Planned obsolescence? (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891)


What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner.
For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing." As William Saletan at Slate.com explains:
A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10 percent are gay.
Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains--the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"--looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."
What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.
That's where the issue gets really interesting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has called for an end to the research, while tennis star Martina Navratilova called the research "homophobic and cruel" and argued that gay sheep have a "right" to be homosexual. No kidding.
Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.
But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.

There's more (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891)


In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!
More to the point, Gray understands that such a development would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America:
Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?
The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times. These tests are already leading to the abortion of fetuses identified as carrying unwanted genetic markers. The tests can now check for more than 1,300 different chromosomal abnormalities or patterns. With DNA analysis, the genetic factors could be identified right down to hair and eye color and other traits. The logic is all too simple. If you don't like what you see on the PDG report . . . just abort and start over. Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.
If that happens, how many parents -- even among those who consider themselves most liberal -- would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?
**********

Kind of makes one think, doesn't it?

Leave the baby be.
so what if he's gay?
goodness sakes.

It's scary and something I have thought about many times. We would have little problem genetically eliminating some sub-cultures from our world, such as criminals, the deaf, homosexuals, transsexuals, Down's syndrome people (already disappearing), and, while this seems a natural thing for parents to do, and in some cases society may mandate it, but our culture will lose a lot.

China has already had to take stringent measures to prevent parents from selectively aborting girls so as to have a son in the one-child regime.

Kind of makes one think, doesn't it?[/LEFT]
Makes me think lower of the population of America.

It's scary and something I have thought about many times. We would have little problem genetically eliminating some sub-cultures from our world, such as criminals, the deaf, homosexuals, transsexuals, Down's syndrome people (already disappearing), and, while this seems a natural thing for parents to do, and in some cases society may mandate it, but our culture will lose a lot.

China has already had to take stringent measures to prevent parents from selectively aborting girls so as to have a son in the one-child regime.

These same medical advances and technology could do away with developmental disabilities and a wide variety of devistating birth defects. That's certainly a positive outcome. Any elimination of a criminal element or addictive personalities cannot be viewed as anything but beneficial. If the homosexual portion of society is done away with in the same manner, another undesireable element is also gone.

These same medical advances and technology could do away with developmental disabilities and a wide variety of devastating birth defects. That's certainly a positive outcome. Any elimination of a criminal element or addictive personalities cannot be viewed as anything but beneficial. If the homosexual portion of society is done away with in the same manner, another undesirable element is also gone.

That is unbelievably shortsighted. First, such manipulation will have other effects. Eliminate criminal types, for example, and you may also eliminate a substantial portion of the investors and innovators and risk takers, along with several important literary figures. They will have the same genetic characteristics. Eliminate homosexuals and I hate to think what would happen to the input from serious music, the arts and Hollywood and Broadway, let alone fashion design and interior decoration.

Remove even the deaf and sign language, now seen to be a powerful and beautiful language not based on phonemes, would be lost.

I hate to think how much literature and music has been produced by alcoholics and drug addicts. The personality traits that lead to these behaviors seem also to be connected with a sensitivity and power that produces these geniuses.

Such things will happen, but they are far more dangerous to humanty than a few nuclear reactors, and maybe even global warming.

Eliminate homosexuals and I hate to think what would happen to the input from serious music, the arts and Hollywood and Broadway, let alone fashion design and interior decoration.
Dear lord, my sides just split. Funniest allforums comment all week.

That is unbelievably shortsighted. First, such manipulation will have other effects. Eliminate criminal types, for example, and you may also eliminate a substantial portion of the investors and innovators and risk takers, along with several important literary figures. They will have the same genetic characteristics. Eliminate homosexuals and I hate to think what would happen to the input from serious music, the arts and Hollywood and Broadway, let alone fashion design and interior decoration.

Remove even the deaf and sign language, now seen to be a powerful and beautiful language not based on phonemes, would be lost.

I hate to think how much literature and music has been produced by alcoholics and drug addicts. The personality traits that lead to these behaviors seem also to be connected with a sensitivity and power that produces these geniuses.

Such things will happen, but they are far more dangerous to humanty than a few nuclear reactors, and maybe even global warming.

My position is somewhere between you and es347. I mean, you have to be extraordinarily careful what characteristics you would be eliminating if you want to remove certain genes from the gene pool. For instance, "criminal" behavior is a very subjective term in a lot of instances. What would be considered criminal in one culture might be sanctioned in another.

