« Fatalities among foreigners in Iraq | Main | Terrorists are people too... »
July 18, 2005
But what if it worked?
The New York Times reports on the storm that ensued when a blogging teenager journaled that he was being shipped off to a re-education center where they would attempt to change him from gay to straight.
The usual suspects all weigh in, about how this is stressful for the young person, how wrong it is to try and change someone like this, etcetera. However, I wondered, is there any reason at all to support this beyond a religious argument?
First, grant the possibility that this could work. We know that the amount of expressed homosexuality is not constant. Some ages, like today, or ancient Greece have had more than the average. Others, like Afghanistan under the Taliban, have had far less. It seems unlikely that this is caused by genetic differences between populations. Therefore, some incidence of homosexuality is environmental rather than genetic. Since most learned habits that can be unlearned, it does not seem beyond the pale of sense that we might either today or at some point be able to change the sexuality of some people. Add in genetic modification later and we may be able eventually to nearly eradicate the likelihood that a person is born or raised with homosexuality urges.
Okay, so maybe it is possible. Is there any reason we might want to do so? Could love of a child be a reason? Homosexuality behavior makes one more likely to be the victim of discrimination, and in the case of male homosexuality, more likely to experience a sexually transmitted disease. It doesn't seem out of the question that a parent would want to tell their children not wear an anti-abortion t-shirt (to avoid heated arguments with strangers) or making them stop smoking (because it is bad for your). They could do so out of love and in the teen's interest even if the demand is stressful for the teen. Homosexuals give up the opportunity to have children where both parents contribute DNA to the child. Since this is the one lasting way that most people can contribute to the future, this might have some merit as well. Since heterosexuals greatly outnumber homosexuals, there might be an argument that to have the best shot at finding an excellent life partner, you have to fish in the deepest pool. I am not crazy about this argument because it suggests that maybe we should all convert to the dominant religion, political ideology, manner of dress and hobbies for the same reason.
Or maybe they are just fundamentalist bigots who hate their children and would rather rule over a kingdom of ash than have homosexual child.
Posted by OneEyedMan at July 18, 2005 4:48 PM
Comments
I think the reason there aren't any OUTED homosexuals in Afghanistan under Taliban rule is because they would surely be executed. Moreover, I think this is the reason you'll find more outed homosexuals in liberal metropolis' since these are the places they would find the lease discrimination. This isn't to say that there aren't homosexuals in these other areas though. In addition, there have been recent findings (and not so recent for that matter) suggesting that there are specific genes involved in sexual preference so the suggestion that it's mostly enviornmental, and re-education camps can cure these individuals, is highly unlikely.
On another note, more philosophical perhaps, what if mother nature made homosexuals as a way of controlling the population? She knows they are unable to reproduce and therefore making a subset of people gay will control population growth. So, should we really try to get rid of them and go against mother nature? This could also be the argument for why we have disease and cancer.
Posted by: BlueEyedGirl ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.belligerati.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 19, 2005 3:13 PM
It seems unlikely that homosexuals serve as a direct natural control. Viewed from a selfish gene perspective, we might suspect that having some homosexual genes provide a survival or sexual advantage, but that having too many makes your DNA die out.
I prefer not to think of sexuality as a pure binary state but instead as two variables, attraction to men and women. When compelled to choose a partner of a certain gender, some are above a critical threshold for both and can switch (or settle) even though they prefer the other gender. Others choose to remain celibate or practice in secret. This preserves the argument above without requiring that any sexuality be socialized.
Posted by: TheOneEyedMan at July 19, 2005 5:33 PM
Are you saying you like guys?
Posted by: BlueEyedGirl at July 19, 2005 5:48 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)