flaw' in some respect in terms of genes, since the can't pass themselves on. But then, of course, lab procedures can in principle (in future) allow humans to be born of two same sexed people.

2)No idea.

3)I can't think of any.

4)Dunno, it seems fair, but I haven't considered the implications.

[Fluffy]

1) Is homosexuality a genetic flaw in that two members of the same gender cannot naturally reproduce offspring (not to mention that our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex)?

Our bodies aren't designed... period. Define naturally ,

2) Does the world need homosexuality?

Need is a totally relative concept since in order for something to be needed, it must have something to be needed for. However, this is meaningless since I could say homosexuality is needed for X and you can simply say that X is not necessary . I can't justify the necessity of something... nobody can.

I can answer that subjectively... I feel that the population "needs" to be controlled and homosexuality is a good way of doing that.

3) What would be the pros and cons if it was eliminated?

Urm I can't think of any really. It would depend on how and why it was eliminated. I can't really think of any pros and cons if it never existed in the first place. I can see some problems with enforced elimination now then I might see a problem .

4) Should parents be able to decide the sexual orientation of their offspring?

Well I think they should. But I think that parents who take such an option should be prevented from having children.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Our bodies aren't designed... period. Define naturally ,

Oh ho! Glad you caught that figure of speech. My bad. Maybe I should have said "our bodies aren't built...". In this case I'd define naturally as in homosexuals cannot have get pregnant through same-gender sex. Obviously lesbians can get artificially inseminated (and one can argue that everything humans are capable of IS natural), but I'm talking about the fact that they cannot do this unaided by science.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Need is a totally relative concept since in order for something to be needed, it must have something to be needed for. However, this is meaningless since I could say homosexuality is needed for X and you can simply say that X is not necessary . I can't justify the necessity of something... nobody can.

True, which is why I couldn't say whether or not it's needed.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I can answer that subjectively... I feel that the population "needs" to be controlled and homosexuality is a good way of doing that.

I would argue that there are not enough to homosexuals being born to counter the overpopulation we are seeing. Otherwise I would say it's the world/nature's way of telling humans to "slow the f*** down" with their offspring.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Well I think they should. But I think that parents who take such an option should be prevented from having children.

Why? How is it wrong for a couple to say something like, "we'd like our child to be straight so we have more in common with it"?

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Faint

Why? How is it wrong for a couple to say something like, "we'd like our child to be straight so we have more in common with it"?

every parent has expectations of their child, and with all due respect to the parents of the forum, tend to get frustrated when these expectations are not fulfilled.

a parent who is able to pick their childs genetic makeup will be creating a stronger idea of what their child will be, and if those expectations are not met, it will do more damage to a family than homosexuality

obviously some parents will be more frustrated than others, so the cases would be better or worse depending upon the parent

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Need is a totally relative concept .....

I need water. How is this relative?

[Fluffy]

Oh ho! Glad you caught that figure of speech. My bad. Maybe I should have said "our bodies aren't built...". In this case I'd define naturally as in homosexuals cannot have get pregnant through same-gender sex. Obviously lesbians can get artificially inseminated (and one can argue that everything humans are capable of IS natural), but I'm talking about the fact that they cannot do this unaided by science.

Coolies just making sure we are on the same page . I'd say there is no reason to assume any more purpose/reason/direction in heterosexuality than in homosexuality. The "naturalness" distinction also seems fairly arbitrary.

I would argue that there are not enough to homosexuals being born to counter the overpopulation we are seeing. Otherwise I would say it's the world/nature's way of telling humans to "slow the f*** down" with their offspring.

That would certainly be an argument for MORE homosexuality .

Why? How is it wrong for a couple to say something like, "we'd like our child to be straight so we have more in common with it"?

I just feel like if sexualities are equal then it shouldn't matter to parents what sexuality their child is. If a parent is willing to go to the trouble to change something like that then it seems like they have more of an issue going on than a simple need to have things in common with their child.

[Fluffy]

I need water. How is this relative?

You don't need water. You need water in order to live. You need water in order to stay hydrated. You need water in order to cool down.

But can you justify whether any of those things are in themselves necessary? If they are not then you do not need water. You simply want it. It is necessary in order for you to fulfill certain wants... but it is not a necessity for you to have it because those wants are not necessities.