I'm not Trefor (where IS he, anyway...I miss him!) and I'm not gay (well, some would argue...thanks :) )...hope I will do...
Right off the top of my head and with my initial reaction I'd say that if you substituted 'colored skin' for gay or homosexual, then you'd have an idea of what may be the problem here.
Can't you just see what somebody like lcm would do with such a 'breakthrough'? And there are far too many lcm types in this world.
I'm not Trefor (where IS he, anyway...I miss him!) and I'm not gay (well, some would argue...thanks :) )...hope I will do...
Right off the top of my head and with my initial reaction I'd say that if you substituted 'colored skin' for gay or homosexual, then you'd have an idea of what may be the problem here.
Can't you just see what somebody like lcm would do with such a 'breakthrough'? And there are far too many lcm types in this world.
The fundamental difference, though, is that most people I know who have 'colored skin' don't say "if I could choose...I would choose otherwise."
I think, from my experience of long-time (10 or more years) close friendships with people who are gay, that saying, "If I could choose, I'd choose otherwise" is a point of argument, not an actual statement of not wanting to be gay.
As you probably know, anti-gay rhetoric against gay rights is typically, "Being gay is a choice like ____________. There are no rights for such choices." Fill in the blank with any addiction, criminal activity or whatever.
To which the gay community has responded with, "If I had a choice about it, I wouldn't have chosen this." However, that's not usually where the statement stops. Usually the statement goes on to say, "I wouldn't have chosen this life of being spit on, beaten up, discriminated against, hated, etc."
The statement typically isn't about being gay, but about the repercussions of being gay.
As I said, though, this is from experiences in life. I certainly do not speak for all of gaydom. :)
Mark, people may not currently wish for a different skin color, but it is entirely possible there was a time (during slavery and even long afterwards) when they did. Another conern is that these treatments may be forced on those who don't want them. Imagine if you are homosexual and in a committed, loving relationship. Along comes big brother (not necessarily our government, could be any government in any country) and "fixes" you. What happens to that long term committed relationship?
Here's Sushi's thoughts on the matter:
Perhaps this is similar to what has taken place within the deaf community. There are now cochlear implants which will allow some deaf people to hear. However, being deaf has become such a part of their identity, they find it rather disturbing because it will oust them from their community/circle of friends.
Ethicists are expressing similar concerns. They are worried if the results of the research got into the hands of countries like Iran, they might try to weed out their gay communities. They have invoked Godwin's Rule already, comparing the research to Nazi eugenics experiments...
Using hormone treatments on unwilling adults, or children, as would be the case for fetal hormone patches, makes me very uncomfortable. Where do we stop? With birth defects? Abigail posted how the deaf community feels. Should all our children become blue eyed blonds? Where does it end?
I would much rather my tax dollars go to promote diversity and tolerance, than to live in a world where we all think, look, and act the same.
After all, what rational person would want to be on the sidelines of society, constantly ridiculed, spit on, discriminated against and so forth.
Do you still see this? I did, twenty years ago, but I rarely see it now.
Perhaps this is similar to what has taken place within the deaf community. There are now cochlear implants which will allow some deaf people to hear. However, being deaf has become such a part of their identity, they find it rather disturbing because it will oust them from their community/circle of friends.
That is an interesting concept. Speaking of deaf, there were major protests at Galludet University (a university for the deaf) when a new University President was named. Apparently that president wasn't "deaf enough" for the students...after a couple of months of protest, the new president was fired and a different one was named.
Using hormone treatments on unwilling adults, or children, as would be the case for fetal hormone patches, makes me very uncomfortable. Where do we stop? With birth defects? Abigail posted how the deaf community feels. Should all our children become blue eyed blonds? Where does it end?
