Would you replace a homosexual gene in your child if given the choice?

X

You want your child to be what is "normal", and "normal" is relational. You relate normal to that of society's values. It's ignorant to think your view has nothing to do with society.

Genetic modification is an intervention that shouldn't be taken lightly. It's altering harmless natural variation based on backward human logic of the harmless variation being wrong.

Besides, as I argued to someone else, you won't be able to wipe out homosexuality as if it were a virus because it's an intrinsic mutation, most likely random.

If you lack the intellectual capacity and moral fortitude to understand why it would be undesirable to use eugenics to wipe out a historically-persecuted group, then it's probably not worth my time to try to explain it to you. Perhaps a bit like trying to explain mathematics to a dog; try as you might, it simply lacks the capacity for the subject matter.

If there was no technology to remove the gene, but there was to detect it, would you abort a child who carried the gay gene?

I don't really understand this point.

It's not my priority to change society for the better, it's my priority to ensure that my child is as best off as possible, based on how society is now and however it may turn out in 50 years time. I think being heterosexual gives him or her a better chance of that.

But we're assuming everyone removes it, aren't we? That is, even when the next gay child is conceived, his parents also replace his gene and make him straight. In that case, homosexuality would not exist.

So it makes no sense to try and reduce bullying by saying "nobody should replace the gene" when you could also reduce bullying if everyone replaced it.

Is it really morally wrong to have a trait removed from society if it harms nobody in the process?

I didnt say anything about me, or anyone else wanting their child to be normal.

Do you see the same issue with choosing a child's hair colour (hypthoetically)

I highly doubt it. To pigeon down sexuality into a simple homo/heterosexual duality seems a little strange. People express sexuality in numerous different ways, and it seems most likely that (like most parts of a persons personality), it is developed based on numerous contributing factors which result in the kinds of things a person is attracted to, and how they want to show that attraction.
.

It kind of is forcing your child - you've changed natural biology to benefit your views of society without asking your child first. Variations in sexuality is normal and not harmful in itself. Why do it?



You're seriously comparing homosexuality to paedophilia? The former has no effect on how you live your life and doesn't harm those around you. The latter is a potential danger to the well-being of others. Even so, I still don't think it's a reason to alter their genes.

Well some gay men force themselves on other men.

Leaving aside the technical issues, given the entire thread is highly speculative, if it was found there was a gene associated with Islam/religiosity, would you be okay with people removing it from their children?

Ideally, I would not want my child to get involved with the delusion of religion. There are particular risks associated with the Islamic lifestyle (for example, the converts who have joined ISIS) that I would not want my child subjected to. Do you believe that it would be someone's right to do that in precisely the way you seek to remove homosexuality from their genetic makeup?

I'd be equally happy with a child of any sexuality. Scary how many people have voted yes.

I'm not trying to be provocative. If you genuinely cannot intuit, even from the opposite side of the debate by putting yourself in someone else's shoes, why it would be wrong, then I really don't think you'd understand no matter how methodically I explained it to you.

How can you say it harms nobody?

It's also pretty offensive to say to gay people that ,essentially, we'd be better off if they didn't exist.

I definitely don't think we should be changing a child's hair colour using genetic modification...My argument still stands.

I've had to remove that likelihood from the discussion simply because none of these arguments you or me or anyone else makes would hold if we didn't.

Well some gay men force themselves on other men.

So if the doctors told you that your son due to be born would be homosexual as he had a dominant gene for homosexuality. Would you replace that gene with another of yours (a straight version) if given the choice by doctors to stop your child becoming homosexual later in life? Hypothetical situation of course.

I don't really know whether it should be someone's right to do that, or even if it should be someone's right to alter their child's genes to make them straight instead of gay. It's much more difficult to be the person who actually decides whether humanity as a whole is given the right to interfere with genes or not, because that is a far more complex issue, with each option probably having lots of pros, cons and implications on a grand scale that I haven't even thought of.

I think the question the OP is asking is more along the lines of "If you as a single ordinary individual had this right, would you exercise it or not (regardless of what everyone else is doing)?"

Personally, I wouldn't choose to remove an Islam-gene from my child, firstly because despite the risks and disadvantages involved with being Muslim, I believe there are also advantages; and also because even if it did protect my child from Islamophobia, it could equally expose them to the risk of being discriminated against for not being Muslim. However, I wouldn't choose to put an Islam-gene into my child if I had the choice to do that either. When it comes to religion, I think the best thing is for a child to simply be made aware of all the facts, and then free to choose to believe whatever makes the most sense to them".

Much more scary how many people have voted no.

If you ask an older generation is would be 90% yes, showing that the uprise of social media is changing everyone's morals for the worse.

So if the doctors told you that your son due to be born would be homosexual as he had a dominant gene for homosexuality. Would you replace that gene with another of yours (a straight version) if given the choice by doctors to stop your child becoming homosexual later in life? Hypothetical situation of course.