However, it's hard to imagine why you would want people to inherit deafness (for lack of a better term), just to preserve sign language. That's like saying we shouldn't look for a cure for Lou Gherig's disease because Steven Hawking has such a cool electronic voice. Some inherited characteristics are net disadvantages, no matter what context you place them in.

Homosexuals is an area where I'm torn. Frankly, VP provided a perspective I had not thought of before; That the homosexuality trait serves as a sort of population control on the human race. I think I buy that idea, although I can't deny that I would be disappointed on some level if my child turned out to be flaming gay. Granted, my reasoning is completely different from yours...i.e. I don't think the industries of fashion design and entertainment would suffer if they weren't dominated by homosexuals.

However, it's hard to imagine why you would want people to inherit deafness (for lack of a better term), just to preserve sign language. That's like saying we shouldn't look for a cure for Lou Gehrig's disease because Steven Hawking has such a cool electronic voice. Some inherited characteristics are net disadvantages, no matter what context you place them in.

I don't think our views are all that different; I just wanted to point out that things will be lost anytime we reduce diversity. I had the opportunity many years ago to learn Ameslan (American Sign Language) and believe me it is a wonderfully expressive language, having capabilities that verbal languages lack. It and other deaf "languages" (there are hundreds) have created a cultural subgroup with a richness and beauty that hearing people do not appreciate. I would favor much greater instruction in it for its own sake, not just as a means to communicate with the deaf.

Homosexuals is an area where I'm torn. Frankly, VP provided a perspective I had not thought of before; That the homosexuality trait serves as a sort of population control on the human race. I think I buy that idea, although I can't deny that I would be disappointed on some level if my child turned out to be flaming gay. Granted, my reasoning is completely different from yours...I don't think the industries of fashion design and entertainment would be damaged if they weren't dominated by homosexuals.

It has always amazed me what a large proportion of the really creative talent in the world is gay. My theory is that the basis for homosexuality has connections with femininity (by no means in all gays, but in a large fraction). Sometimes this connection shows up in effeminacy (which shouldn't bother an intelligent person) and sometimes it shows up in a certain refinement and understanding--a mix of masculine and feminine mentalities.

Now this is my own conclusion from what I observe, and I know the gay world sometimes is adamant to reject this sort of thinking, but that doesn't mean it is false.

As to the role of gays in society, we don't need population control measures quite that radical; properly applied various means of birth control are adequate. The key is generating enough security in the population that they don't feel they need large families.

--Martin

I don't find the fact that entertainment and design industries may suffer a great deal of importance to the argument against eugenics to eliminate homosexuality.

I am opposed to the principle of the act of determining this trait of a human because it is not harmful to them; the stigma comes from society influenced by religions. People are born with varying likes and dislikes, forming their personalities and the way they approach things. Not everyone is going to be meant for a pairing of man and woman, yet they are also not necessarily gay. The idea of same sex closeness in society was experienced by ancient cultures like various polis in Greece, or even Japanese peoples, and while they may not have been a full on "flaming" homosexual, there was a love there that helped build their society. Women holding hands with women is not some strange occurance that should be shunned, it is symbolic of a friendship, perhaps romantic, that should be cherished by society.

Civilization's population may be rapidly expanding, but in reality the majority of our lives are based upon human relationships. Our emotional needs drive our lives and make us as people, and a disregarding of a desire for togetherness for someone, sexual or otherwise, out of a fear from retribution from social mores, is useless to our lives. As many people are wont to say, "Love makes the world go 'round."

I don't find the fact that entertainment and design industries may suffer a great deal of importance to the argument against eugenics to eliminate homosexuality.

I am opposed to the principle of the act of determining this trait of a human because it is not harmful to them; the stigma comes from society influenced by religions. People are born with varying likes and dislikes, forming their personalities and the way they approach things. Not everyone is going to be meant for a pairing of man and woman, yet they are also not necessarily gay. The idea of same sex closeness in society was experienced by ancient cultures like various polis in Greece, or even Japanese peoples, and while they may not have been a full on "flaming" homosexual, there was a love there that helped build their society. Women holding hands with women is not some strange occurance that should be shunned, it is symbolic of a friendship, perhaps romantic, that should be cherished by society.