That is an interesting point. It depends, I guess, on how one looks at homosexuality at all. Myself, I am rather a traditionalist and view it as being an abberation. I still am old fashioned enough to believe that the purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure sensations are there to encourage it and thus encourage the species to reproduce. Therefore, my feeling sorry for somebody whose nature does not allow them to participate (truly voluntarily) in the natural process is the similar feeling that I have toward somebody with another handicap that otherwise limits them (be that handicap a physical or a mental disability or degeneration). I realize that is a knuckle-dragging, old fashioned attitude. And that makes me more of a cro-magnon 20th century man than a fully modern 21st century one, but I guess my primative attitude is genetic and can't change. I don't want special rights. I just want equal rights.
I would much rather my tax dollars go to promote diversity and tolerance, than to live in a world where we all think, look, and act the same.
I would rather see my tax dollars not to go to either. I pay far too many taxes as it stands ;)
But, again, it comes back to my ugly, cro-magnon attitude. The way I look at something like this is as a possible cure or preventative (like an innoculation). I realize that my attitudes are horrible, but they can't change. If a victim of Parkinson's could get a cure, I would not deny him the cure because of wanting to maintain diversity. If a cure was possible for diabetis, I sure wouldn't want to stop development of that cure. If a cure could be found for leukoderma, I wouldn't want to deny that cure to ensure that we all don't think, look, or act the same. I wouldn't force a cure on any of them, but I'd hate to think that a cure was possible and ethically acceptable but denying it from a person.
I perceive that you are saying that my understanding, "if I could choose, I would never choose to be gay" is now obsolete and that the current attitude is that homosexuality is now considered like a skin color. Not a defect, but just different. In my somewhat limited experience, when two parents of a given race have a child, that child is also a member of that race (children with an albino defect aside). Also from my limited experience, I haven't seen that to be universally the case when two gay people collaborate to have a child (through artificial insemination, IVF, or some other technique). It's usually hit or miss.
Well, we could look at it this way: if it were possible to apply a hormonal patch to a pregnant woman to ensure her child would not be gay, doesn't it stand to reason that a different patch could be applied to ensure her child would be gay? If you had a situation where a surrogate was carrying a pregnancy for a homosexual male couple, I would think, if homosexuality is the same as race, that the couple would want her to apply such a patch so that they could assure that they'd raise a child of the same preference. Or, in the instance of a homosexual female couple, such as Mary Cheney, I would imagine that she and her partner would prefer to raise a lesbian or gay child. If, in fact, sexual preference should be regarded the same as race. A technology such as a hormonal patch could make such a dream a reality, I'd think.
(I say this not as a flippant statement, but based on how the reactions of each and every one of my friends "of color" would react if a black couple had a white baby. "Did you adopt?" would be asked to their faces. Upon denial that the child was adopted, behind their backs, "Who's the father" would be whispered. Absolutely guaranteed...and no amount of talking would change the minds)
Do you still see this? I did, twenty years ago, but I rarely see it now.
Just as with racism, I see that it is a lot more muted now than it was. I don't think anybody's attitudes have really changed. I just think that they have learned to suppress their inner feelings better than before.
Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but it seems as though the research is being done to promote more productivity in the farming industry specific to raising sheep. It does not appear as though they are attempting to alter the natural course of all (all without exception ;) ) sheep, just those used for monetary gain.
The ramifications and possibilities, yes, are far reaching, but what some perceive as negative, others perceive to be beneficial. So how would one determine which is 'right'? Is either side 'right'? *shrug* The more we learn about these kinds of things the more we can, hopefully, figure out how to prevent and cure the diseases, syndromes and disabilities of mankind. I suppose that argument comes down to what is called 'acceptable risk'. Some consider the risk to be too high, other's don't. There's the same controversy regarding stem cell research.
I think it's human nature for some of us to want to be something that we're not. Race is still a big issue among those whom it is an issue. Did anyone see the Dateline or 20/20 story where the little black girls were given a white doll and a black doll and they considered the black doll to be 'bad' whereas the white doll was 'good'? The little black girls wanted to play with the white doll and not the black doll. When asked which doll they were most like, most wanted to pick the white doll and appeared genuinely sad that they honestly could not.
