Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality • Hacker News Board

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#111

Post by bobthechef » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:08 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #109

mfukar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Not more so than terminating a pregnancy for any other reason.

Doesn't sound like it. Usually it's for some reason that's justifiable, e.g. don't have the means to support it, don't want a child ever/at this moment in my life, teenage pregnancy, product of rape, fetus has some inherited disease, etc. Merely dropping a child because it'll be gay, while being ok to keep another that wouldn't is not exactly of that nature. Even the most casual reasoning for abortion ("I don't want…

> fetus has some inherited disease

By your logic, if homosexual attraction had genetic causes, could it not also be seen as "some inherited disease"?

You're doing a great deal of question begging. You're beginning with an ideological stance vis-a-vis homosexual attraction that is exactly a point of issue, and then tailoring moral arguments to suit the position. You've confused "the position that homosexual attraction is disordered" with "hating gay people" and then unjustifiably construed "hating gay people" as not entailed by the desire to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, i.e., it's okay to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason unless the reason is that the fetus is genetically conditioned for homosexual attraction, in which case it isn't okay because that would be an act of hate against gay people by virtue of my prior ideological commitments.

You must see the absurdity of that line of thought.

The position of sound anti-abortionists would be that no matter the characteristics of the fetus, the fetus is a human being and the killing of any innocent human being is immoral. Your position, on the other hand, seems to be very ad hoc, relying on special pleading that is driven by prior sui generis ideological commitments.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#112

Post by bobthechef » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:10 AM UTC

yipopov wrote: post #108

mfukar wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the connection you've made between homosexuality, abortion, and celibacy? I fail to see it.

Celibacy means you won't have any children. Same reason why a carrier of the Huntington's disease gene may choose celibacy instead of reproducing.

Celibacy means sexual abstinence, not not having children. The latter is implied by the former, of course.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#113

Post by bobthechef » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:14 AM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #80

azinman2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?

Because the people who would want to get rid of their homosexual children want to do so because they consider it a sin.

This is a common confusion. If homosexual attraction were found to have a genetic cause, it would be understood as a genetic or genetically-caused disorder. That in itself would not be a sin because sin only applies to voluntary actions and not conditions. So from this POV, someone with genetically caused homosexual attraction would not be sinning if he refrained from engaging in homosexual acts.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#114

Post by mfukar » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:24 AM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #112

yipopov wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Celibacy means you won't have any children. Same reason why a carrier of the Huntington's disease gene may choose celibacy instead of reproducing.

Celibacy means sexual abstinence, not not having children. The latter is implied by the former, of course.

Not really, we're past requiring intercourse for reproduction.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#115

Post by mfukar » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:25 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #109

mfukar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Not more so than terminating a pregnancy for any other reason.

Doesn't sound like it. Usually it's for some reason that's justifiable, e.g. don't have the means to support it, don't want a child ever/at this moment in my life, teenage pregnancy, product of rape, fetus has some inherited disease, etc. Merely dropping a child because it'll be gay, while being ok to keep another that wouldn't is not exactly of that nature. Even the most casual reasoning for abortion ("I don't want…

You're talking about rationalisations. The subjective ethical considerations depend on the context in which the decision is taken, and none of this discovery changes the context.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#116

Post by kapauldo » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:34 AM UTC

quantumofmalice wrote: post #66

zer00eyz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.

Being opposed to homosexuality is like neon being opposed to being black. You don't choose it.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#117

Post by matthewmacleod » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:41 AM UTC

thisrod wrote: post #98

So why is this a surprise? The experiments on identical and fraternal twins were done decades ago, and there just isn't any doubt that genes influence sexual orientation. Nor is there any possibility that they determine it: many gay men and lesbians have straight identical twins.

It's not a surprise, it's just scientific research.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#118

Post by matthewmacleod » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 11:51 AM UTC

quantumofmalice wrote: post #66

zer00eyz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.

I would be considered opposed to homosexuality

I'm keen to hear what you consider it to mean to be "opposed to homosexuality".

If you were to consider homosexuality a disordered condition (i.e. disease), then being "opposed" to it is pretty nonsensical, in the same way it would be meaningless to be "opposed" to autism or "opposed" to diabetes.

If that's not the case, then would you consider yourself to be "opposed" to it in the legal sense (homosexual acts should be illegal)? The social sense (homosexuality should be publicly shunned)? The civic sense (homosexual relationships should have no civic legitimacy)?

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#119

Post by matthewmacleod » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 12:01 PM UTC

throws990 wrote: post #18

First critique that immediately comes to mind is how the 1,077 homosexual men and 1,231 heterosexual men were selected. If Republicans have taught us anything, it's that self-reporting is not an accurate measure. From the paper: "classified men as homosexual based on both their self-reported sexual identity and sexual feelings" Furthermore, how does this study explain sexual fluidity? IE: I liked kissing boys when I…

I mean, there's no real other way to classify sexuality beyond self-selection. There might be bias in it, but that's okay and can be accounted for.

And it doesn't have to explain sexual fluidity. Human sexuality is pretty flexible by nature, but you could easily see that some genetic changes could lead to predisposition.

Re: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality

#120

Post by cabalamat » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 12:05 PM UTC

peatmoss wrote: post #5

Wow, the bioethical implications of potentially identifying the mechanism of sexual orientation are staggering. I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other.

> I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy.

I'm not sure that'll ever be possible. Once a gene has "done its work", possibly when the fetus was in the womb, that least to homosexuality (or whatever other characteristic is of interest), then editing the genome will have less or no effect.

> Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other.

This seems a lot more doable to me.

I expect it will be possible by 2025-2030.