Ok, my last attempt, this time without any implying of anything: Pro-abortion people SHOULD NOT suddenly become against abortion just because of what racists might do or say; similarly, we SHOULD NOT oppose learning about genetics because of what homophobes might do or say. I never said pro-abortion people might be or should be fazed. Not once. Your quote above is very misleading. I in fact implied that they SHOULD NOT be fazed. Here's my original sentence, with spelling error corrected and the bolded words added on at the end so as to avoid confusion:
And, do you see how comparing abortion to homosexuality/genetics has already decided the debate? You are concealing your values, or you are unaware of them.
No, I don't. Please explain that to me. Also does this now mean you understand my analogy? Just want to be clear on if you are still insisting I'm saying the opposite of what I've said multiple times now.
Look, you brought up abortion in your own thread. Who knows why. Abortion is obviously a choice. There's even a commonly associated term: "pro-choice." Now you make a thread wondering if homosexuality is genetic or possibly . . . a choice. And you compare the abortion debate to the gay gene debate. I don't think abortion is comparable to homosexuality in any way whatsoever. You want to say you brought up abortion for no reason, just kinda randomly. Your point was merely: let's not listen to racists or stupid people; it had nothing to do with abortion actually. OK, shall we just toss your entire mention of abortion out the window? Because abortion has zero relation to homosexuality. You started talking about it. Who knows why? Now you got mad because I take words at face value.
Well, I tried. But yes, please disregard the analogy if you are determined to misunderstand it. Sure, you're still making incorrect assumptions about me that go against what I've explicitly stated, but at least you're no longer inventing quotes I never said and then condemning me for them. I think this is as much progress as we will make.
Assume that being gay is genetic. Assume that we can test fetuses for being gay. Assume a homophobic woman would strongly consider abortion if the fetus were gay. This is a case of "using those answers to do the wrong things". A large segment of our population is homophobic, who might very well misuse this information. (Maybe registering gays at birth as sex offenders, since they are all pedophiles.) The homophobes see gay as "broken" and will pursue an agenda accordingly. Can you see how gays would find this offensive? Let's put the shoe of the other foot. What if "social conservatism" is genetic? What if the majority of citizens are not? What if that majority pursued an agenda against "social conservatives" using genetic testing? Can you see how "social conservatives" might find that offensive?
Assume all that is true. I still want to know the drivers for homosexuality. If conservatism is genetic, I want to know that too. Maybe finding out will inspire some injustices (do you really think people are the better for being ignorant?). Maybe some people are offended by people wanting to know and are afraid of the motivations of people asking the questions. Alright. If some might be offended, does that make it offensive? OP expressed some intellectual curiosity and no ill will. Is it rational behavior to shut down when a subject is mentioned even when people do it in a thoughtful and considerate way?
Really? Has that "heterogene" been located? Do humans have a hetero gene? If you're gonna say "Well duh!" then I'm gonna say "Well which gene is that? Is it right next to the gay one?" And you're gonna say "Well they haven't found it yet!" And I'm gonna say "Back to the original question. . . ."
Thanks for your response. Do you find it offensive because you think homosexuality is a choice and researching a "gay gene" would be insulting to the free will of homosexuals? Or is it offensive because you think it's just in bad taste to want to study and gain knowledge of sexual attraction? Or is it something else? As I said in my OP, I could see ways in which just about everyone could find this offensive. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what specifically about it people find offensive.
I am not smart enough to determine if the OP had the ill will or not. Maybe yes. Maybe no. The subject is super sensitive to some people. Not to me. I don't give a flying ****. But I know that over the next 100 years scientists will figure out the mapping of traits and genes, whenever we want them to or not. Damn those scientists! The homophobic parents of "little gay Johnny" are looking to blame someone besides God or themselves. Maybe its all of those vaccines the government makes them give little Johnny or maybe its the flouride in the water. The next question could be why does little Johnny think she is a girl trapped in a boy's body. The meta question is whether we can map genes to "undesired" traits. We quickly start skating on the the thin ice of eugenics, which has a fairly brutal past in the good ol' USA.
