[Investblogger]

Many straight people report that gay people are on the verge of ruining their marriages.

Hardly.

You still don't seem to understand that specific instances of unhappiness do not necessarily equate to a less happy life. Often they are a requirement for a truly happy life. I have heard many gay people express wishes that the instances of unhappiness stop. I've heard very few who say they are glad for the instances of unhappiness. Moreover, if we really thought these instances of unhappiness lead (in the long run) to a happier life then we wouldn't want to end homophobia. Efforts to end homophobia would be bad because they would deny gay people the chance of earning a happy life through suffering!

You're just hanging your myopic hat on one factor so that you can pretend you know something that's unknowable. If the answer is unknowable then what's wrong with turning everyone straight? Do you think that the natural proportion of straight and gay people is likely to be more optimal than any other proportion?

Your entire position is status quo bias.

[HakTaisanip]

What if the parent came to you for advice? What if you were the parent?

I would curse the dungeon master and roll a d20 to "save" against the gay. 1-19 and you're straight. (So about 5%, which IIRC is ~ the natural ratio.)

To the contrary, I have presented substantial evidence that flipping the switch to the right would lead to a better result in expectation. You haven't presented any evidence. You've made some oblique references to some evidence you haven't shown.

Strawman. No one has advocated forcible conversion here. You asked what rule I would create that would be applied before children could be born. I stated the obvious problem with anyone (myself included) being tasked with that responsibility. It takes what is essentially a blameless situation and ensures the blame for any negative perceptions from the rule (even if misperceptions) will be harbored against the rule creator.

[constanyiskancho]

Hardly.

There are plenty of instances of straight people showing extreme consternation over the existence of gays. If they were gay, perhaps they would be happier. (mocking you, not my stance)

I have heard many gay people express wishes that the instances of unhappiness stop. I've heard very few who say they are glad for the instances of unhappiness. Moreover, if we really thought these instances of unhappiness lead (in the long run) to a happier life then we wouldn't want to end homophobia. Efforts to end homophobia would be bad because they would deny gay people the chance of earning a happy life through suffering! I am not the one claiming that a specific instance increases or decreases overall suffering. That is so unknowable that I have taken the agnostic stance. You're the one reading a crystal ball to divine the unknowable to support your eugenics policy.

If the answer is unknowable then what's wrong with turning everyone straight? Do you think that the natural proportion of straight and gay people is likely to be more optimal than any other proportion? The problem is that your whim or the whim of any given person (or even a government, democratic or not) should not be responsible for these choices in aggregate. The fact that you don't get this is actually rather scary. I hope you never have any real power to affect people's lives.

I would be ok with parents choosing if the technology existed, since their own happiness is certainly tied to the decision.

[Uvgsgssu]

The problem is that your whim or the whim of any given person (or even a government, democratic or not) should not be responsible for these choices in aggregate.

You are clinging to an untenable action/inaction distinction. To choose to leave the gay/straight proportion to its "natural" course is as much of a choice as any other gay/straight proportion, given the power to actually effect it. You cannot avoid having priors, so you cannot avoid having some estimate of the optimal proportion.

[w4WBthjv]

The problem is that your whim or the whim of any given person (or even a government, democratic or not) should not be responsible for these choices in aggregate.

You are clinging to an untenable action/inaction distinction. To choose to leave the gay/straight proportion to its "natural" course is as much of a choice as any other gay/straight proportion, given the power to actually effect it. You cannot avoid having priors, so you cannot avoid having some estimate of the optimal proportion. No. I can leave things as they were. I have already stated my main concern with doing so, which was so "obvious" a response you have forgotten it already I guess, moron.

You are choosing inaction in regards to countless possibilities right now, and always will be so long as you're alive.

[sensation]

4/10

When did you become so generous?

[gomosopions]

Also, if homosexuality is such a disadvantage, and if it is caused by genetics, why does it even exist?

[spklnraz]

Nah I think the suspicion is gay uncles can assist in the child-rearing, giving families with 'gay' genes an advantage.

[Heacechig]

Also, if homosexuality is such a disadvantage, and if it is caused by genetics, why does it even exist?

There are so many things wrong with this logic it makes my head hurt. To start:

1) Unhappiness is only distantly related (if at all) to reproductive fitness.
2) Many things that are far worse disadvantages to reproductive fitness (e.g. Down's syndrome) continue to exist. The process of natural selection doesn't render every single creature physically ideal.

[viagracheapest]

There are so many things wrong with this logic it makes my head hurt. To start:

1) Unhappiness is only distantly related (if at all) to reproductive fitness.
2) Many things that are far worse disadvantages to reproductive fitness (e.g. Down's syndrome) continue to exist. The process of natural selection doesn't render every single creature physically ideal.

1) Difficulty surviving to reproduce, or meeting some of the prerequisites for reproduction has a clear effect on happiness.
2) You are correct that natural selection does not prevent mutations that cause Down's syndrome

[Intory]

Do either of you two understand Down's Syndrome? It's not a hereditary condition, it is a result of trisomy of chromosome 23...ie, faulty meiosis, ie, ovulation - hence the correlation with the age of the mother. You need to pick a better example methinks.

[appletango]

Do either of you two understand Down's Syndrome? It's not a hereditary condition, it is a result of trisomy of chromosome 23...ie, faulty meiosis, ie, ovulation - hence the correlation with the age of the mother. You need to pick a better example methinks.

1) I am familiar with this. I also know that there is some hereditary component to it (in the sense that some people are at somewhat higher risk of having children with Down's syndrome).
2) We all know that there are plenty of examples of hereditary traits that adversely affect reproductive fitness. It doesn't really matter whether Down's syndrome is a good one.

[Bobdilan]

But being gay doesn't make your penis not work. I don't think being gay really affects reproductive fitness. In most Western cultures, gays just hid it and had kids.

[zabiqapara]

In expectation I believe that turning a gay person straight (retroactively, at least) would make them happier.

Thank you for telling me what would make me happy.

[alexosnasos2]

But being gay doesn't make your penis not work. I don't think being gay really affects reproductive fitness. In most Western cultures, gays just hid it and had kids.

I agree; this is another argument against gribbler's silly detour.

[Saduyre9de]

But those problems are not because the person is gay. It's because the gay person lives in a heterosexist and homophobic society.

You have an incoherent notion of causation.

[vipdumpp]

You have an incoherent notion of causation.

No, you are unwilling to see that depending on how one looks at it you have 2 different root causes of homosexuals potentially not being happy...