Will G.E. be the end of Gays?

Physical perfection, health and ability to reproduce would not assign mental stability, or emotional intelligence on anyone. If the world is based on a purely physical interpretation and breeding is the only reason for existence, then I can only feel pity for that view.
In a spiritually defined world…and I mean spiritual not religious, any so called ‘flaw’ would and could not be defined as a flaw. Addiction is probably a path that someone is on to learn. Why look down on someone addicted as less than perfect….you have no idea of what their journey is and will be. If anyone sees any physical ‘disability’ as being lesser than a ‘normal’ body then I despair.
And if that is the level of perfection that would appeal to some…we would then have to look at the totally insane and mentally imperfect and flawed reasoning that got us to that point. Therefore anyone suggesting such a thing would be flawed and liable to extinction.
Our so called ‘leaders’ mostly show a propensity towards the psychopathic mindset so they could never be allowed to reproduce in your scenario. The same can be said for corrupt and greedy corporate heads, bankers and the like…not forgetting the deeply flawed obscenely rich. Most of the scientists. politicians and others that would encourage eugenics are the ones that should not be allowed within civilised society. Anyone encouraging the culling of humanity is equally an evil swine who should be banished. And yet these ‘perfect’ yet totally evil scum are the very people who would make such decisions.

I have no idea why homosexuality is your preferred example of ‘retardation.’ This argument has been done to death. In your ideal and ‘necessary‘ world, I hope if you are heterosexual, that you have the ability to reproduce as you would also be deemed irredeemably flawed and ‘retarded’ if you cannot.

Admittedly there is a lot of ‘retardation’ in the world, but is has nothing to do with physicality or genes and everything to do with thought processes.

reply to post by OhZone

I'm not convinced that the condition is genetic.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's partly environmental. Whatever.

Ask yourself this (if you are 100% straight): can you make yourself attracted to another of the same sex?

It is cruel to allow them to be born if it can be prevented.

How is it cruel?

Is it any more cruel than the overpopulation problem?

Personally, I think the real question should be: Is G.E. the end of humans.

Because well face it, you are talking about changing something small. What about when they start finding genes that make us stronger, taller, smarter and even eventually look different. At what point in the gene changing process does it end up as another species.

All 6 billion humans on this planet have DNA that is like 99% similar. So, if you change the 1%, I guess that remains human. But what about when we start to change the other 99%?

What if we could find a gene in that 99% that would allow us to regrow limbs like a lizard does it's tail? Or a gene that allows us to soak up the sun for energy like a plant does?

But if we assume being gay is a gene, then I would have to say yes it will be the end. Because if parents start to choose such things, no parent is going to make that choice for their child. Possibly a few people just to go against the grain, but in general a big astounding no it will not be done. It would become more and more rare, until the point where those who were gay would become increasingly separated and push away, not pretty for them so at that point you would have to start to question the "humanity" of allowing someone to make that choice.

I'm not gay, so I don't know if it's a choice or not. I know if I were to become gay, it would have to be a choice. But at the same time I can say I don't choose to like women, I just do. So it's somewhat plausible that it's not a choice.

If you really want to get hardcore about it, then it's the fact that they aren't really allowed to be gay that keeps it going. Because then if it's a "gene" they carry it along to the next generation, when they marry and such out of society enforcing that. As if they were gay and just allowed to be gay, and the problem is genetic, it would actually "fix" itself. But then again, we see gay children from non-gay parents(or so they claim).

In the end, I don't care one way or another if it's a choice or if it's genetic. Not my choice to make either way. The only thing I would ever ask of a gay guy - is please stop hitting on me.





[edit on 8/24/2009 by badmedia]

Obviously I hope that my OP will not be taken as any sort of declaration; As I stated previously, my view is one that allows all of us to make personal choices, and that includes the subject of G.E. for my children.
That aside, I can hardly believe that all future humans will avoid what is ,even now, going to become the "norm".
G.E. will start as something innocuous, and then begin to move towards something we feel (at this point) to be "wrong".
How will society receive that message then is a more obvious question than how we will accept it now.
Example; Gays have not been accepted in one fell swoop, but through asserting themselves in personal areas and gaining acceptance one area at a time.
This is, IMO, the way that genetic engineering will slowly work it's way into our society.
In which case, I would think that there would be many people who would know more about what is being added to their "offspring", and less about what is being "taken away".

On a side note, "Yeah! My first Flag!!"