Civilization's population may be rapidly expanding, but in reality the majority of our lives are based upon human relationships. Our emotional needs drive our lives and make us as people, and a disregarding of a desire for togetherness for someone, sexual or otherwise, out of a fear from retribution from social mores, is useless to our lives. As many people are wont to say, "Love makes the world go 'round."

What you say is well taken and eloquent.

OK I think they are taking gene manipulation to far. So what if a person is a gay or lesbian. That is their choice, not mine but theirs. Now if they were to choose to change this characteristic themselves then so be it, but leave alone.

My only thought it that if they could do this with other aspects, such as a serial killer or pedophile then I might think different.
OK that sounds like such a hypocrite but I don't see a person being gay as a problem that needs to medically altered. Unless the gay or lesbian person want to and I do for a serial killer or sexual predator.

Well said indeed, Ev.

Only reason I've ever wondered whether modern medicine would ever come up with a 'change your sexual orientation' pill has been when I was tired of putting up with some man's sh*t and wished I was a lesbian. However, I'm thinking there may be some men out there who'd take the same drastic step to get away from some female.

Guess we're all better off just being what we are.

:)
SMW

what if a woman choose to abort her baby because it was going to be gay. I think the universe would implode with irony, or at least a libs head.

Am I the only person who really wants grandkids?

not at all. I do.

Am I the only person who really wants grandkids?

hummm I want to have kids and would love them no matter what their sexual orientation would be. I am not a mom yet or any time soon but I welcome it and worry about all the advances medical technology is taking. Yes some are good but some are oh so wrong and dangerous doctor frankenstein.

kill off all low-income, potentially ghetto-raised kids... that'll reduce crime rate by about 2000%

LMAO

I already have both kids and a grandkid!

hummm I want to have kids and would love them no matter what their sexual orientation would be. I am not a mom yet or any time soon but I welcome it and worry about all the advances medical technology is taking. Yes some are good but some are oh so wrong and dangerous doctor frankenstein.

Tell me you'd not be freaked out learning that your grandchild was homosexual - and I'll call you a liar. At some point you may come to accept the fact that your grandchild was born with a raging birth defect, one that makes them stray from normal, but you'd still freak.

Tell me you'd not be freaked out learning that your grandchild was homosexual - and I'll call you a liar. At some point you may come to accept the fact that your grandchild was born with a raging birth defect, one that makes them stray from normal, but you'd still freak.
I would not freak out if I learned my child or grandchild was a homosexual. Of course, I suppose I was raised deliberately to be tolerant of homosexuality, so I suppose you'd think that makes me biased...

Tell me you'd not be freaked out learning that your grandchild was homosexual - and I'll call you a liar. At some point you may come to accept the fact that your grandchild was born with a raging birth defect, one that makes them stray from normal, but you'd still freak.

Well you can call me a liar..Some of my best friends are gay/lesbian and I see them no different. They are people not sexual orientation. If you judge a person by their sexual preference that is pretty shallow. They are people just like you and I. The love, cry and succeed in life what is the problem with that.

How is this a defect? So they like the same sex big freaking deal. I can appreciate a good looking girl but it doesn't me I want to fuck her. I couldn't care less their sexual preference.

If my child came home I would support and understand and be there for support. Life will be hard enough without having a shallow parent to deal with. Why do you think so many are scared to come out of the closet if there are people around that are judging them. They deserve to be loved and excepted.

Tell me you'd not be freaked out learning that your grandchild was homosexual - and I'll call you a liar.
You're talking to a few of the poster children for Generation Y, es. We don't even bat an eyelash at that stuff.

Wow I actually agree with Napster, hummmm
If you would have talked to my mom or my grand mother they would have freaked out completely but I guess we have grown up in more of an age of tolerance. Predigests are not as prominent in the time we have grown up in.
Although I would not have sold my mom short on being OK with a child that was either gay/lesbian. She was very open in more aspects then I gave her credit for but very closed off on other topics.
Sexuality is not something to be ashamed of or hide. Whom you choose to love is your choice as long as you love and are loved.

Wow I actually agree with Napster, hummmm
If you would have talked to my mom or my grand mother they would have freaked out completely but I guess we have grown up in more of an age of tolerance. Predigests are not as prominent in the time we have grown up in.
Although I would not have sold my mom short on being OK with a child that was either gay/lesbian. She was very open in more aspects then I gave her credit for but very closed off on other topics.
Sexuality is not something to be ashamed of or hide. Whom you choose to love is your choice as long as you love and are loved.