One of my gay friends terribly laments the fact that he's gay and can't have a 'normal' life.
I lament the fact that my hair isn't naturally red, but I can do something about that.
bottom line is that genetic selection for color, size, milk production, fat ratio blah blah blah has been practiced for generations in livestock husbandry. the same principles are taken by those who want to recreate man in his own image, that's where ethics come in.
sheep are sheep, people are people. sheep don't have a right to be gay. livestock who don't reproduce are sent to the slaughterhouse.
Here's what one of my friends has to say about it:
Best of luck with that.
I'm predicting that they will end up making (insert species here) asexual if anything. Begs the question: Does "god'' make 'mistakes', and if so, are we licensed to 'fix' them? We (humanity) really just can't seem to keep our hands out of anything without changing it to suit our 'needs' (desires). So let's just come clean with that and say what we're thinking "wouldn't it be great if we could do all this stuff and make babies or adults the way we want them". I love it when people throw the 'natural' word around, for example: "a man and a man ain't natural", a-hem, like polluting, plastic surgery, plastic for that matter, and basically anything the human race produces is natural. Argh! How annoyed it gets me.
Curious:
1. Plight? I don't look at being gay as my plight. Being human is more a plight in my opinion with it's duality and relative moralism.
2. Would I choose to be straight if I had a choice? Knowing what I do about both sides of the fence, NO WAY, this is MUCH more fun.
Designer pregnancy: Why not, we manipulate our world, or bodies, nature, and everything else on the planet to our liking without much consideration for long term implications. I don't see this being restrained if it has any measure of success and I see couples designing their child before it's even conceived once the technology is available. I really don't have a huge problem with that, as long as the paradigm shifts appropriately and we all 'get' that we are not creatures completely respectful and in-tune with nature. We pretty much do as we please with what we have to whatever end we see fit. The sooner we acknowledge who we are (our super-nature) the sooner I see us accepting each other as is.
Personaly I'd rather not be altered since I like my lifestyle too much. Alas, I prefer to put my thoughts into what's possible and mutually beneficial for the whole shabang! In case you need reminders or visual guides for why I'm Homosexual I've attached images for your review.
(I'm only attaching one as the others would probably get me sent to Paw's office)
I still am old fashioned enough to believe that the purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure sensations are there to encourage it and thus encourage the species to reproduce.
I think this is where we start our disagreement. I believe that the main purpose of sex is the bonding of two people into one. I see it as primarilya spiritual act, rather than a physical one. Of course there is pleasurable physical sensations. But, IMO, that just deepens the bond. I don't see the bond between two men, or two women, or a man and a woman, as any greater, or lesser than the other. Thus, no need to do away with homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter.
I don't think anybody's attitudes have really changed. I just think that they have learned to suppress their inner feelings better than before.
I strongly disagree with this. I use to think gay men and women were possesed with devil spirits. (I know, hard to believe an ex-wayfer would believe that, hey?) Until I got to actually know people that were gay, and found out that they had strengths, and weaknesses, and hopes, and fears just like me. And I met couples who were in relationships that were as long and loving and committed as Drty Dzn and myself. And I wondered why would God call them evil?
Belle, you're right. The research is all about getting more sheep. I won't start on the ethics of industrial animal farming.
And I liked what your friend said, but I'm glad you only posted one picture! :)
I think this is where we start our disagreement. I believe that the main purpose of sex is the bonding of two people into one. I see it as primarilya spiritual act, rather than a physical one. Of course there is pleasurable physical sensations. But, IMO, that just deepens the bond. I don't see the bond between two men, or two women, or a man and a woman, as any greater, or lesser than the other. Thus, no need to do away with homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter.
I guess I am not as enlightened...
