Okay, you seem to be a "troller", but I'll answer your question anyway. Will you answer any of mine if I do? You asked "Hmmmm, I wonder if there is a gay gene?" I said, okay, let's suppose there is (I think there might be a set of genes that predispose one to this). So, I gave you a tentative, yes. What then? What are the moral consequences of such a condition?
You then started talking about murder and pedophilia. Not sure why, because we were talking about gays. But that's okay, we'll expand the line of questioning. I then moved to a tabular form with some hypothetical likelihoods of things that you brought up: Murder, Pedophilia, and Gayness.
In a country overpopulated and considering that only females give birth, I'd say that is a rational question to ask if they should limit the number of females. Fish and Game does that all the time. The long term consequences is that the case being female will eventually respond to the law of supply and demand. I think birth control by abortion is a pretty poor way to handle birth rates. In a monogamous society, creating a mismatch between the number of girls and boys is likely to cause other problems.
So, again, what if there were a gay gene, but it wasn't guaranteed to make you gay, just make you more likely to "choose gay" (using your terminology). The rate was 75% of the people who had this "chose gay". What were your feelings about it? |