Should the terrible reality of such a condition land in your lap, may you well remember this post. Add 20 -30 years to yourself with your own distraught son or daughter discussing the troubles of their progeny and the realization could be altogether different.

Es347fan, what difference does it make if your child is gay/lesbian?
Why would it scare you to find that out? What the fuck is the big deal?

I already have both kids and a grandkid!
Awesome. Where are the pics of the little one? :P

Tell me you'd not be freaked out learning that your grandchild was homosexual - and I'll call you a liar. At some point you may come to accept the fact that your grandchild was born with a raging birth defect, one that makes them stray from normal, but you'd still freak.
Listen here bigot, in the modern world sane people do not react that way.

Should the terrible reality of such a condition land in your lap, may you well remember this post. Add 20 -30 years to yourself with your own distraught son or daughter discussing the troubles of their progeny and the realization could be altogether different.

That is not true; I no more care about the sexual orientation of my grandchildren than I do about their sex. If my child were "distraught," I would be astonished and would tell them to love the child and mind their own business.

Should the terrible reality of such a condition land in your lap, may you well remember this post. Add 20 -30 years to yourself with your own distraught son or daughter discussing the troubles of their progeny and the realization could be altogether different.

OK I am not sure why you feel a need to single me out on this and be so blatantly pissy about this. I am very strong in my convictions and really don't want your sympathy or your what ever it is you are trying to sell me. Are you afraid that you might catch their "condition" or that it might impact how your friends or family look at you? I am not sure why this is such a big deal to you. How I see my potential children and grand children should not really be any of your worries. The only worries is that they or production people in society. Gay/Lesbian's are that and can be that. I bet you even know some and just don't know they are. Maybe not but in any event don't judge a book by its cover you have no idea what you might be missing.

If it were my child I would love them no matter what the circumstances. Their sexual preference is their business. My business is to love them and raise them to be Nothing like you but to be compassionate and tolerance of all people and not judge people on their sexual preference.
Their sexual preference is not a disease or illness. The days of treating people like leopard's is done and over with.

Bigotry is also not a disease or an excuse to be mean it is a condition you choose not to make right, it is a life choice.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.

Bigotry is cruel and very closed minded. I am glad the younger generations have found a way to not follow the foot steps of many of the old teachings. If that were the case African American people would still be at the back of the bus and The KKK would be spewing more of their vial words and writings.
My generation has grown to learn tolerance and compassion. We have learned everyone is different and that is OK. We have show that there can be a multitude of races and religions and that they can all co-habituate together and be as one.

hummm I want to have kids and would love them no matter what their sexual orientation would be. I am not a mom yet or any time soon but I welcome it and worry about all the advances medical technology is taking. Yes some are good but some are oh so wrong and dangerous doctor frankenstein.

I am perfectly fine with those who are gay. I have many gay friends, but I also would want my kids to have children themselves. It's a matter my grandkids being the product of my kids. I don't want an adopted kid or an adopted grandchild, I want someone who shares the traits of my family.

I am perfectly fine with those who are gay. I have many gay friends, but I also would want my kids to have children themselves. It's a matter my grandkids being the product of my kids. I don't want an adopted kid or an adopted grandchild, I want someone who shares the traits of my family.

hey Windwip
That comment was not directed at you in any way. I was just commenting to you about your statement, "Am I the only one who wants children and grand children." This quote was to es347fan... sorry if you thought I was talking to you. Yes I quoted your words but more as a way to say. I do want kids no matter what their sexual orientation is.
I also want my own children and grandchildren (biologically) but that is not always the case for some families no matter how hard a couple tries.
I Want kids to look like me and my spouse and watch them grow and have children of their own and god willing they will...
But even if a person is gay there are ways of using their eggs and sperm to fertilize and make a child. (In vitro fertilization) and there is nothing wrong with that method also if it has to be.

I am perfectly fine with those who are gay. I have many gay friends, but I also would want my kids to have children themselves. It's a matter my grandkids being the product of my kids. I don't want an adopted kid or an adopted grandchild, I want someone who shares the traits of my family.
A) What matters is what your children want. Even if they're straight they may not want kids or be good parents.
B) As for the different biology, who someone is happens to be a combination of nature and "nurture." Because your child is a black kid doesn't mean it is the end of the world, adopted children and their adoptive parents are capable of the same love and friendship as blood families. Just ask Frogger.

