Gene Eugenics

[Eugene]

Do a survey of 13-year old gay teenagers, and tell me you aren't finding a vast majority of them wishing they were like their straight peers.

If that were the case.. it would not be strictly on the basis of heterosexual versus homosexual nature. Societal pressure would be the reason there.

[Restrat]

I wouldn't say teenagers are the best method of observing the happiness factor of anything.

[Zilong]

Seriously, 13 year olds are fucking retards

[Narol]

Do a survey of 13-year olds unlike their peers in some way, and tell me you aren't finding a vast majority of them wishing they were more like their peers.

ftfy

[Rabidelly]

Can you imagine the awkward conversations somewhere down the line?

"Sorry son, you were originally gay."

Personally, I don't see changing someone's potential sexuality as being a viable option well...ever. There's just too much to that could/does affect it, genetically speaking. Never mind any possible side effects (OH we were going to un-gay them but we gave them 12 nipples instead, sorry!). This would be amazing if we could apply it to disorders and diseases. I'm a type 1 diabetic and if I could guarantee that my kid wouldn't inherit my disease, I would do it.

Also...if you could switch "off" a gay gene, and the kid still turns out gay could you get a refund?

[Chun Liroy]

Not too distant future is a stretch. I'm not a bio-engineering expert but if I'm not mistaken, the level of genetic manipulation required for this to be a viable exercise would actually be far and above the level of genetic manipulation required to imprint a "limiter" on cellular regeneration and growth (in the form of overgrowth via mutation) thus preventing or curing almost all forms of cancer.

Yeah, you read that right, I'm fairly certain that limiting the ability of cellular overgrowth, or rather, limiting the ability of cells to receive instructions to replicate and never receive the instruction to stop (how tumors are formed afaik, it's just a bunch of cells that won't stop regenerating~ [not the best word]) is pretty much the essence of what cancer is.

The ability to manipulate genetic material to the point of selective I.Q. or sexuality, while it gets a lot of media attention because it is a heavily debatable and polarizing subject, is not exactly so "right up on the horizon" of medical science. I'm fairly certain it's a lot easier to work an "on/off" switch than it is to pick and choose the upper and lower boundaries of I.Q. via genetic manipulation.

And really, the term "easy" here is relative. I know there are articles left and right about how close we are to genetic manipulation, but really, the vast majority of reporters have zero knowledge of the science they are reporting on and zero knowledge of how the scientific community works. One overly optimistic guy in a lab claiming the entire scientific community agrees with him =/= the entire scientific medical community agreeing with him. Not saying that is 100% the case here, but it happens far more often than it doesn't happen when science meets journalism.

Shit's not as simple as we're led to believe, that much I do know. How "not easy"? Well, not my area.

This. I skipped all other posts that weren't written by sath, most of which contained something about gay gene and gattaca. ilu sath.

[EternityEnd]

Do a survey of 13-year old gay teenagers, and tell me you aren't finding a vast majority of them wishing they were like their straight peers.

I would have expected better from you, really. That's an idiotic viewpoint. Teenagers in the throes of depression aren't the wisest people to consult on self-consciousness.

I'm not a teenager and I can safely say I would not turn heterosexual given the chance. It's something that I cannot fathom, really. I've been attracted to men my entire life, not women. I don't find women sexually appealing in the slightest. Why would I want to... not find men attractive to the extent I do now? It's all I've known to be attracted to them, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Then again, I'm currently a happy adult - happy with my sexuality, at least - who is able to think for himself and not be mentally shackled by the ignorant majority's hatred. So I might not be the type of person you want to include in your personal census.

[Dense]

GATTACA!

>___________>

[Acturus]

I'd consider genetic manipulation only to remove the possibility of mental/physical disabilities.

My wife and I have already proved we make cute babies, and I doesn't afraid of teh gayz.

[Khamsin]

To be clear, there is no "gay gene". There is no single switch to turn gayness on or off. If there is solely a genetic relation between sexuality and genetics, it will be an interaction between a spectrum of genes. That being said there's no conclusive evidence that sexuality is entire based in genetics, its just a convenient standpoint for many people in today's political discourse.

Perhaps, when you take into account mannerisms and interests and such that are stereotypical of gay people.

But I think if you had to boil it down to a single biochemical issue, I think all scientists would need to pinpoint is the mechanism that floods your brain with "I'm horny" chemicals when you perceive female stimuli (scent, sight, etc.). And find how it's different in homosexuals, who have their brains flooded with that chemical when they perceive male stimuli instead.

Though, personally, I'm of the belief that there's really no need to bother finding or altering the gay gene since, really, out of all the problems people can have, homosexuality isn't really one of them. There's plenty of people on the planet, they don't all need to breed. However, I've nothing against the idea or practice of such alterations. Tinkering is fun. Provided that such alterations are done for humane and positive purposes, and not for human guinea pig research with dumpsters full of failed experiments. And by positive, I mean no worse off than they would have been, even if it's different. None of us ever had a choice in what we were born with, and so long as eugenics didn't make me worse than I otherwise would have been, I can't really complain.

[Meriandle]

Perhaps, when you take into account mannerisms and interests and such that are stereotypical of gay people.

But I think if you had to boil it down to a single biochemical issue, I think all scientists would need to pinpoint is the mechanism that floods your brain with "I'm horny" chemicals when you perceive female stimuli (scent, sight, etc.). And find how it's different in homosexuals, who have their brains flooded with that chemical when they perceive male stimuli instead.

Though, personally, I'm of the belief that there's really no need to bother finding or altering the gay gene since, really, out of all the problems people can have, homosexuality isn't really one of them. There's plenty of people on the planet, they don't all need to breed. However, I've nothing against the idea or practice of such alterations. Tinkering is fun. Provided that such alterations are done for humane and positive purposes, and not for human guinea pig research with dumpsters full of failed experiments. And by positive, I mean no worse off than they would have been, even if it's different. None of us ever had a choice in what we were born with, and so long as eugenics didn't make me worse than I otherwise would have been, I can't really complain.

Really really need to stop using the term eugenics in this conversation. It is roughly analogous to using the term crusade when referring to any action regarding islam or the middle east. If you are using it, then you are ignorant of the historical connotation.

Also, you can't just say that you have no issues with genetic manipulation so long as it is done for neutral or better purposes with neutral or better results. There comes a point, rather quickly down the road of genetic counciling, where someone assigns a value to a trait for a subjective reason and labels it as objective truth. This opens the door for the destruction of viable genetic diversity, loss of historic/familial/race identity due to cessation of some inhereted traits, or the development of second class genetic traits whereby we run the risk of creating castes of people based on choices made during genetic counciling.

[Lovian]

I'd be more interested in the eugenics of religious gene

Totally agree.

But on the actual poll as part of my genetics degree we had to do an ethics course (i think they wanted to make sure we didn't turn into a bunch of Dr. Moreau) Gene therapy should only be used to fix a serious illness in my opinion. Being able to choose eye colour height or sexual orientation will narrow the gene pool and not allow for genetic variation which might help in any future epidemics.

[JigglyJam]

I'm not really into altering genes to encourage "positive" trait but I'd rather get rid of diseases. Even now I'd opt for testing the chromosomal makeup, or whatever it's called, of the unborn child so that if there is a problem such as down syndrome I could abort and try again.

Good luck trying to find a woman with the same viewpoint though.

[Drex]

It's nice that science is solving religion's "problems"

[Acturus]

It's nice that science is solving religion's "problems"

http://www.bradkovach.com/wp-content...tryscience.png

[Zhais]

http://i34.tinypic.com/2hz7siw.jpg

[Kuya]

Oh Science

[Psion]

My personal thought is that things such as homosexuality should be left off, and the only prebirth corrections allowed should be clearly dangerous things that need to be fixed, such as serious mental or physical defects. severe autism might fall under that catergory, though I don't think asperger's should be, as it's more of a different way of thinking than a severe disability. Appearance and other things, such as intersex genitals should also be left alone, except in cases where it's something important or crippling, such as a malformed limb or genitals that aren't able to perform standard urination or whatever. (Leave the reproductive part alone for now)

Once a person has grown up some more and can make rational decisions for the most part, around 15-16 or so, then they can change a few limited things, such as whether they are fine with asperger's or not, whether they want to be male, female, or shemale, or whatever, after a good and long talk with proper people to make sure it's what they truly want and not societal pressure.

Once a person has grown up, to around age 25 or so, THEN they can change things such as appearance, height, sexual orientation, and most other things, but again with a deep counseling to make sure it is what they desire and not what they are pressured into.

Interestingly, if gene manipulation isn't limited much, we might actually see MORE diversity, not less. Everyone's ideals are different, and with 6 billion people on the planet, climbing to 7 billion, and thousands of different major cultures and even more microcultures, there is no way genes will be totally limited to blond hair/blue eye aryans. (though personally I'd like blonde hair and green eyes myself, but that was only after deep thought. <_<) Anyways, you might even start seeing the furry community come out with demi human species, which should lead to some... interesting cases in the future for discrimination that should probably be taken care of now before such problems arise. not that they will, but just be prepared for not all humans to look like what you expect humans to look like in the future.

And I'm personally gay myself, but holy shit do not want to be straight. I couldn't imagine putting up with the sheer differences of female personality, nor the sheer cost of shoes. ;x Plus, "prostate stimulation" feels good as hell.

[Khamsin]

Really really need to stop using the term eugenics in this conversation. It is roughly analogous to using the term crusade when referring to any action regarding islam or the middle east. If you are using it, then you are ignorant of the historical connotation.

Also, you can't just say that you have no issues with genetic manipulation so long as it is done for neutral or better purposes with neutral or better results. There comes a point, rather quickly down the road of genetic counciling, where someone assigns a value to a trait for a subjective reason and labels it as objective truth. This opens the door for the destruction of viable genetic diversity, loss of historic/familial/race identity due to cessation of some inhereted traits, or the development of second class genetic traits whereby we run the risk of creating castes of people based on choices made during genetic counciling.

I don't mean eugenics in an ethnic cleansing sorta way, not to be associated with the nazis or the holocaust or any of that. I just mean it in the sense of a neutral scientific term describing gene alterations for objective and non-aryan-related purposes. No negative connotations intended. Though if it does have one for you, then feel free to pick any acceptable euphemism to use in its place.

[Kuya]

Not me though, i definitely intend it in a non neutral scientific way describing gene alterations for subjective and aryan related purposes.