I strongly disagree with this. I use to think gay men and women were possesed with devil spirits. (I know, hard to believe an ex-wayfer would believe that, hey?) Until I got to actually know people that were gay, and found out that they had strengths, and weaknesses, and hopes, and fears just like me. And I met couples who were in relationships that were as long and loving and committed as Drty Dzn and myself. And I wondered why would God call them evil?
I don't call them evil. I am just relating what I hear and see around me. And it's very likely that I don't hang with the same enlightened crowd you do.
But along those lines, you know when I will believe that society has fully accepted homosexuality as a norm (not THE norm but A norm)...
When shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are not on anymore (after all, it's just a joke based upon effeminate behavior). When comics (including homosexual ones) no longer make jokes based on butch women or queer men. When prime time television has a show with either a homosexual couple (showing the same degree of sexual content as a straight couple) is cast as the leads in a series, that series is a success, and that fact is not news. When the concept of marriage is relegated to the religious institutions of the country and cohabitation contracts are the norm for both straight and gay couples, trebles, or whatever arrangement fits the people involved. When it is not an issue to "out" somebody. When school/military dormatories, prisons, and other institutional housing arrangements account for sexual preference more so than physical plumbing (that is assuming they don't just abandon the concept of segregating residents by sex at all -- be it by sex or by preference -- after all, how will one house the ambisexual residents?). When 'gay pride' parades no longer exist...not because of suppression but because of lack of interest (or if they do exist, where the paraders celebrate sexual freedom and pure hedonism, rather than pride in a given sexual preference). When all of the above occur, I will say that society has fully accepted diversity in sexual preference.
Belle, you're right. The research is all about getting more sheep.
And so it becomes ever more interesting that Martina Navratilova getting bent out of shape on this...
Recommended Posts
CoolWaters
I'm not Trefor (where IS he, anyway...I miss him!) and I'm not gay (well, some would argue...thanks :) )...hope I will do...
Right off the top of my head and with my initial reaction I'd say that if you substituted 'colored skin' for gay or homosexual, then you'd have an idea of what may be the problem here.
Can't you just see what somebody like lcm would do with such a 'breakthrough'? And there are far too many lcm types in this world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The fundamental difference, though, is that most people I know who have 'colored skin' don't say "if I could choose...I would choose otherwise."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
I think, from my experience of long-time (10 or more years) close friendships with people who are gay, that saying, "If I could choose, I'd choose otherwise" is a point of argument, not an actual statement of not wanting to be gay.
As you probably know, anti-gay rhetoric against gay rights is typically, "Being gay is a choice like ____________. There are no rights for such choices." Fill in the blank with any addiction, criminal activity or whatever.
To which the gay community has responded with, "If I had a choice about it, I wouldn't have chosen this." However, that's not usually where the statement stops. Usually the statement goes on to say, "I wouldn't have chosen this life of being spit on, beaten up, discriminated against, hated, etc."
The statement typically isn't about being gay, but about the repercussions of being gay.
As I said, though, this is from experiences in life. I certainly do not speak for all of gaydom. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark, people may not currently wish for a different skin color, but it is entirely possible there was a time (during slavery and even long afterwards) when they did. Another conern is that these treatments may be forced on those who don't want them. Imagine if you are homosexual and in a committed, loving relationship. Along comes big brother (not necessarily our government, could be any government in any country) and "fixes" you. What happens to that long term committed relationship?
Here's Sushi's thoughts on the matter:
Perhaps this is similar to what has taken place within the deaf community. There are now cochlear implants which will allow some deaf people to hear. However, being deaf has become such a part of their identity, they find it rather disturbing because it will oust them from their community/circle of friends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
I would much rather my tax dollars go to promote diversity and tolerance, than to live in a world where we all think, look, and act the same.
Do you still see this? I did, twenty years ago, but I rarely see it now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That is an interesting concept. Speaking of deaf, there were major protests at Galludet University (a university for the deaf) when a new University President was named. Apparently that president wasn't "deaf enough" for the students...after a couple of months of protest, the new president was fired and a different one was named.