A) What matters is what your children want. Even if they're straight they may not want kids or be good parents.
B) As for the different biology, who someone is happens to be a combination of nature and "nurture." Because your child is a black kid doesn't mean it is the end of the world, adopted children and their adoptive parents are capable of the same love and friendship as blood families. Just ask Frogger.

Very good post, Evak. Shortstuff, I agree with you as well.


PS I'd post photos of our new grandbaby but my daughter has expressed a desire that I should not.
Hope you understand. :)

hey Windwip
That comment was not directed at you in any way. I was just commenting to you about your statement, "Am I the only one who wants children and grand children." This quote was to es347fan... sorry if you thought I was talking to you. Yes I quoted your words but more as a way to say. I do want kids no matter what their sexual orientation is.
I know. I understand your stance and I would accept my children completely if they were gay also.

I also want my own children and grandchildren (biologically) but that is not always the case for some families no matter how hard a couple tries.
I Want kids to look like me and my spouse and watch them grow and have children of their own and god willing they will...
But even if a person is gay there are ways of using their eggs and sperm to fertilize and make a child. (In vitro fertilization) and there is nothing wrong with that method also if it has to be.True, there are other ways. I would prefer to have a grandchild that is actually from my kid and his/her spouse though. I think that with adoption you can have incredible bonds between parents and their adopted child, but there is also something missing. That old phrase "a chip off the old block" just wouldn't apply. There are things that you just can't teach a person, things that you are just born with. And I don't want my kids, or my kids' children missing that.

A) What matters is what your children want. Even if they're straight they may not want kids or be good parents.
Hopefully they will want kids, I can't change that. If they wouldn't be a good parent, then I did a horrible job as a parent. Responsibility is something that you learn.

B) As for the different biology, who someone is happens to be a combination of nature and "nurture." Because your child is a black kid doesn't mean it is the end of the world, adopted children and their adoptive parents are capable of the same love and friendship as blood families. Just ask Frogger.
Absolutely right, though as I said in my last post, nature does play a role. I just want that extra connection to be there between me and my kids.

Personally, I want to have children (one of these days) and grandchildren, biologically. Meaning I want them to be of my blood. I want my family lineage to continue. However, if my child were to come to me and tell me that he/she was gay, and would never have a child through biological means, I would not be mad. I would be supportive of them no matter what, I mean they are my blood, and thats that. I cannot say that I wouldnt be a little dissapointed, but I would get over it and still love my child no matter what.

Oh, and there is absolutly nothing wrong with adoption. It is a great thing for those that cannot conceve on their own. Or those who just want to do a great thing and take in a child.

I am perfectly fine with those who are gay. I have many gay friends, but I also would want my kids to have children themselves. It's a matter my grandkids being the product of my kids. I don't want an adopted kid or an adopted grandchild, I want someone who shares the traits of my family. heh. I want to change my child so 'my genes' (you know the ones that would have produced a gay child) would be passed on.

Talk about self defeating logic.

BTW I believe its a nature AND nuture system where theres a sliding scale chance (1= definatly gay, 5 = either way, 10= never gay) that the kid may or may not be gay.

heh. I want to change my child so 'my genes' (you know the ones that would have produced a gay child) would be passed on.

Talk about self defeating logic.

BTW I believe its a nature AND nuture system where theres a sliding scale chance (1= definatly gay, 5 = either way, 10= never gay) that the kid may or may not be gay.
My understanding is that the genetic component that leads to homosexuality most often comes from the mother. This is for both male and female homosexuals. This was determined by looking at uncles and aunts of homosexuals, where on the mother's side there was a statistically significant increase in homosexuality while on the father's side there was not.

Does anyone have any idea what keeps this gene in the population? I mean, it must have some selective advantage to offset the obvious reproductive disadvantage (not that gays don't often reproduce, but they do so a lot less than straights, and a characteristic that has this effect should vanish from the population in twenty or so generations).

One other thing I want to mention in this context--the idea of manipulating genes to change a person is not going to be easy. Even when the technology to do so exists, it must be remembered that our traits are rarely if ever determined by a single gene, and, further, that any given gene will almost certainly effect other traits and even other genes--in a complex web that will differ from person to person.

Removing gene mutations that have dramatic harmful effects will be much easier--where only one gene is involved and it can be replaced by a more normal gene.