If homosexuality was narrowed down to a gene or gene sequence that science developed a way to ”switch off”, if a parent chose that option, would you believe it was a parent’s right if they knew their child had it?

Let us throw in a third option C: the gay gene can only be identified, but not modified. If the parents found out that their offspring had this particular gene, would it, or should it, be their right to terminate the pregnancy instead of bringing such a child into the world?

This society should focus on minimizing and eventually eliminating the discrimination against LGBT people. Not on how to change their sexuality.
And I think this question involves knowledge on sociology and anthropology. LGBT people has an impact on how human development.

Being gay is natural, normal and there’s not a little thing that’s wrong about it. So why put so many effort into changing instead of making this world a better place to live?

@rojo Let us throw in a third option C…]
Because that is a feckless point, the law already let you suck the little nipper out for reasons as not wanting to have stretch marks before bikini season, or less; this will change nothing.

@Hypocrisy_Central you’re dodging…

The question isn about legality, but whether you believe it’s somebody’s right.

Following your reasoning, the whole question is void… It is not allowed, so it is a feckless point.

I think it better to just lump the B and proposed C together under the umbrella of, “Do you feel the parents have a right to alter their child in a manner that prevented them from being born homosexual?” and leaving whether it’s the result of gengineering or abortion unadressed as it’s tangential to the central point of whether one considers eugenics based on sexual orientation to be morally acceptable.

What if they found the fear gene which made homophobics so hell bent on being intolerant?

Maybe they find the critical thinking gene and turn it on.

@Blackberry I think that critical thinking is more of a nurture than nature thing, as is intolerance, whereas there actually is a fair bit of evidence that sexual preference is based on genetics.

That said, parents usually pass down more than just their genes when they have a kid, so that may give the illusion of intolerance and homophobia being genetic… especially amongst those who practice inbreeding.

No, I don’t think it would be right at all. It’s eugenics, plain and simple. Eradicating things like disease through gene manipulation is one thing, but choosing what your child would look like or what their sexuality would be is completely creepy.

@jerv
You didn’t read the question properly. A is of the same category: switching of the gay-gene.

I have troubles answering this question.

In principle, I would say no to either A or B, simply because they ‘feel’ immoral.

In reality, if my wife and I’d learn, for instance, that taking unusually high doses of vitamin C would reduce the chances of having a ‘gay child’ to zero, we would probably consider it.

Life in modern society is still easier for ‘straights’, so my child would likely have better chances in life if hen were straight. Of course, it would still feel as the wrong thing to do, however… isn’t it more wrong of society to make life so tough on people merely because they are outside the norm?

I think my stance would apply wider than just to the gay-gene. Anything that takes my kids outside the norm, I’d like to prevent.
(Including the gene that would make them susceptible to religion. Especially that one.)

If, if, if…
If my aunt had a set of balls she’d be my uncle.

Totally immoral to make the decision for the child.

Kind of a grey area there @marinelife, as parents and adults we make decisions for children every day from what shoes they are going to wear, whether they are going to eat that healthy supper, who they can and cannot date to whether or not to cut off their foreskin. (ok, not everyday on the latter but you get the point).

@rojo I think something that changes a child’s fundamental being (including circumcision, which I oppose) is not the parent’s prerogative.

^^ Point taken.

If it were possible to reset one’s genetics, it would still be immoral for the parents to do so. Even more immoral for a Theist to do so, as it involves the hubris of tinkering with God’s blue print for a person.

@rojo Yes, circumcision is all about taking the point.

@zenvelo You forget that God gave us the ability to tamper with genetics for a reason; it’s morally acceptable to interpret God’s blueprint however you damn well please! It isn’t hubris if it’s done for a righteous cause.

@jerv God gave us the right to tinker with our own genes, but not to impose our own thinking on someone else’s genes. That is wrong. Parents don’t have a right to make a change that is about something that is not life threatening.

In a related matter, it has been determined that parents should not be allowed to make a gender assignment surgery for intersex children. That should be left to the child to determine when they are older.

I’m pretty sure it is already about chromosomes as it is and no, it would be immoral to tamper with what nature has intended.
I think @rojo presents another interesting facet to the question as well.
If we’re going to tamper with human genetics, isolate the genes that drive us to reproduce in the first place and get rid of them, we have more than enough humanity milling about as it is, gay, straight, young, old, male,female…enough is enough. haha

@jerv I know, I was being passive aggressive lol.

Whatever happened to a couple of people just fucking and having kids?

@whitenoise you’re dodging
The question isn about legality, but whether you believe it’s somebody’s right.
Following your reasoning, the whole question is void… It is not allowed, so it is a feckless point.
There is nothing to dodge; I don’t do it the Flu8ther way. There are no laws restricting or mandating how one should treat the unborn with a gay disposition. Science, as I know it, has no way to detect it and even less ability to do something about it. The ship has sailed on killing the unborn, terminating a pregnancy, so the law has spoken on that so there is noi legal discussion to be had. Since there are no standing laws, the question is quite germane.

@jerv I think it better to just lump the B and proposed C together under the umbrella of, “Do you feel the parents have a right to alter their child in a manner that prevented them from being born homosexual?”
If you can reduce the question to that, what is your reduced answer, do they have the right?

@Blackberry What if they found the fear gene which made homophobics so hell bent on being intolerant?
With the same intolerance you use to not want to give people a choice that doesn’t sit with you. I guess maybe it was learned from those on the other site that were hateful because you did not fit in, but they believed as you seem to believe on this issue, it all comes down to they simply being against, and you being for.

@DrasticDreamer No, I don’t think it would be right at all. It’s eugenics, plain and simple. Eradicating things like disease through gene manipulation is one thing, but choosing what your child would look like or what their sexuality would be is completely creepy.
Who is to say it is not alright? If the US Supreme said it was not OK but The International Court of Justice (French: Cour internationale de justice; commonly referred to as the World Court) said it was OK, who is right and why? If a child could be determined by ultra sound or whatever, to have a cleft palate and preventative measures are taken, the parent s have stepped in an imposed their will.

@marinelife I think something that changes a child’s fundamental being (including circumcision, which I oppose) is not the parent’s prerogative.
What line are you drawing in the sand? If a child will be born with deformed legs you would balk against any thought of simply removing th3em as oppose to having the child drag them around all his/her life? What if they had a weak ribcage would you balk at having a man-made one affixed on them? Parents jump in and do all sorts of things, and they did not ask the child if they could.

@zenvelo If it were possible to reset one’s genetics, it would still be immoral for the parents to do so.
(_Refer to comment to @DrasticDreamer _)

Even more immoral for a Theist to do so, as it involves the hubris of tinkering with God’s blue print for a person.
For the sake of this question I am only dealing with those not in the Family, because if they were, they would know what to do and why it was upon them, gene manipulation would not be a high priority.

Parents don’t have a right to make a change that is about something that is not life threatening.
Guess that nix cleft palates or any other thing cosmetically done.

@Hypocrisy_Central Personally I think it unethical, but even after decades of reading the sort of sci-fi that had transhumanism as a central theme, I’m still unsure where to draw the line. The best compromise would probably be to restrict it the same way we do other body mods like tattoos.
What I find troubling is that most people didn’t have this on their radar until very recently, assuming they do at all, and I expect uninformed knee-jerk legislation from those who still haven’t figured out this whole internet thing.

@jerv What I find troubling is that most people didn’t have this on their radar until very recently, assuming they do at all,…]
Maybe they are too busy trying to keep up with the Jones. Technology and science always seem to outpace law and in some cases actually drive law. In the nest quarter century I suspect people will have to wrestle with decisions like this, as well as mechanical enhancement to limbs and maybe other parts, embedded computer or RF chips in humans, privacy from drones both government and private, and then some.

You personally believe it is unethical, what criterion did you use to decide that?

Common sense dictates that it’s not okay. Stepping in as a future parent to prevent a disease or health problems (like a cleft palate) are understandable, because that’s to the benefit of the literal health of the child. Choosing physical characteristics, though, or sexuality, is eugenics plain and simple.

It’s something that Hitler would have condoned and gotten excited about.

I have a thing about free will. I don’t like having others make decisions for me, nor do I like feeling railroaded by coercion. I like making my own decisions, and I like to have other sentient beings of sound mind enjoy the same freedom make their own decisions as well, so long as those decisions don’t harm society as a whole.

And I’m not exactly fond of people treating children as property either; though they may lack wisdom, they are sentient beings who will someday be in charge as the roles are reversed and the parents are the ones eating pureed food and wearing diapers. While they may not be great at decision-making, that doesn’t mean that you get to decide EVERYTHING for them.

@jerv
I don’t like having others make decisions for me, nor do I like feeling railroaded by coercion. I like making my own decisions, and I like to have other sentient beings of sound mind enjoy the same freedom make their own decisions as well, so long as those decisions don’t harm society as a whole.
Ah, but that is the rub, in like manner you do not want others to make the choice for you (which always happened in some latent form) one day when the science allows for parents to have the ability (however method it comes) to assure their children are heterosexual (or maybe even assure they are gay), they want the right to do as they please, same as you. Children are sentient beings but for the 1st 18 years of their lives nearly 50% (I am being generous) of the decisions that govern their lives are those adults or parents made. How much freedom do you actually believe they will have, unless you define this freedom a different way.

And the parting sentence of you comment suggest you support terminating a pregnancy since it has no visible or physical detriment on society. In the case of some parent switching of a ”gay gene”, etc. in their child, how is society harmed?

@Hypocrisy_Central Physical fixes don’t change a person’s fundamental personhood.

The straight guy whom I used to fall for and have got over with is gay. Who haven’t loved some jerks and straights. Anyway, over is over.
Just after the moment I finished 《G&T》 I found it, Exactly same situation. Except we won’t work out.
Yet my answer is no. When we find the world is not as good as we expected, we change it. Not ourselves. Especially on this issue.