That is an interesting point. It depends, I guess, on how one looks at homosexuality at all. Myself, I am rather a traditionalist and view it as being an abberation. I still am old fashioned enough to believe that the purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure sensations are there to encourage it and thus encourage the species to reproduce. Therefore, my feeling sorry for somebody whose nature does not allow them to participate (truly voluntarily) in the natural process is the similar feeling that I have toward somebody with another handicap that otherwise limits them (be that handicap a physical or a mental disability or degeneration). I realize that is a knuckle-dragging, old fashioned attitude. And that makes me more of a cro-magnon 20th century man than a fully modern 21st century one, but I guess my primative attitude is genetic and can't change. I don't want special rights. I just want equal rights.
I would rather see my tax dollars not to go to either. I pay far too many taxes as it stands ;)But, again, it comes back to my ugly, cro-magnon attitude. The way I look at something like this is as a possible cure or preventative (like an innoculation). I realize that my attitudes are horrible, but they can't change. If a victim of Parkinson's could get a cure, I would not deny him the cure because of wanting to maintain diversity. If a cure was possible for diabetis, I sure wouldn't want to stop development of that cure. If a cure could be found for leukoderma, I wouldn't want to deny that cure to ensure that we all don't think, look, or act the same. I wouldn't force a cure on any of them, but I'd hate to think that a cure was possible and ethically acceptable but denying it from a person.
I perceive that you are saying that my understanding, "if I could choose, I would never choose to be gay" is now obsolete and that the current attitude is that homosexuality is now considered like a skin color. Not a defect, but just different. In my somewhat limited experience, when two parents of a given race have a child, that child is also a member of that race (children with an albino defect aside). Also from my limited experience, I haven't seen that to be universally the case when two gay people collaborate to have a child (through artificial insemination, IVF, or some other technique). It's usually hit or miss.
Well, we could look at it this way: if it were possible to apply a hormonal patch to a pregnant woman to ensure her child would not be gay, doesn't it stand to reason that a different patch could be applied to ensure her child would be gay? If you had a situation where a surrogate was carrying a pregnancy for a homosexual male couple, I would think, if homosexuality is the same as race, that the couple would want her to apply such a patch so that they could assure that they'd raise a child of the same preference. Or, in the instance of a homosexual female couple, such as Mary Cheney, I would imagine that she and her partner would prefer to raise a lesbian or gay child. If, in fact, sexual preference should be regarded the same as race. A technology such as a hormonal patch could make such a dream a reality, I'd think.
(I say this not as a flippant statement, but based on how the reactions of each and every one of my friends "of color" would react if a black couple had a white baby. "Did you adopt?" would be asked to their faces. Upon denial that the child was adopted, behind their backs, "Who's the father" would be whispered. Absolutely guaranteed...and no amount of talking would change the minds)
Just as with racism, I see that it is a lot more muted now than it was. I don't think anybody's attitudes have really changed. I just think that they have learned to suppress their inner feelings better than before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but it seems as though the research is being done to promote more productivity in the farming industry specific to raising sheep. It does not appear as though they are attempting to alter the natural course of all (all without exception ;) ) sheep, just those used for monetary gain.
The ramifications and possibilities, yes, are far reaching, but what some perceive as negative, others perceive to be beneficial. So how would one determine which is 'right'? Is either side 'right'? *shrug* The more we learn about these kinds of things the more we can, hopefully, figure out how to prevent and cure the diseases, syndromes and disabilities of mankind. I suppose that argument comes down to what is called 'acceptable risk'. Some consider the risk to be too high, other's don't. There's the same controversy regarding stem cell research.
I think it's human nature for some of us to want to be something that we're not. Race is still a big issue among those whom it is an issue. Did anyone see the Dateline or 20/20 story where the little black girls were given a white doll and a black doll and they considered the black doll to be 'bad' whereas the white doll was 'good'? The little black girls wanted to play with the white doll and not the black doll. When asked which doll they were most like, most wanted to pick the white doll and appeared genuinely sad that they honestly could not.
