I certainly don’t have a window into your mind or your understanding, but it seems highly unlikely that you yourself had very much personal experience with either family or close friends who are gay/experience same gender attraction, whichever mode of description you prefer. I realize this is somewhat of a logical leap to make such a jump, but I feel like if you knew me personally and my journey, you wouldn’t be hypothesizing about a cure or prevention for what you view as some kind of undesirable state of being influenced by either by biology or environment or some mix of the two.

I feel like you’ve given a rather cursory review of the “LGBT” experience, and have failed to fully evaluate the full range and depth of that experience beyond it being simply a source of pain. I also feel like your referencing of scientific literature as being scarce is completely inappropriate. While we may not have come to an understanding of whatever influences might lead to the development of homosexuality, there certainly has been a consistent effort to evaluate homosexuality and same gender relationships, and it hasn’t just stopped because society has decided to be “tolerant”.

You also seem to have failed to recognize the contributions to that “gay” individuals make to society, both historically and currently. I think before you reduce our contribution to simply a failure to procreate (at least in the context of a male-female monogomous relationship, which it appears your assumption is the preferred and biologically most valuable construct), you might evaluate and consider what value we might actually have.

You yourself recognize its hard to disassociate sexuality from other characteristics of a person and I agree that any idea we might have is anecdotal or conjecture. (That’s not exactly an evaluation that any scientific study could offer.) I can’t sort out what parts of my person-hood have been influenced or may even be directly linked to whatever complex factors resulted in my experiencing of the desire for love, attachment, intimacy, companionship or sexual desire being different than yours. However, it seems clear in examining my own person and in getting to know many others, that to carve out homosexual from our experience would be to somehow remove a part of our soul and a very critical part of who we are, perhaps most importantly to me personally is my sensitivity an empathy for others. I’m not sure that would have survived whatever measures we might someday to discover to “eliminate” homosexuality. I would argue that the onus is on you to somehow prove that such measures wouldn’t cause more harm than good. Positing the question begs a rather detailed evaluation of the homosexual experience and I find it somewhat surprising how easily and quickly you’ve decided “gay” has no biological or societal value.

You say that genetic manipulation and selection is coming, and is inevitable. All the more reason to challenge your line of thinking and evaluate if our own potential failures in perspective, insight, or possibly misguided value judgement need to be checked.

I have heard the “pill” analogy multiple times. What if there was one pill that could have changed this part of me? I have friends who answer differently, and I myself have had different periods of my life where my wishes have morphed and changed. However, it seems like the more I have been able to be fully open and honest about my experience without fear of punishment, ostracisim, prejudice or whatever broad range of “intolerance” I’ve encountered from “society” and from people in my own personal life, I have come to value this part of who I am more and more. So if we’re talking politics and societal constricts, I would argue that until society is able to fully embrace and love homosexuals without using religious constructs to justify marginalization of my experience and placing my desires for companionship as somehow less than the heterosexual norm, then we better be extremely careful about taking on the role of God and carving out that pervasive experience of a good portion of our population.

I would venture our lives and existence, and even our human relationships go much further beyond simply an inability to procreate with our partner of choice (without technological assistance). I would ask you to make a little more effort to understand the experience and value of homosexuals, and instead of responding in a way that dismisses the counter arguments and questions that people have posited you take a step back and evaluate your own inherent biases.

I am gay, and it isn’t easy a lot of the time. Some of the things Sven brought up resonated with me: it’s tough when such a small percentage of people are gay, because there’s such a small pool of potential people to have relationships with, and it’s so hard to find nice guys who are genuinely interested in more than hooking up. Also, I don’t want to have to move to a large city just for that purpose (although this is changing, thankfully).

For me, it’s complicated. That is, most of the time I wouldn’t change anything about myself. But on occasion I do think of it like I would acne or any other physical ailment, and at those times, if I could, I probably would go back in time and tell my parents to try the treatment this thought experiment presents.

I’m not saying I’m typical of all gay people. But that’s the entire point – some people would probably do this, and many would not, and who are we to deny other people what they feel is the right decision for them? I think having the option is important.

Mostly, I’m tired of other people feeling moral outrage on my behalf. Let us speak for ourselves instead of using us in some kind of political game. For all the posters who have tried to grapple with these questions kindly and intelligently, thank you. For everyone else, let me fight (and choose) my own battles.