[edit on 24-8-2009 by TheTruthShallFreeYou]

I thought that all of TPTB like the NWO, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Shadow Government, the bankers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bushes and all of the other super duper secret society of world elite rulers used homosexual rituals to induct members and then hung out at Bohemian Grove getting drunk and high and having homosexual orgies. Such being the case, they would use GE to eliminate all non-gays except a few "breeders" on matrix like farms to keep the population going.

If anyone is offended by the above, it is only meant as a joke and I had no intent to hurt anyones feelings or come off as a "homophobe". I have several gay friends and I'm not afraid of them.

Weedwhacer, Why exactly do you find it chilling that I have compassion for people who are born with birth defects? I feel that it would be a kindness to prevent their birth.

Also why exactly do you think that I was being condescending toward my gay friend. I was simply describing the situation. I have a very high regard for this person. The condescension is in YOUR mind, not mine.

You are right I don’t notice which men are gay that I deal with every day, they are not all obvious, and I really don’t care.

Alien, no I cannot make myself sexually attracted to those of my sex (female).
Actually I don’t like the company of women, not that I haven’t had beloved lady friends, or that I don’t enjoy “girl talk”.
I like the attentions of men. They make me feel important.

It is cruel to allow any child to be born who will suffer as a result. I acknowledge that many gay men have accepted themselves which is great, however there are may who do not. Some of them seek sex change operations. And from the info I find some of them are happy with it; others maybe not. BTW I think that the health/sickness insurance should pay or help pay for these operations. I’m all for anything that makes someone feel better about themselves; even surgeries for big noses.

The genetic engineering will go one with or without your approval, and I don’t think it will end humanity.
The mistakes will die. The improvements will be reserved for the Elites.
You and yours will remain in your semi-slave status.

Oh, Alien, one more thing...the statement by a previous poster as to a choice being made was with reference to certain occult beliefs.

reply to post by OhZone

Weedwhacer, Why exactly do you find it chilling that I have compassion for people who are born with birth defects?

Firstly, who are YOU (or ANYONE for that matter) do decide what and what isn't a "birth defect"???

THAT is what I find chilling. Ever heard of "eugenics"???

I feel that it would be a kindness to prevent their birth.

EVEN WORSE statement! If you knew, for instance, beforehand that Lou Gehrig had a terminal illness, (ALS) and would "suffer" because of it, would you have preferred he not be born? Or, Dr. Stephen Hawking?

If you can't see how WRONG your thinking is, then no one willl be able to explain it, I fear.

...gay men have accepted themselves which is great, however there are may who do not. Some of them seek sex change operations.

NO! Misconception!

A pilot at my airline was 'infamous' for having the courage to have a sex-change operation. A former combat pilot in Vietnam. A straight man, who had a gender identity issue. After surgery, STILL sexually attracted to women.

There is no "cut and dried" definition, it can't be all neatly wrapped up with a bow on it.

Look at the controversy over that South African track runner recently. "SHE" could very well be completely 'female', with ovaries and a uterus and all...but her physique is sure manly! Is that her fault? NO!

Until you've walked in someone's shoes....

Although I do not believe it is a choice, I also do not believe that it is entirely genetic. For example, there are many cases of identical twins were one is gay and the other is straight. This alone shows that homosexuality cannot be engineered away.

Besides, if it were to be engineered away, there would be no more great fashion designers, and far fewer florists! This would result in alot of unhappy women!

reply to post by OhZone

Why exactly do you find it chilling that I have compassion for people who are born with birth defects? I feel that it would be a kindness to prevent their birth.

So are you saying that homosexuality is a birth defect? I have asked in other post if overpopulation problem is worse.

How can we enjoy each other if it is too crowded?

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

....there are many cases of identical twins were one is gay and the other is straight.

Neuro-chemical components?

I still think it's a genetic aspect, as well...just not likely as clear-cut as other characteristics.

I don't know the current state of technology in GE, but I'd think that it is NOT being done with Human genomes (I hope not!) but it's certainly going to continue as a hot-button issue for...well, for the rest of our lives.

In regards to the matter of homosexuality, its my view that people are people and skin is skin, its colour or configuration shouldnt (and for the most part doesnt) affect the connection two people might make.

Thats what counts, the connection two people feel, objecting to gay relationships is no different to objecting to mixed race relationships

Skin is just skin, and there are always just People inside .the colour or config of the respective skins dont seem to be a barrier to the connection that two people can create.
and if i could be as so bold as to profer a critique of the human psyche, i think that reality is a good thing. i think being able to form an intimate connection is whats important, skin shouldnt matter.

As for genetically enginering the human species , i think it will continue faster apace with the developing technology.