One of my gay friends terribly laments the fact that he's gay and can't have a 'normal' life.
I lament the fact that my hair isn't naturally red, but I can do something about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
ramifications, Belle... hehe.
bottom line is that genetic selection for color, size, milk production, fat ratio blah blah blah has been practiced for generations in livestock husbandry. the same principles are taken by those who want to recreate man in his own image, that's where ethics come in.
sheep are sheep, people are people. sheep don't have a right to be gay. livestock who don't reproduce are sent to the slaughterhouse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
heh heh heh, Potato, I totally missed that.
Here's what one of my friends has to say about it:
Best of luck with that.
I'm predicting that they will end up making (insert species here) asexual if anything. Begs the question: Does "god'' make 'mistakes', and if so, are we licensed to 'fix' them? We (humanity) really just can't seem to keep our hands out of anything without changing it to suit our 'needs' (desires). So let's just come clean with that and say what we're thinking "wouldn't it be great if we could do all this stuff and make babies or adults the way we want them". I love it when people throw the 'natural' word around, for example: "a man and a man ain't natural", a-hem, like polluting, plastic surgery, plastic for that matter, and basically anything the human race produces is natural. Argh! How annoyed it gets me.
Curious:
1. Plight? I don't look at being gay as my plight. Being human is more a plight in my opinion with it's duality and relative moralism.
2. Would I choose to be straight if I had a choice? Knowing what I do about both sides of the fence, NO WAY, this is MUCH more fun.
Designer pregnancy: Why not, we manipulate our world, or bodies, nature, and everything else on the planet to our liking without much consideration for long term implications. I don't see this being restrained if it has any measure of success and I see couples designing their child before it's even conceived once the technology is available. I really don't have a huge problem with that, as long as the paradigm shifts appropriately and we all 'get' that we are not creatures completely respectful and in-tune with nature. We pretty much do as we please with what we have to whatever end we see fit. The sooner we acknowledge who we are (our super-nature) the sooner I see us accepting each other as is.
Personaly I'd rather not be altered since I like my lifestyle too much. Alas, I prefer to put my thoughts into what's possible and mutually beneficial for the whole shabang! In case you need reminders or visual guides for why I'm Homosexual I've attached images for your review.
(I'm only attaching one as the others would probably get me sent to Paw's office)
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Belle, you're right. The research is all about getting more sheep. I won't start on the ethics of industrial animal farming.
And I liked what your friend said, but I'm glad you only posted one picture! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I guess I am not as enlightened...
I don't call them evil. I am just relating what I hear and see around me. And it's very likely that I don't hang with the same enlightened crowd you do.But along those lines, you know when I will believe that society has fully accepted homosexuality as a norm (not THE norm but A norm)...
When shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are not on anymore (after all, it's just a joke based upon effeminate behavior). When comics (including homosexual ones) no longer make jokes based on butch women or queer men. When prime time television has a show with either a homosexual couple (showing the same degree of sexual content as a straight couple) is cast as the leads in a series, that series is a success, and that fact is not news. When the concept of marriage is relegated to the religious institutions of the country and cohabitation contracts are the norm for both straight and gay couples, trebles, or whatever arrangement fits the people involved. When it is not an issue to "out" somebody. When school/military dormatories, prisons, and other institutional housing arrangements account for sexual preference more so than physical plumbing (that is assuming they don't just abandon the concept of segregating residents by sex at all -- be it by sex or by preference -- after all, how will one house the ambisexual residents?). When 'gay pride' parades no longer exist...not because of suppression but because of lack of interest (or if they do exist, where the paraders celebrate sexual freedom and pure hedonism, rather than pride in a given sexual preference). When all of the above occur, I will say that society has fully accepted diversity in sexual preference.
And so it becomes ever more interesting that Martina Navratilova getting bent out of shape on this...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Aww c'mon now Mark, you're an ok guy anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.