This post by Ron Bailey on whether or not parents might do things to help ensure that their offspring are straight reminds me of this post of mine from a while back:

Suppose we find that there is something different about the brains of gay men and women (a proposition for which there's already abundant and growing evidence). If we can come up with an affordable, painless therapy that "fixes" this and converts them from "gay" to "straight," should we a) allow them to take advantage of it, or b) forbid them from doing so, or c) require them to? And should "straight" (i.e., exclusively heterosexual) people be allowed to become gay, or bi?

These are the kinds of issues that separate me from conservatives.

Give them the option, but don't require it. Likewise give parents the option of making the choice for their pre-natal children (from what I've read, there's plenty of evidence that homosexuality is determined, or at least heavily influenced, by exposure to the opposite-sex hormone during gestation, which should be easily avoidable).

An argument could be made for mandating that unborn children be treated to prevent homosexuality on the grounds that being homosexual is likely to reduce their reproductive fitness, thus qualifying it as a serious, if not life-threatening, birth defect.

But we live in a society which allows parents to pre-emptively cripple their children so the kids will be "more like them [the parents]" rather than better than the parents (as any sane parent should prefer), so I doubt that argument will get much traction.

If Asia and India are any indicator, once homosexual babies are optional homosexuality will be eliminated from the human population. Whether they are allowed to or not, many people will choose to not have homosexual babies because they themselves are not homosexual (by definition, they reproduced). There will be a few homosexuals that protest and have there own kids - but it is unlikely that such a kid would be homosexual and so it wouldn't propagate very far.

Probably a loss for the species - a lot of the best people I know are gay. (Some of the worst, too, truth be told...)

"poor impulse control"

I read recently that there is evidence that the brains of young men who live with an involved male parent (as opposed to a distant or nonresident male parent) develop differently. Specifically the portions of the brain associated with impulse control (frontal cortex?) are better developed in young men who lived with an involved male parent.

I think I've also heard some things about psychotherapy and if and how it affects the physical brain, specifically that the brain is different after extensive psychotherapy. The overall thinking here is that if something we do has a real affect in our minds, there should be, and actually there is, a physical brain manifestation which results from whatever it is we are doing (involved male parenting, psychotherapy, drugs).

I'd say there is a feedback system in place whereby behavior and environment affects brain development which affects behavior. It also suggests to me that physical brain development is not necessarily destiny--we can choose to behave differently (e.g. practice controlling my impulses and not wallop the guy who is bugging me) and place ourselves in different environments and, over time, cause changes in our brains which make it easier to behave differently. It'd probably also the case that if we've got a well-worn set of behaviors, it'll be harder to break out of them.

I'll stop picking my nose now. Really.

(I'll leave hanging the question of whether we can really choose and what would enable us to choose.)

I have a five year old son that likes pink and wears dresses. He'll tell you though that its just dress-up. Then he'll go outside and catch a football. He makes difficult catches easily, a superb pair of hands. But he still dresses up in dresses on occasion.

Point being, an involved parent, me in this case, will support my boy in whatever he chooses to do.

The "gay" think is a nature oddity and really is as dead end as anything of the species I have seen...

Robert

These are the kinds of issues that separate me from conservatives.

Yeah, every once in a blue moon.

From the libertarian perspective, "we" shouldn't be choosing anything.

Another thing to point out is that being gay like other things may have hidden evolutionary advantages. But I'd have to say that in today's world of low fertility (in the parts of the world that can afford to select their infants) that there's not much room for a gay child. If that can be "cured", it probably will. The only exception I can see is if gay adults start having kids (and there are ways) like themselves.

There's rather more evidence that Transsexuality is biologically caused. That it is a form of Intersex, where the brain is cross-gendered rather than the genitalia or various glands.
There's some evidence to show that it's a biological advantage to the species to have a few like this, no matter how much it sucks to be TS for the individual.
Anecdotally a 2 Standard Deviation IQ increase - though that is by no means certain - and increased creativity - and I think the latter is proven, at least on the balance of probabilities. Just have a look at how many TS people are architects, engineers, computer scientists...

If society was sane, I might possibly consider not having any child of mine "normalised" in the womb. If our technology was just a little better, as it will be in a century, so that the cross-gendered body can be fixed after birth, thereby retaining all the advantages and deleting the disadvantages, then there's no way "normalisation" would be permitted.

But right now, being TS means being a 4th class citizen. You have to "pass for white" and if your secret gets out, you get fired (or worse). Just look at what's happened at Largo, Florida recently.

Oh yes, in the US, TS people have 17 times the normal rate of being murder victims. About half self-harm before age 20, though how many suicide successfully at some time is still not well known. 30% is often quoted.

You folk err in treating gay as being equal to homosexual. It should be obvious that gay includes, at the least, sadomasochism. To make this debate meaningful will require the use of meaningful terms.

It should be obvious that gay includes, at the least, sadomasochism.

Is should? It never has been to me. It's still not.

There could never be too many bisexual women in the world, AFAIC.

Is should? It never has been to me. It's still not.

Well, you could look at pictures of any Gay Pride parade. Or you could consider what are practices such as fisting. Or you could grow up in a place like NYC where the obvious is, well, obvious.

Is should? It never has been to me. It's still not.

Well, you could look at pictures of any Gay Pride parade. Or you could consider what are practices such as fisting

Yes, you could. You could also talk to gay people who would not dream of anything like that. Or to straight people who are into S&M. The two sets overlap, but are by no means identical.

Now that I think of it, I suspect gays are no more into S&M than straights -- it's just those of them who ARE, are much more flamboyant about it. I have known quite a lot of straight fetishists (of either sex), and none of them would dare parade down the street in leather paraphernalia. It is strictly private activity.

Thank you, Ilya, you are right on cue.

You could also talk to gay people who would not dream of anything like that.

Yes.

Or to straight people who are into S&M.

Yes.

Therefore, if some parent objected to their child being taught S&M techniques, that parent would not be accused of homophobia, right? I mean, that would be so illogical as to be laughable, right?

And, of course, no libertarian would ever excoriate someone over what is a confusion of terms, right?

Therefore, if some parent objected to their child being taught S&M techniques, that parent would not be accused of homophobia, right? I mean, that would be so illogical as to be laughable, right?

I am sure SOMEBODY would accuse them of homophobia. The term I would use for that somebody is "moron".

And, of course, no libertarian would ever excoriate someone over what is a confusion of terms, right?

I would (whether I am libertarian or not is debatable). A meaningful discussion is impossible without clearly defined and agreed-upon term.

I'm not sure how this issue separates you from conservatives -- unless it is the fact that a true conservative response to all this is 1) figuring out how to do something (ie, change whatever causes us to desire one sex or another) is no reason to do it, and 2) having a natural impulse (ie, to engage in homosexual behavior) is no reason to give in to it.

I'm not sure how this issue separates you from conservatives...

Not trying to speak for our host but 'allow', 'forbid' and 'require' likely tell the story.

There could never be too many bisexual women in the world, AFAIC.

I'll agree with Brian here.

What people do with which bits of which other people's bodies is entirely their own affair, as long as nobody gets hurt.

But I would strongly oppose any attempt to change the natural result of homosexuality; not having kids. Certainly that goes double if the government is paying for the insemination.

Does that make me homophobic?

Logically speaking, it should definitely be offered to them. Gay people are a minority, and therefore have a much harder time finding mates.

Of course, if you take this to its logical conclusion, gay and straight people should all be offered a bisexuality therapy. :P