And i think population pressures will be a driver, you can imagine some cybernetic controller in the future, deciding with the planets resources stretched beyond reason, that hair care products are just too much a strain, and mandating the next generation of humans be hairless

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Ashtrei]

On the contrary, G.E. will ensure that parthanogenesis becomes practical, gays will no longer be unable to produce offspring based upon their choice of a mate. Therefore if you assumption that gay is genetic is correct, there will be more gays than ever as their offspring come into the world.

I have no doubt that in the near future both males and females will be able to carry pregnancys successfully.

Your question seems myopic and yes perhaps also biased. I think your mind is not as open wide as you my believe.

So if there ever was found to exist what they call a GAY-GENE, and it was eliminated from the human genome population one day...would there be any future Leonardo's? Michelangelos? Alexander the Great's? Proust's? Tschaikovsky's ? Walt Whitman's? Gertrude Stein's? Leonard Bernstein's? Wittgenstein's? Nuryev's? Tennessee Williams's? Julius Caesar's?

Most of these persons skyrocketed to fame because of the intense psychological social-trauma associated with 'gayness' i.e. being different than the herd (although I must admit that in Alexander's Macedonia most of the married men in the towns tended to hang around pretty boys at night...hmmm)

And what about a BISEXUAL GENE? is THAT next?

It is estimated that 38% of adult males (if one believes anything at all in that Hite Report...) have participated at least more than once in casual homosexual/homoerotic activities in their lives, regardless of their marriage or fatherhood-status...would we have to eliminate that one too? So much for King David and his Boy Toy Jonathan !

Or is all this HOMO-GENE stuff all a bunch of malarky?

reply to post by Sigismundus


And therein lies another question altogether, one that has been argued ad naseum.
According to gays, they are who they are, which makes it genetic.

reply to post by TheTruthShallFreeYou


Not necessarily. You are not born left or right handed, but once it has been established, it is very hard to change. There is no left handed, or right handed gene, but you are what you are.

I've noticed that the homosexuals are always the least attractive members of society.
Their own language details it... the women are butch, the men are fairy.
Genetic engineering is most likely an attempt to perfect the human form.
We don't need more ugly and malformed people.
We need more perfect people.
The current political scene attempts to use these homosexual outcasts as pawns in their game of thought forming.
The winners are made to think that they should be accepting of the losers.
The winners in reality are usually contempt with winning and don't give a damn about the losers.
The propaganda artists shape the media coverage to manipulate the people.
Don't forget there is an enemy attacking America in the Hollywood movies and telavivzion programming.

does Genetic Engineering mean the end of Gays?

It will depend largely on how accessible the technology becomes, but I think it far more likely it would lead to a massive breakdown in conformist ideas about sex in general. When different people can have increasingly different gentics to the point that some humans are running with fur and wings, suddenly the prospect of having sex with somebody of the same gender will seem more trivial, yes?

we will see a "hybrid" of the worlds races and
traits that lead to a "perfect" model of humans.

Except that instead of "a" perfect model, I think you're going to see lots of "perfect" models. Maybe you want to be a seven foot tall muscle bound monster with super vision and hearing, but maybe the girl down the street wants to be a dainty little catgirl with fur, ears and a tail.

If freedom of genetic expression becomes readily available, I would expect "humanity" to branch out into a massive variety of forms. Who wants wings to fly? Who wants fins and underwater breathing? Who wants to trade out their digestive system for some chloroplasts?

All of these things become possible with genetic engineering. I don't see there being a simple, single "perfect" human model.

Originally posted by THX-1138
I've noticed that the homosexuals are always the least attractive members of society.

That's strange, I always thought that Crack Heads looked worse than I did, but thanks for the compliment none the less.

Their own language details it... the women are butch, the men are fairy.
Genetic engineering is most likely an attempt to perfect the human form.
We don't need more ugly and malformed people.
We need more perfect people.

Well seems we have stereotype after stereotype huh? Have you ever met a perfect person? Do you know how utterly BORING those people would be?

~Keeper

Originally posted by THX-1138
I've noticed that the homosexuals are always the least attractive members of society.

OK, this one made me spit Diet Coke all over my monitor! Hate to break it to you, but the exact opposite is true! While I'll grant you that there are a fair number of unattractive homosexuals, a great number tend to have perfect looks. Perhaps you should meet a few before making such a ridiculous and ignorant statement.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I would have to agree that there are more, per capita, attractive males in the gay population. Recently I had a discussion about how gay men are happier because they always want to do the same things. Makes some sense to me.