I think there are perhaps several questions here.


Is homosexuality in and of itself inherently bad?
Is homosexuality inherently neutral? Contextually bad? Inherently good?
Is a natural trait inherently worthy?
Is what is natural a basis for what is right?
Is the measure of value based on something's utility, either to the individual, the species, or the ecosystem?
Should we prevent homosexuality in an ideal world where no discrimination against homosexuals exists (and the dating ratio problem were somehow solved) ?
Should we prevent any condition in a world where it could be reliably predicted to result in (more) suffering (than usual)?
(This gets to the heart of some commonly believed moral theories about maximizing well-being, minimizing suffering, the role of empathy as foundational in ethics, and the role of rights, autonomy, and liberty...)
Is it right to exert control over what kind of humans are produced? And on what ethical basis?
(This last has elicited the observation that certain ethical codes, such as those based on the bible, leave gaps in the coverage [the Siamese twins where one must die, for example]. Arguably, there are gaps in our current ethics as well [thus giving rise to the field of medical ethics].)
Reading beyond German's text, at present we don't seem to have "positive control" over the consequences of genetic manipulation:
Is it okay to make the attempt even in the absence of total control?
Is it okay in the presence of total control?

(I don't want to derail the current topic, but a similar question would be, if we genetically modified humans to create a new species, whose rights would apply, what rights, and how would we adjudicate conflicts between the interests of the two types? Perhaps that needs a separate thread...)
(I thought I had more. Maybe I should just make some coffee.)

No. Going down the road of manipulating how someone behaves comes way to close to taking away free will.

This is a question best left for a homosexual to answer.
However, in my opinion, being "straight" would expand a person's dating pool by 10 times as opposed to being "gay"...
.

(February 27, 2013 at 11:26 am)catfish Wrote: This is a question best left for a homosexual to answer.
However, in my opinion, being "straight" would expand a person's dating pool by 10 times as opposed to being "gay"...
.

What makes you think that "expanding one's dating pool" is a goal homosexuals are interested in?

Gays exist, that's it, others need to treat them as equal.

(February 27, 2013 at 11:26 am)catfish Wrote: This is a question best left for a homosexual to answer.
However, in my opinion, being "straight" would expand a person's dating pool by 10 times as opposed to being "gay"...
.

Yes, and dating pools are all that matter.

Much like in the X-men film, I think that if there is a "cure", which I think is a misleading term to use, one should be able to choose whether or not to have it, not be instilled on them at birth birth.

The fictional example of the X-men world is appropriate to the discussion of homosexuality and other "deviant" sexual orientations. Both regard a minority group who have been born with a natural case of something they cannot control, for which they are unreasonably persecuted. If we take the hypothetical that a means of making someone not heterosexual, into a heterosexual person, then the cure for the X gene in the film would probably be an accurate mirror of what would happen. Those unhappy with unreasonable persecution would go to be "cured", but would still be despised by anti-LGBT hardliners, and by supporters of the LGBT community who saw it as a betrayal.
The difference between the example of the X-men and the LGBT community is that mutants had the potential to be dangerous to other people, whereas alternate sexual orientations are by nature innocuous when not conflated to being associated with rape, or ridiculous lies about people being "converted" into gays.

The fact of the matter is that much like the example of the X-men, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with being a mutant/homosexual, there is only other people who hate you for being different, and are too cowardly to say that outright, and so formulate nonsensical arguments that hold no real foundational standing.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:42 pm)orogenicman Wrote: What makes you think that "expanding one's dating pool" is a goal homosexuals are interested in?

Of course they are. We all know how promiscuous all gays are. Also, they don't care if someone's gay or not - they just go for it. Which is why real men are so uncomfortable in their presence.

Well, we should offer them the option, if they so wish it (with maybe some therapy/an age limit to be sure they really want to do it).