From the point of view of passing on genes, that would be correct.

No because it is the same point of view than saying "brown eyes" are the normality. They arent' , they just are the dominant gene.

Beacuse I think that as soon as we pinpoint gay people will try to fix it. And there's nothing to be fixed.

Case in point. I'll refrain from posting my opinion from now on, especially in this thread because it's of no use to you.

Right. Because that's exactly what happens when we find scientific proof of the things we're dying to know. People drop their beliefs and become more enlightened and understanding and tolerant, rather than sticking to the things they've always known, things taught to them via religion or their parents, or society at large. Because of course you can create tolerance via scientific knowledge - because it's happened so frequently in the past... Sorry, I have no trust in that idea and believe that this sort of scientific knoweldge, on the "cause" of homosexuality, will only lead to an attempt to "fix the problem" when no problem exists. You see enlightenment, and I see genetic shopping and medical cures for "the problem".

And that really is it folks. You'll find my uselessness, and willing to accept things at face value, lack of science, away from here. Time to go wash my magic car.

While I think you might get a few people to lay off....being black is definitely and unequivocally genetic, and that hasn't stopped racism one damn bit.

Anyone remember something about blind or deaf parents chosing to not 'cure' their child/children? I don't recall if it was about genetics or not.

I think we're a long way from being able to genetically engineer the homosexuality out of kids. Far enough away so that we don't need to worry about that quite yet and stall scientific advances just so we don't reach that point. A lot can be gained from understanding why people do what they do.

And, being pro-choice, I kinda think that a parent shouldn't have to endure a pregnancy she doesn't want, and that includes being pregnant with an unwanted gay kid. Personally, I don't think we have to worry about gay fetuses getting aborted out of existence either. I personally wouldn't mind having a gay son or daughter, and you can't forget that the people who really oppose homosexuality also really oppose abortion.

Well it took me a while to get you to admit this but it's good to see you finally come clean.

Well hold on now. It's got nothing to do with what is of any use to ME.

What I suspected (rightly as it turned out) was that you wanted to pretend there was no scientific basis for the causes of sexual preference, not because you REALLY didn;t think there was any scientific basis, but because you thought there might be problems if we figured it out.

Which is to say, you were being disingenuous.

But if you sincerely believed that there was nothing scientific to be discovered, all I'm saying is, openly and honestly, that your beliefs on the matter do not matter. At all. If there's something to be discovered it will be discovered. (Whatever you might happen to believe.)

I don't think everyone will change their minds. I do think it provides some people with a counter-argument to those who refuse to change their minds (who claim that gayness is a sin, or a depraved choice, or some such).

I mean, it doesn't see that the status quo is so enlightened so I'm not confident that the counterfactual you propose ("Hey, let's just stay ignorant!") is such a good one.

I was discussiing this recently. The idea is that the deaf have their own language and sense of community, and treating their deafness directly would "spoil" that.

I don't know of any blind person who doesn't want to not be blind, on the other hand, but who knows.

Having brown eyes is hardly central to passing on one's genes.

Yeah cos being gay isn't just about sex with someone of the same sex, it's about attraction, physical and emotional, and it's about love.

Yeah, my sister has had a long term interest in working with the deaf. She's actually going back to school for audiology, and holds the opinion you suggested. I suppose I can understand. I wonder if black people in early 20th century America would be willing to undergo a "whitening" operation so that they could more easily integrate in the culture-at-large, or would they rather live within the subculture they are familiar with among the people they love and understand and who understand them?

I was discussing this with me girlfriend's family while we were on holiday in NZ very recently.

This is going to lead to thread drift, but ... here's why I disagree with your sister. And I used the gay/straight comparison in the discussion I had rather than the black/white one, but the point is the same.

I see the main issue with being gay, or being black, and being able to function in society, as an issue mainly determined by society itself. "Whitening" or "straightifying" someone is simply making their sexuality or skin colour a scapegoat for society's intolerance. It's a cosmetic "fix" for a fundamentally social problem.

But the main issue with being deaf is that you can't hear, and society has nothing causally to do with that.

Not being able to hear means you are disadvantaged from the perspective of safety (being able to hear traffic noises, say), as well as aesthetically (not being able to listen to music).

Moreover, if one learns to sign while deaf, and then miraculously has one's hearing fixed, you can still sign and still communicate with those who only sign. But you can also communicate via speech.

Here's the imaginary hypothetical I'd invite people to contemplate: you have a baby on the way, and you can wave a wand and change something about it ... would you do that?

- if it was going to be gay would you wave your wand to make sure it's "born straight"? (Assuming babies are born gay or straight, of course...)
- if it was going to be deaf would you wave your wand to make sure it's born with hearing?
- if it was going to be blind would you wave your wand to make sure it's born with sight?
- if it was going to be born without arms would you wave your wand to make sure it's born with them?

If I could wave a wand, I'd say "No, yes, yes, yes."

What about you?

I figured as much. You've never said anything of offense previously.
there's two for good measure!