While you’re playing God… How about locating the missing brain cells/genes in people who chose to follow heinous cults like yours. It must be truly painful being part of such a ridiculous minority. Perhaps you could re-instate the missing cells/genes prior to birth ensuring a future free of deluded morons and prevent another generation from being ripped off by such a ludicrous, fraudulent after life insurance policy.

Given there’s homosexual behaviour in a small percentage of practically every species of animal on the Earth, who exactly do you think you are to mess with nature? As they say… Those who can’t, teach.

Perhaps GOD created homosexuals to compensate for obnoxious over breeding morons?

No.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

I am also sure the people who are very tall (over 6 ft 6 inches) suffer because of their height. There may be a few basketball players who benefit, but the rest of them suffer from chronic back pain, discomfort in airplanes and theatres and the shame of blocking the view of other people at concerts. Let’s try to find the gene to eliminate this abnormality.

In fact, there is just plain too much human diversity. We should find the genes that cause all this diversity and eliminate it. That is surely what God would want us to do… I am sure God didn’t mean to create homosexuality, blackness or tallness. Let’s fix that.

Best to you.

Other research has shown that homosexuality is correlated with other things, particularly related to gender, but I won’t go there now.

I’ve pondered the question of who would I be if I had been born gay. I really have no idea, just as I imagine that gay people would have a hard time answering the question the other way around. My guess is that I’d be largely the same in the most important ways–but such counterfactuals are always sticky.

Thanks for your very useful comments, again. So far you’ve given me lots more to think about, though I doubt I’ll stick my toes again in this pond for awhile. There is definitely a lot of deep-seeded pain here (that, I already knew, but it is good to be reminded). I wish you and yours well.

I can’t go there with you. The underlying reason that you ask the question at all is because gays and lesbians do not fit your worldview. Rather than working to change that worldview, fighting for legal equality and making the road easier for your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters (and even if you think that you are), you are going down the road of preventing the problem to begin with (because clearly gay people are such an imposition).

Would Jews choose not to be Jewish under the Nazi regime? I would hope so for their sake, but that would only because I would place more value on their lives than principle: it is a false choice. Would Jewish people in Tel Aviv choose not to be Jews? Why on earth would they want to make a decision like that?

I was raised LDS in an anti-Mormon community. That was difficult. Did that make me not want to be Mormon? No. I work with left handed people. Would they choose to be right handed? I have asked them and they said no. In the same way, a gay teen who has GAs for parents may well wish he wasn’t gay (because then his parents would love him more) while the committed gay or lesbian couple raising children would never think of asking such a question.

I disagree with you on the point about my comment regarding the prevention of homosexuality being unhelpful–that is exactly What we are discussing. You do not see homosexuals like me being as good or as desirable as people like you. If you did, there would be no reason to have this conversation.

This is the kind of conversation that I remember having at BYU. It is also the reason why I left.

It would remove religious conflict, after all, right. It would remove the stress of having to deal with people of other faiths and possibly being a minority faith yourself.

…I suspect that you might find there to be aspects of religion that are worth keeping independently of the potential for stress and harm, though.

One thing I want to point out that a lot of who we are is affected by a sum total of things — experiences, genetics, epigenetics, neurology, and so on. I’ll get to that later in the comment, but for now…

If someone you love is straight turns out to be gay, are not going to still love him/her? Do they all of the sudden become a different person to you? Or, isn’t it more like you learn something about them you didn’t know, but they are still the same people?

One things that you might not know if you don’t know a lot of gay people is that this is precisely the experience many gay people have in our society when they come out. They become aware that 1) the closeted facade that they were presenting is a vastly different person than the non-closeted self they previously had not been presenting but which they now are…and 2) that many people do view them as very different people before and after.

Perhaps this is the consequence of living in a heterosexist world, but the coming out process, for a number of possible reasons, does reveal someone to be “totally different.” It’s usually not like finding out that someone likes a particularly interesting food.

And I think part of the reason is because of something you said in response to an earlier comment of mine. People perceive sexuality to be “biologically profound.” But people probably don’t perceive one’s like of pistachio (for example) ice cream to be profound, either in a biological OR a sociological sense.

This language you use of “preventing gay people from existing in the first place” is very unhelpful. The issue is preventing one characteristic, albeit an important and complex one, not “eliminating homosexuals,” as an earlier commentator kept saying.

