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

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

#121

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:01 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #111

coldtea wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Since it doesn't affect one's capacity to live, work, perform, etc and general health, then it could be seen as such (if one was willing to) but not justifiably more than e.g. having blue eyes.

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

#122

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

mfukar wrote: post #115

coldtea wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You're talking about rationalisations.

And morality is all about rationalizations.

>The subjective ethical considerations depend on the context in which the decision is taken, and none of this discovery changes the context.

Of course it does, as it adds another factor one can request an abortion for -- and the preference against or for that (having a gay baby) is not morally seen as neutral as e.g. not wanting a sickle cell anemic baby.

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

#123

Post by junto » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

flukus wrote: post #32

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.

It's interesting how the timing has an effect on the ethical implications as well. If we had this technology 50 years ago it would be a clear cut case of selecting the straight genes only. This discovery coming now means that the debate could go the other way (no interfering). Much of the world is also less friendly to homosexuality, to put it lightly. I wonder if they will eliminate it entirely?

Say hello to mutation. The process that says screw you to trying to try and remove such genes.

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

#124

Post by junto » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #87

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.

Birth order is another known input for male homosexuality.[1][2] For every older biological brother, the chances of being born gay go up substantially. But the mechanism isn't known yet. A number of other objective measurements also change with birth order. Parent genetics alone aren't enough. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626369/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28608293

Interesting. Then by that rationale, since families used to on average produce vastly more children per closed family unit, the amount of gay children in total should be dropping?

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

#125

Post by r00fus » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 2:24 PM UTC

yipopov wrote: post #107

r00fus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. (edit - spelling)

Whose cognitive dissonance?

Those that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare".

My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.

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

#126

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #118

quantumofmalice wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" t…

[deleted]

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

#127

Post by hackeraccount » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

zer00eyz wrote: post #67

quantumofmalice wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for your candor: Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question. If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?

It's not a popular analogy but (for me) it's similar (though clearly not the same) to saying the same thing for alcoholism. I'd still have kids but I'd make sure they were aware of the facts - and the main thing I'd let them know is that they did have control over how the acted if not - according to the scenario - how they felt.

A related question would be - would you have kids if under the same scenario conditions - there was a 100% chance they'd drop dead at age 10? Or 5? That potential child has a chance at life and everything wonderful and terrible it entails but not in any way that you conceive it. You'd think it horrible but maybe they'd feel grateful for the chance. Maybe they'll be the first 10 year old to cure cancer.

It's not the same thing but for it gets at the spirit of it. I mean, my child will have different problems then me. Heck, they might not even view things that I see as problems as problems. It's still my responsibility to raise them to live the best life possible as I see it and then to give them the chance to do that.

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

#128

Post by SamReidHughes » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 5:17 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.

Unless homosexuality is directly useful for reproduction, if the findings here are correct, these genotypes probably have some sort of reproductive advantage. I'd bet you replacing would harm the child in some way, or in certain combinations with other genes.

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

#129

Post by vinni2 » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #111

coldtea wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Firstly, homosexuality has been declassified as a disorder by American psychological and psychiatric associations for several decades now [1]

Secondly, how is terminating a pregnancy because the fetus is going to be a homosexual person different from terminating because of a specific gender of the fetus? For example, in India aborting because the fetus is female is illegal or it’s rather illegal to find the gender of the baby before he or she is born.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology Edit: typos

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

#130

Post by debatem1 » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #113

jschwartzi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even without genetic predisposition this is the Catholic stance-- that being gay isn't a sin, but having gay sex is.

Of course, this is sophistry; ask about whether two celibate gay men would be allowed a Catholic wedding and the answer will be no because they can't have children, nature of marriage, yadda yadda. Ask whether a man or woman without intact junk can get married and suddenly it's love that is really important.