Re: Gay Cloning

But I would suspect that just because someone is gay does not mean that they are rabid about wanting everyone else to be gay (presumably so that they can personally molest the whole world???)

I would much rather have a gay person babysit children than a molester.

And however we feel about whether being gay is an absolute vice, perversion, abnormality, acceptable, or just what, it still CAN SOMETIMES be vital that we know and differentiate who has what psychological propensities --- IF this is necessary in order to protect society, and children in particular:

For instance someone once said something about the importance of knowing the propensities of individual characters (if they involve social irresponsibility) using the analogy that they would rather have a child molester guard their bank vault, and a bank robber babysit their children --- if it came down to having to choose.

Of course if the gay person was gay for having been molested as a child and therefore had propensities to molest, that would be a consideration. And most of us wouldn't want a bank robber teaching our children crime, either. (But that might be preferable to them being molested!)

The reason I feel the above point is important to bring out is that some people truly do not think it is important to recognize and differentiate various social irresponsibilities and "sins" and all.

They have somehow been preached to (or otherwise convinced) to lump them all together into one. For instance, I have heard of them saying some very perverted (and perhaps manipulative) things, such as telling casual friends of whom they have just had a glass of wine, that they might as well have had sexual relations with them (as to have consumed a glass of alcohol with them) --- because their personal religious beliefs forbade alcohol. (Hopefully these people will never be called for jury duty.) For one, having a drink with someone of itself is never going to conceive a child (but perhaps only could lead to that).

We cannot just be blind and stupid and presume that every form of social irresponsibility, lust, "sin" --- every vice, and of any extreme --- has the same consequences, or even psychological roots. (Unless we want bank robbers guarding our bank vaults and child molesters babysitting our children, instead of vice versa.)

Real life is just not that "linear." There are other dimensions involved and we must see the whole picture before we can make these sorts of personal judgments (instead of basing them entirely upon our limited human perspectives).

This is one reason why people who assume that cloning must be inherently unethical can be so annoying. (It might otherwise be amusing except it is so pathetic, and in a way perhaps the word "bigoted" also applies.)

When people were pioneers (in America), it was vital for survival to accept one's neighbors both for what they were and for what they were not, and to make such character distinctions and assessments as these (inasmuch as they were applicable to survival).

People were not seen as quite so expendable as they perhaps seem to be today.

Whether you were trying to put out a fire, or get through the winter, or deal with unexpected things of nature which came your way --- you had to both recognize and accept people as they came --- flaws, assets, and whatever particular susceptibilities of character. Sometimes you might even be challenged and have to strive to see the good or significance in another human being. But that is just a part of the life experience.

But if one got too particular about not accepting someone because they couldn't do one one and then refused to recognize they could do another --- well, no doubt survival to a certain extent was based upon this. And I think this is why the elderly people of today are so much more accepting (and appreciative) of other people than the younger generations often seem to be.

ALSO, I FOUND "MONOCLONE'S" COMMENT (further down under this topic) ON THE RATES OF TWIN HOMOSEXUALITY BEING ONLY 40% WAS VERY INTERESTING.

While that is a note-ably high percentage, it also shows that other factors must be very much involved as well, and that the genes perhaps only give propensities to certain specific external factors.* (Perhaps pollutants in our environment? Or many other things, such as social conditioning perhaps too, or some mix of any or all of these factors).

So much for the notion that one's testosterone level is questionable, based upon the leanings of one's political beliefs (towards illogical brawn) --- if pollutants are causing these sorts of hormonal imbalances!

I'm afraid the polluters have many of us (men, that is) thinking our testosterone levels are threatened or questionable, if we do not take a certain mental-block stance about the stupidity of "conquering" our environment, rather than working with it and recognizing that in many ways it is "bigger" than us.

What a surprise for them to find out that it is the ENVIRONMENT which controls THEIR hormonal balances (or imbalances). While they THINK they are "conquering" and controlling it (the environment), in all their pretense of bravado.
___________________
*Actually when one considers that twins (under the usual conditions) are carried to term by the same mother, and at the same time --- this would make this percentage even lower, if it is used to presume a genetic factor involved in being gay.