I guess really, this is a question of how simple you think sexuality is as a characteristic. On the one hand, you call it “one” characteristic…but on the other, you call it an “important and complex one.” But isn’t it possible that sexuality a) isn’t just “one” characteristic and/or b) that it affects other characteristics? Even if this is not a biological effect but more of a sociological effect, then if people are defined by “experiences, genetics, epigenetics, neurology, etc.,” (as I mentioned above), then this one characteristic could seem to have a domino effect.

I mean, in our society, our sexuality is seen not just as affecting sexual relationships, but non-sexual social relationships as well. Our sexuality is often implicated in our hobbies (however stereotypical this may be), our gender presentation, jobs, etc.,

If homosexuality were prevented in utero, the baby would still be born and would be in almost all ways the same person. He or she would still exist! They would be different, to be sure, but still in most ways the same person.

I guess the issue is that if sexuality impacts all of those other things (whether biologically or sociologically), then if homosexuality were prevented in utero, it wouldn’t necessarily be the case that the baby “would be in almost all ways the same person.” At the very least, he would have different experiences as a result of a different sexuality, and THAT would lead to a very different person alone.

Isn’t that part of the standard gay rights rhetoric: “people are basically the same, some just have a homosexual orientation which is as normal as a heterosexual orientation.”

I guess one question would be: is there ONE consistent, standard for gay rights rhetoric? My guess would be no. Similarly, there isn’t “one feminism.” There isn’t “one religious viewpoint” (for any given religion — though many religions try to assert an orthodoxy.)

But a second question would be: is it inconsistent to say “people are basically the same, some just have a homosexual orientation which is as normal as a heterosexual orientation” and say “homosexuality is the central, defining characteristic of the person that reaches into every aspect of their life.””

I don’t think it is inconsistent. After all, we could say that *both* heterosexuality and homosexuality are central defining characteristics of people that reach into every aspect of their life. Then, it would be true that “people are basically the same.”

So, for example, we could say, “All people seek beauty. Their sexuality is a characteristic that reaches into this part what someone will find beautiful. All people seek companionship. Their sexuality is a characteristic that reaches into this aspect of their life. All people seek friendship. Their sexuality is a characteristic that reaches into this aspect of their life.”

^These would be traits that sexuality defines and reaches down into.

It would then be consistent to say, “And whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual, they will be essentially the same in seeking these things.”

If homosexuality is such an enormous part of one’s identity, isn’t that more of reason to prevent it if possible, not less? That seems extremely stressful to live that way (and I realize that the importance of sexuality in one’s life varies tremendously both within the homosexual and heterosexual groups).

This is only if you think homosexuality is undesirable. We could make this about any other characteristic: “If one’s religion is such an enormous part of one’s identity, isn’t that more of a reason to prevent it if possible, not less? That seems extremely stressful to live that way (and I realize the importance of one’s religion in one’s life varies tremendously both within majority religion and minority religious groups.”

^but most people wouldn’t think about trying to prevent religion. Even if there is stress from being in a religion (especially a minority religion)…even if there is stress from converting…people think it’s worth it.

And psychologists have done work on religious personality types. Within any culture, there seem to be people more inclined to religiousity than others.

Sorry, I don’t have any references for you. But that research should not be too hard to find if you want to look for it.

Are you saying that if the gay people you know and care about had been born straight, you wouldn’t still love them?

If someone you love is straight turns out to be gay, are you not going to still love him/her? Do they all of the sudden become a different person to you? Or, isn’t it more like you learn something about them you didn’t know, but they are still the same people?

If someone you love who you think is gay turns out not to be gay (as happens sometimes) do you stop loving them? Do they become a different person?

This language you use of “preventing gay people from existing in the first place” is very unhelpful. The issue is preventing one characteristic, albeit an important and complex one, not “eliminating homosexuals,” as an earlier commentator kept saying.

If homosexuality were prevented in utero, the baby would still be born and would be in almost all ways the same person. He or she would still exist! They would be different, to be sure, but still in most ways the same person.

Isn’t that part of the standard gay rights rhetoric: “people are basically the same, some just have a homosexual orientation which is as normal as a heterosexual orientation.”

But when the issue of preventing that orientation arises, all of a sudden the rhetoric shifts to, “homosexuality is the central, defining characteristic of the person that reaches into every aspect of their life.” So, its sort of like people with your views are shifting the arguments as it suits them.

