If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[Anomalocaris]

Let's say there was a magic "cure" that could prevent all future born humans from developing into homosexuals, should it be used?

No.

---

Well they should be prevented from marrying, and prevented from adopting children, so I suppose prevented from existence makes perfect sense.

Castrating all christians makes more sense. So let's see you volunteer.

[downbeatplumb]

Let's say there was a magic "cure" that could prevent all future born humans from developing into homosexuals, should it be used?

This raises the more fundamental question of how different human characteristics should be viewed. How do you decide when a naturalistic characteristic is good in itself or whether it should be prevented?

No.

Leaves more totty for us real men.

(that was a blackadder quote by the way)

[Angrboda]

It occurs to me that there is some critical ambiguity in the original question, having to do with how that cure is effected, and the consequences of that method. I have three concerns here. First, anything which would tend to reduce genetic variability would seem in and of itself bad (the adaptive value of a trait is always with respect to specific environments and only with respect to those environments; thus, any reduction in genetic variability poses risks to the long term viability of the species [the question of heritability of the trait, kinship selection effects, and so on tend to play havoc with my simplistic analysis here]). Second, if the epigenetic theory of homosexuality is correct, the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality exist and are realized, largely, in those who aren't themselves possessed of the trait; leaving open questions as to what we're actually trying to control here, in whom, and what the effects of any specific intervention would be. Third, by most accounts, homosexuality is a product of phylogeny, not simply genetic, but also a result of other factors in addition to genetics and prior probability. So it would seem that any supposed cure to prevent the development of the phylogeny of homosexuality would also preclude the development of other traits when prior probability would not have resulted in that particular trait, stemming from the same starting conditions. (In perhaps clearer language, likely not all those with the predisposition to develop a homosexual orientation will actually go on to develop that orientation, and any early intervention would also be "curing" other conditions and developmental pathways that ultimately wouldn't have led to a homosexual orientation.)

A fourth consideration is the question of a sexual orientation spectrum, and more simplistically, bisexuality. When is too much attraction to the same sex enough to qualify for said therapy? Should we cure bisexuals as well? Anyone who isn't as straight as an arrow? I'm starting to wonder what the goal is here. Is fucking and making babies really all there is to life? God, I hope not; as someone who is celibate (and bisexual), that would make me even more depressed than I currently am.

[Vera]

Is fucking and making babies really all there is to life?

Kinda offtopic, but wanted to chime in that the two don't necessarily have to go together.

And just my two cents - procreation is definitely not the ultimate goal of all human life. Like hell it is.

[Question Mark]

Is fucking and making babies really all there is to life?

Kinda offtopic, but wanted to chime in that the two don't necessarily have to go together.

And just my two cents - procreation is definitely not the ultimate goal of all human life. Like hell it is.

One could argue that it is the general goal of all life, though. The purpose of life is to prolong itself.

[Vera]

One could argue that it is the general goal of all life, though. The purpose of life is to prolong itself.

The most basic one - surely. And then you have an animal whose mind becomes slightly different from the rest of life on this planet, and all sorts of further considerations come into play, new goals, new ways of defining good (not only on a personal, but on a societal level), new meanings...

[Angrboda]

Is fucking and making babies really all there is to life?

Kinda offtopic, but wanted to chime in that the two don't necessarily have to go together.

And just my two cents - procreation is definitely not the ultimate goal of all human life. Like hell it is.

Indeed, but in the context of the thread, the possibility of making babies is the critical fact separating the affected class from the non-affected class. (Or so it would seem to me.)

[orogenicman]

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.

Erm, gays are no more promiscuous than any other group (except for nuns, of course).

[Vera]

Indeed, but in the context of the thread, the possibility of making babies is the critical fact separating the affected class from the non-affected class. (Or so it would seem to me.)

Oh, I get it (we had a very similar argument - only, it was proposed in all seriousness - over at TTA today; something along the lines that homosexuality is bad for society because sex is only right if it could possibly lead to procreation or some such shit).

Frankly, if people want to live just so that they can procreate and preserve their precious genes - be my guest. Just so long as they don't shove their ideas about what (my) life is all about down my throat. Or down anyone else's throat for that matter

@orogenicman: You don't say I was just repeating some of the crap bigots like to use as argument. Trying to be sarcastic, you know (and failing).

[orogenicman]

Indeed, but in the context of the thread, the possibility of making babies is the critical fact separating the affected class from the non-affected class. (Or so it would seem to me.)

Oh, I get it (we had a very similar argument - only, it was proposed in all seriousness - over at TTA today; something along the lines that homosexuality is bad for society because sex is only right if it could possibly lead to procreation or some such shit).

Frankly, if people want to live just so that they can procreate and preserve their precious genes - be my guest. Just so long as they don't shove their ideas about what (my) life is all about down my throat. Or down anyone else's throat for that matter

@orogenicman: You don't say I was just repeating some of the crap bigots like to use as argument. Trying to be sarcastic, you know (and failing).

That's okay. Sometimes sarcasm is hard to discern in simple text format.