Monday, August 16, 2010

Interesting Side-Effect

Possible side-effect of "limiting homosexuality" found in a new drug?

For anyone who thinks having homosexual urges is very, very important, don't worry: Bio-ethicists shall do their best to ensure that no one takes this or any other drug in order to ensure their child is lacking such urges. That will be considered completely unethical. Besides, taking out children with unwanted traits is the abortion industry's turf.

Mind you, I'm skeptical of all of this. I just find it funny. Gallows humor and all.

Edit: To make the point as blunt as possible: While there being a "gay gene" is fantasy (and morally, beside the point), that there may be some biological and environmental factors that go into influencing a person's sexual urges and preferences is more reasonable. But the cost of identifying those will be - surprise - most people who choose to have children noting those factors, and doing their best to minimize them. After all, while the bio-ethicist may stubbornly insist "homosexuality (or homosexual inclinations) is not an illness to be cured!!!", a matching idea is that a child - particular one still in the womb - is pretty much the personal property of the woman in question. At the end of the day, those proclamations inform a public piety far more than a private one.

If the option is on the table to help ensure a child - possibly the only child in a family - have as least the likelihood to be gay as possible, what do you think most families will do? Answer: They will tell anyone listening and who they are afraid they may offend "I would love my child no matter what their sexual preference they were!" and then do their damndest to make sure their boy likes girls or their girl likes boys. The funny thing is, they may not admit it in public, but it hardly matters. It's a modern, liberal piety - like the gun control advocate who has a pistol in their nightstand because "It's different, my neighborhood is dangerous!"

Those most looking forward to the Brave New World are likely not going to enjoy how it actually plays out. And, on the flipside, some of those currently decrying it may end up grinning and saying, "You know, this could actually be more positive than I expected."

7 comments:

The Phantom Blogger said...

"Besides, taking out children with unwanted traits is the abortion industry's turf."

Yeah, like Feminists who say women should have the freedom to chose to abort any baby they feel like, for any reason they want and then get upset when people in Asian countries use these freedoms to specifically target girls which has lead to there being a disproportionate amount of girls being aborted, and in certain areas boys now outnumber girls 6-1, because the poor parents would prefer a boy, who could provide for them once he's older.

Also I was wondering from a social science perspective, in these Asian countries where boys outnumber girls in such a disproportionate manner, which will mean there won't be enough girls to go around. Will this lead to a large increase in homosexuality in these countries?
And it so, what does this mean for the claim that homosexuality is mostly biological?

Anyway back to your post.

"It's a modern, liberal piety - like the gun control advocate who has a pistol in their nightstand because "It's different, my neighborhood is dangerous!"

A good example is Rosie O'Donnell who is highly critical of Guns and there owners and supportive of gun control. When she appeared on an episode of Bill O'Reilly's show he asked her if her Bodyguards carried guns and she admitted they did. Not even releasing that this was slightly hypocritical.


"Brave New World are likely not going to enjoy how it actually plays out. And, on the flipside, some of those currently decrying it may end up grinning and saying, "You know, this could actually be more positive than I expected."

I suppose it depends how it turns out. I'm doubtful of the positives myself. I recently seen a article in the New York Times in which they said in the future gay couples may be able to mix there genetics together (like heterosexuals do when they procreate) in order to make babies. That would mean homosexuals could procreate like heterosexuals without the natural biological limits that is inherent in homosexuality. The piece also claimed you could even create babies with a mixture of the genetics of 3,4 people or how ever many you like.

It was mainly theory though, rather than actual physical experimental work.

Crude said...

I suppose it depends how it turns out. I'm doubtful of the positives myself. I recently seen a article in the New York Times in which they said in the future gay couples may be able to mix there genetics together (like heterosexuals do when they procreate) in order to make babies. That would mean homosexuals could procreate like heterosexuals without the natural biological limits that is inherent in homosexuality. The piece also claimed you could even create babies with a mixture of the genetics of 3,4 people or how ever many you like.

Oh, I'm aware of those 'advances'. I just don't see them as mattering much, ultimately. Considering how deeply homosexual inclinations are tied to lifestyle, and how lifestyles (even among heterosexuals) increasingly favor mobility and malleability rather than permanence (which is an assumed necessary ingredient and motivation for raising any child) I don't see it happening so much. No one banned "secularists" from getting married and having children, yet both have fallen out of favor.

As for those countries with disproportionate numbers of men, I doubt homosexuality will be a major factor. I think technology will "ride to the rescue" there again in the form of porn. For women who couldn't get married in the past, a solution was found to satisfy their needs for companionship. It wasn't lesbianism. It was cats. Lots of cats.

