What would you do if your children are homosexual

Scroll to see replies

Reply 340

Chicken.M.

Would be disappointed but get over it fairly quickly lol.

I want grandkids lmao.

Reply 341

Rorschach II

Original post by MENDACIUM

And why wouldn't you be disappointed? If your son or daughter are biologically designed for something, to be in a position where by virtue of nurture they do not obey natural laws? If we look at this in terms of pure biology, we have 'sex' as a desire to allow our genes to survive. A son or daughter who is gay by default won't have kids, thus nullifying our natural desire.

natural = without human interference. Interfering (or suppressing) sexuality is less natural.
By the theory of evolution in biology, those that procreated, would survive the best. That doesn't dictate a law or purpose.
A homosexual can still have sex with the opposite gender, and procreate. -.-

Original post by MENDACIUM

The problem is, no 'gay' child is ever born. No-one is born gay. It would be based on nurture. Your child would be biologically designed for the opposite gender and sex, but has acquired the tendency to go for the same sex. Why do parents try to find cures when a child loses a leg or arm, but the very reason we humans adapted, the very reasons we have arms legs and organs are to mate with the opposite gender, procreate, and further ensure the survival of our genes, and a condition which makes that impossible is seen as 'positive'.

It is (from my knowledge) based a lot on nurture (but is multifactorial), but nurture doesn't mean socialisation, propaganda etc. (although that comes under nurture). Nurture means environment in this context. The environment could be in the mother's womb, but you can barely dictate that.

Original post by MENDACIUM

You can control their internet access, the books they read, the beliefs they are taught, the support they have , the kind of school they go to, the friends you allow them to come home with, and such. In addition, we human beings are designed, either through an underlying intelligence, or If you're an atheist - evolution. It is an absolute, irrefuteable fact that a woman is biologically adapted for a man, in order to allow their genes to spread. Every single organ in the body is designed for this purpose(survival, growth, for reproduction).

That's just because the women (and man) survived best like that, the way they are. There isn't a purpose, there is "to be". It just happened, by trial & error if we go by the theory of evolution (which I'm sure is the scientific consensus).

Original post by minimarshmallow

We weren't designed. Evolution doesn't have intentionality, it just happens.

That's an amazing way to put it. I've tried to explain of the sorts in other threads before, but this is the easiest (so best) explanation I now know. You don't mind me using it, do you (or just quoting it?) :-D

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 342

TorpidPhil

Original post by ChickenMadness

Would be disappointed but get over it fairly quickly lol.

I want grandkids lmao.

Well it's still possible to an extent...

What do you think about legalised the market for surrogate mothers? 'