Ethicality: Eradicating Homosexuality through Genetic Engineering

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,417]

Hello everyone, I was doing some reading on some Psychological things, the topic being gender dysphoria and sexual dysfunction. The introduction to my reading included a lot of information about sexuality in general, and it mentioned that some who hopped on the cause of homosexuality being biological that this could be prevented by genetic engineering. While no ethical question was raised in the text itself I started to wonder what others thought. With continued research into the exact biological causes of homosexuality and the development of technologies such as CRISPR, I think asking the people closest to the ones most affected by this (since we can't ask the population that will be genetically engineered) would be the best ethical test. (I do apologize for the misleading title, but "eradicating" is the best term I could find for such procedures. I am aware that other likely causes for homosexuality are other biological causes, epigenetics, and psychological processes, but wording such things in the title would have likely resulted in a jumbled mess.)

 

My personal view isn't very straightforward. I don't believe homosexuality is anything inherently negative or something to eradicate because it's gross, and attempting to get rid of homosexuality can make it seem like it was a defect. I also don't think it should be the result of bullying or stigma. But by lowering the chance that somebody is homosexual, you are opening the possibility for them to have a biological family (offspring) and connecting to the parent of their offspring in a natural setting. Though I do admit I am not well informed on connections formed through things such as adoption or surrogacy. Another possible factor is the spread of STDs. I'm very reluctant to write this into the thread, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't something to talk about (and possibly even educate myself and others). I do believe that the spread of STDs is something to consider. STDs have been linked to the LGBT community. This in large has to do with things such as **** tearing and the secrecy with which many LGBT people had to and still have to operate. I feel as though the stigma of homosexual relationships led to a hook up culture (one night stands, glory holes, quick sex during business trips) that fueled the prevalence of STDs. I think this correlates to the diminishing rate of STDs over the past couple of decades as being homosexual becomes normalized. Still, studies have found that homosexual men engage in more sex than heterosexual men and unsure men engage in more sex than either group. Another component to this is the fact that treatment for STDs is being actively researched and that by the time such gene manipulation has matured, a cure for most STDs could possibly be found. I thought about being very ambiguous about this as to not hijack the thread, but leaving it open to questions would create a focus only on my comments regarding STDs which might lead to hate or even the derailing of this thread. When posting comments or feedback, please do not view what I said as hate and please stay considerate of the larger question that was asked in this thread.

 

Please note that homosexuality would not be entirely eradicated due to genetic manipulation. Genetics are found to account for 34%-39% of homosexual causation in men and 18%-19% in women. At face value, genetic manipulation could result in reduction in prevalence of homosexuality at these rates.

 

Disclaimer: I understand that there are  younger audiences on the site that might read this and not understand everything in this thread. I do want to say everything mentioned in my post was for educational purposes, and nothing was meant to provoke anything sexual. I understand not all younger audiences will understand everything addressed, but I do believe censoring any part of my post could hurt communication between members of the site and it would be detrimental to the learning process. With that said, I do discourage younger audiences from freely Googling anything they don't understand within the STD portion of the topic because of what might pop up, and do encourage them to ask within the thread. I also ask that anyone responding to such questions do so respectfully without derailing the thread into something sexual.

 

(As a bonus and because it bothered me, there was a thread posted the other day discussing the genetic component of homosexuality. Specifically, there was a Ted Talk in which a woman said that all twins would be homosexual if homosexuality was purely genetic. While she is right in saying that this means that genetics aren't everything, homosexuality was prevalent in approximately 50% of identical twins, and 16%-22% of fraternal twins. I just thought it was interesting there is a correlation and she seemed to downplay it in attempt to make a point).

[Guest]

the only genes that should be engineered are ones that contribute to hereditary diseases like cancer, addiction, diabetes, heart problems etc. 

[FATCAT 60,084]

As the population grows, homosexuality might be our saving grace to slow down acceleration towards a possible tipping point. I think it's unwise to edit or alter genes that don't directly help/hurt. 

[Tycho 3,694]

It would be truly awful if that actually was a thing.

I can't think of a reason I would consider in any way valid.

[NFRatwell 23,290]

would it be ethical to manipulate the dna of mixed raced children to make sure they take as much white DNA (that impacts phenotype) they can, to reduce the racism they may face? Or should we as a generation find a better way to eradicate racism? 
 

Both of these sound unnecessary and disgusting to me. Unless we are trying to limit hereditary disease we shouldn’t be messing with that. 

[Guest]

that's not possible and never will be

"gay genes" are spread all over dna, it would be necessary create another human gene by gene

[xoxo Craig 55,649]

No, because any type of gene alteration is not natural.

[Cookie Tookie 10,546]

I’m all for genetic engineering when it comes to overall health of the baby. But NOT for trivial preferences such as eye color, hair color, sexual orientation, etc 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,417]

7 minutes ago, NFRockwell said:

would it be ethical to manipulate the dna of mixed raced children to make sure they take as much white DNA (that impacts phenotype) they can, to reduce the racism they may face? Or should we as a generation find a better way to eradicate racism? 
 

Both of these sound unnecessary and disgusting to me. Unless we are trying to limit hereditary disease we shouldn’t be messing with that. 

I definitely understand where you're coming from. Your hypothetical question does open up a whole new discussion on the genetic engineering of skin color. I don't think manipulating genes should ever be to reduce bullying or get rid of a minority just cause its unpopular. Would it be ethical to make babies dark then? Melanin does help prevent from sun damage.

6 minutes ago, Lynyrd Skynyrd said:

that's not possible and never will be

"gay genes" are spread all over dna, it would be necessary create another human gene by gene

I think we really should be careful about what we say can and cannot be done in the future. Isolation is getting more and more precise, and while I'm not sure we could find every single sequence that affects homosexuality, what if we could isolate some of the ones that are mostly responsible? They have been able to find some causation within the 23rd pair, or the sex chromosome.

5 minutes ago, xoxo Craig said:

No, because any type of gene alteration is not natural.

What about hereditary diseases?

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,417]

And to the people that say no because it's not linked to a hereditary disease or something detrimental, would such a link change your mind? A very big hypothetical.

[Slurper 72]

homosexuality is like influenza, it can’t be eradicated 

[holy scheisse 22,275]

Hey maybe don't use LGBT and homosexuality interchangeably -- (nevermind you didn't I misread)

I don't think any of your arguments for this would be worth eliminating an entire cultural group. Invest in sex education and healthcare services instead. Also, the behavior of human beings has evolved beyond focusing solely on survival and I don't see why turning everybody into breeders is necessary

[Guest]

1 minute ago, justhislife said:

I definitely understand where you're coming from. Your hypothetical question does open up a whole new discussion on the genetic engineering of skin color. I don't think manipulating genes should ever be to reduce bullying or get rid of a minority just cause its unpopular. Would it be ethical to make babies dark then? Melanin does help prevent from sun damage.

I think we really should be careful about what we say can and cannot be done in the future. Isolation is getting more and more precise, and while I'm not sure we could find every single sequence that affects homosexuality, what if we could isolate some of the ones that are mostly responsible? They have been able to find some causation within the 23rd pair, or the sex chromosome.

What about hereditary diseases?

you can isolate all the ones who are mostly responsible and homossexuality it would be keeping

you would need isolate ALL the ones, which is IMPOSSIBLE unless you're God

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,417]

20 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

As the population grows, homosexuality might be our saving grace to slow down acceleration towards a possible tipping point. I think it's unwise to edit or alter genes that don't directly help/hurt. 

So would you advocate for a natural prevalence of homosexuality? Or would you want people to be engineered to more likely to be homosexual? This would allow a couple to have their child without worrying about an ever increasing population. When would be enough though? And would we be taking the possibility of family away from others? And we as a species are responsible for neutering other animal populations, so what's the difference between that and deterring reproduction among our own population?

[xoxo Craig 55,649]

2 minutes ago, justhislife said:

I definitely understand where you're coming from. Your hypothetical question does open up a whole new discussion on the genetic engineering of skin color. I don't think manipulating genes should ever be to reduce bullying or get rid of a minority just cause its unpopular. Would it be ethical to make babies dark then? Melanin does help prevent from sun damage.

I think we really should be careful about what we say can and cannot be done in the future. Isolation is getting more and more precise, and while I'm not sure we could find every single sequence that affects homosexuality, what if we could isolate some of the ones that are mostly responsible? They have been able to find some causation within the 23rd pair, or the sex chromosome.

What about hereditary diseases?

If cancers could be destroyed by altering a gene, in my eyes, that would be different. Everyone has cancer cells, but if we could turn off those cells then I'd see that as a plus.

However, being gay is not a disease or a genetic disorder. Its not the same, and its very much part of that individual. You'd be turning something thats natural and making it unnatural. Its like altering the sex of the baby, or altering the hair colour... its part of them and should be left alone