The Phantom Blogger said...

"I just don't see them as mattering much, ultimately. Considering how deeply homosexual inclinations are tied to lifestyle, and how lifestyles (even among heterosexuals) increasingly favor mobility and malleability rather than permanence (which is an assumed necessary ingredient and motivation for raising any child) I don't see it happening so much."

I agree with this mostly in relation to men, but not so much with lesbians as I believe all women have a natural maternal instinct, which may have been repressed and distorted by modern life, but is still strong and pushes through, and is partially the cause of the new strange family situations and deterioration of the traditional family, with the desperation of these women to have babies no matter what. But even if this happened on a small scale I still think it should be considered a problem.

"As for those countries with disproportionate numbers of men, I doubt homosexuality will be a major factor. I think technology will "ride to the rescue" there again in the form of porn. For women who couldn't get married in the past, a solution was found to satisfy their needs for companionship. It wasn't lesbianism."

I agree that porn and maybe even robotics could help suppress and control it (possibly widespread prostitution as well, not like I'm advocating these). But again I think there is a difference between men and women here. I don't believe women have the same strength of sexual urges as men do and could hence handle it. But I'm not sure if men are capable of the same repression of these urges (obviously it depends on the man.) I also wasn't thinking it would become hugely widespread. In most countries the amount of male homosexuals is 2-4% I was thinking it may double or slightly less than double or maybe slightly more. In nature for instance, homosexuality where it occurs (which is incredibly rarely) it usually tends to happen where the animals can't find mates off the opposite sex. A similar phenomenon also occurs in prisons as well (they wouldn't or at least shouldn't have access to porn here, so it isn't the same). So that's why I thought of it.

Crude said...

I agree with this mostly in relation to men, but not so much with lesbians as I believe all women have a natural maternal instinct,

Well, we're speculating on natures and trends here in a strange time. From what I've read, the number of 'lesbians' tends to be very unusual in part because "lesbianism" is many times more explicitly tied up with political identity and otherwise. To put it more bluntly, I have trouble taking many 'lesbians' as 'preferring women exclusively' or even 'preferring women over men'.

But I'm not sure if men are capable of the same repression of these urges (obviously it depends on the man.)

I get your point, I just don't think that would translate into an onset of long-term homosexual male relationships. Doesn't seem to do that in prison. It reminds me of that one joke (about a female prison, but it carries here) about some woman who was sentenced to a short jail sentence: "They're not gay when they go in. They're not gay when they come out. But while they're in there, oh boy..."

The Phantom Blogger said...

"To put it more bluntly, I have trouble taking many 'lesbians' as 'preferring women exclusively' or even 'preferring women over men'."

I don't consider lesbians to be gay in the same way as men are. I think lesbianism is more about emotions first and foremost, where as with men its about some form of lust.

"I just don't think that would translate into an onset of long-term homosexual male relationships. Doesn't seem to do that in prison."

I should have clarified that I meant homosexual activity rather than relationships. With most I thought, they will do it until women become available, or do it without any serious commitment. That's why I used the animal/prison examples because that's what happens in those instances.

But I suppose it would be hard to measure this, as most would be unwilling to admit or discuss it. Unless it became so widespread as to relieve it of all of its Taboo, which would be unlikely.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

"For women who couldn't get married in the past, a solution was found to satisfy their needs for companionship. It wasn't lesbianism. It was cats. Lots of cats."

Apt. So depressingly and hilariously apt.

As far as the rise in homosex goes in disproportionately male societies, I aired exactly that opinion on my Facebook a few months ago and lost a lesbian high school classmate (as a "friend") as a result. Her dread was, as far as I can tell, based on the/my very suggestion that something as sacrosanct as her homosexuality could be generated by social exigencies.

Crude said...

Homosexual inclination as sacrosanct really seems to fit the bill for many, and in many ways. The very idea that there could be choice involved is a minefield, as is the suggestion that external factors - hell, factors at all - could be in play.

I think that owes itself primarily to the weird culture that's sprung up around homosexual behavior, where arguments are primarily coped with by making the topic as personal as possible in the hopes that by doing so everyone in polite society will give up the game immediately. And thanks to a modern combination of political correctness (Sure, what you say is liberal and progressive and therefore it must be right!) and apathy (If I tell you I agree will you please shut up and let me finish my pizza?), it usually works.

Actually, I think that sums it up well. It's principally by making homosexual inclination sacrosanct - not by argument, but on a personal and social level alone - that the political and social advances have been made. That game plan isn't going to be abandoned anytime soon, not only because it for now works, but because no other plan exists.