Machiavelli

Ha, a bite.....

Do you assert that homosexuality is a viable genetic characteristic? If not, then it is genetically deviant.

I won't go so far as to say that having that genetic makeup is immoral, but I certainly wouldn't call it desirable. But neithor is infertility, sickle cell anemia, MD, or any other inheritable condition.

Bill Snedden

No flames necessary, however

1) What does "genetically deviant" mean? That it is caused by a mutation? I have not seen any scientific evidence to suggest a genetic "cause" for homosexuality.

2) Even if true, it would have no necessary bearing on the moral status of homosexuality.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Machiavelli
Do you assert that homosexuality is a viable genetic characteristic? If not, then it is genetically deviant.

I do. In fact it is a given, non-viable characteristics do not survive, that's evolution in a nutshell.

I won't go so far as to say that having that genetic makeup is immoral, but I certainly wouldn't call it desirable. But neithor is infertility, sickle cell anemia, MD, or any other inheritable condition.

ANY heritable condition? Red hair? Blue eyes? Sickle Cell is actually very desirable if you live in Malaria country, without at least one copy of the mutation you will die of Malaria.

Amen-Moses

Machiavelli

Off topic?

1. Acknowledges that it is genetic in nature, therefore to call it immoral is as silly as calling someone born with no legs immoral.

2. Portrays it as an undesirable condition that results in a genetic dead end. If evolution is any indication of a succesful genetic makeup, then homosexuality cannot be seen as succesful.

3. I do find it immoral for our society to deem homosexuality on a level ground with heterosexaulity. My basis is that it is counter to the principle of evolutionary success. Just as I would find it immoral to say that it's 'ok' for someone to have a pain filled life of sicle cell anemia.

scigirl

Actually there' s an evolutionary advantage to having the sickle cell trait - did you know that?

Also - who gets to make the distinction for how much suffering is too much? Is acne too much suffering? What about uncontrolled high blood pressure? Benign tumors? Etc etc etc...

scigirl

Daleth

Yes. You trolled. I don't feed trolls. You later even said, "I got a bite." You made none of these points about ethics in your original post. You only commented about deviant genes. so yeah, it was completely off topic.

But would you say it is immoral for someone to live a life filled with pain due to sickle cell?

Or would you say it is immoral for society to put a person with sickle cell on the same level with people who do not?

Dal

scigirl

I started a new thread here for Machiavelli's comments - if anyone is interested.

scigirl

scigirl

Can I ask a dumb question - what's this level Machiavelli keeps referring to? For instance, right now I'm on the 2nd level, but when I go to work later I'll be on the 3rd level. What does this all mean about my morality?

scigirl

Machiavelli

Sorry if you're unable to grasp the depth of my position even though it was stated in only a few words. "A bite" simply meant that you jumped at the opportunity to flame someone without proper consideration of what was posted.

That is not what I said, you completely missed my point.

Having the condition alone has nothing to do with morality. It is our societies response to it that is where morality comes in.

scigirl

So Machiavelli - what should this society's response to sickle cell anemia be? Let's get out of the theoretical fantasy world that I find so many "philosophers" living in, and get into the real world. Let's say I'm a genetic counselor - tell me what to do for patients who have sickle cell anemia. Specifically. Keep in mind there is no cure yet - and may never be one.

Thank you,

scigirl