If homosexuality is such an enormous part of one’s identity, isn’t that more of reason to prevent it if possible, not less? That seems extremely stressful to live that way (and I realize that the importance of sexuality in one’s life varies tremendously both within the homosexual and heterosexual groups).

As many people of my generation have, I’ve shifted my views regarding homosexuality over my life considerably. This is mostly through listening to gay people tell their stories. When they do, they seem pretty much like straight people to me, worthy of the same love and respect.

Many gay people go through life facing extreme hardships due to abuse and discrimination; those experiences often shape who they are considerably. There is no doubt about that.

But, suppose that weren’t the case. Suppose we could look at two versions of the same person: one straight, one gay (sort of like the twins example I started with). Would they be radically different people?

If that person were you, and you could make a decision which of those versions to be, why would you pick the gay version over straight version? Or why would you pick your child to be gay over straight?

That is what I’m interested in understanding better. I don’t think very many people, if they were honest, would pick to be the gay person for a variety of reasons or to choose for the child to be gay for reasons quite independent of the hostile world that gays face.

I understand that given that we are who we are, it is best to show love and respect to people gay or straight. I understand that those who have gay friends and loved ones don’t want to send the message that there is something wrong with their loved ones, that their love for them is less than it would be if they were straight.

But that is not the issue I’m trying to get at.

It is a kinder, gentler way to cleanse and eliminate the undesirables. We will tolerate the lefties and gingers among us but simply prevent new ones from being born thereby saving them from the difficulties of being different. And once we rid ourselves of the gays, those with freckles, etc., then we can talk about those races and religions that should be prevented.

I thought Prop 8 was pretty low, but arguing for research to prevent gay people from existing in the first place? This may fly at BYU or in LDS circles but it has no place in my life or the lives of those I care about.

In any case, learning about and understanding the FSP is inspirational. I think the FSPers can take the anger and public protestations from the establishment as an acknowledgement of the budding success of the project. Well done!

I don’t think I explained the “efficiency” part very well. Partly because I’m not sure I completely understood the question.

How do I maintain this illusion? By scrupulously avoiding the evidence of my senses!

Thanks for responding again. I know I’m long-winded, and I apologize.

You point out the differences between race and sexuality as being that one is biologically profound and one is not. I would venture, however, to say that to speak of “profundity” is speaking of the *sociological* aspect, because our values are sociological. In other words, whether or not race is a big deal (or whether or not race’s biological aspect are considered a big deal) is actually a sociological matter. So, for example, race realists will believe that race is not biologically trivial. They will think that the hard science backs them up on that.

Like what matters to us about race is not whatever is biologically the case about race — we have racism *even if* race is biologically trivial. Race is a big issue in society *even* if it is trivial. That’s precisely because society cares about what is *socially* profound.

When you speak of sexuality being biologically profound, this isn’t really a biological statement. This is a sociological statement about biology.

Does it make sense to say that in the homophilic world homosexuality will cause people to “struggle,” as you say? If everyone is accepting, where does the struggle come from? Wouldn’t the existence of struggle in such a world indicate something undesirable?

Great response. In my three answers before, I was trying to cover several bases: 1) does it matter if creating an homophilic society is difficult? [My answer: no; it doesn't matter in other minority situations either. And I'm not saying the task will be easy, only that it will be worth it.] 2) Is creating a homophilic society difficult? [My answer: Probably so, but that doesn't mean we can't improve things immensely] 3) Why should we continue trying? [My answer: because even if we don't ever get there, the *process* is a process that strengthens us all.]

So, my point 3 is kinda assuming that the homophilic world has not yet been achieved (and may not be achieved). In the homophilic world (as with the anti-racist world), it’s true that homosexuality (as with race) would not cause people to struggle — there would doubtlessly be other areas of struggle — and those areas of struggle would indicate something to change.

The question — as it always is — is what needs to change. Is it the individual, or is it the social system around?

It took studies like that 1952 study to start to change minds. That study, by the way, suggested a much stronger role for a genetic basis than scientists believe today. So, if you want to preach the “born that way” hypothesis, you’d be much better off sticking to the 1952 study and ignoring the research since then!

The main study I was quoting about epigenetic research comes from 2012. I doubt that the authors of that study would like anything that I’m saying.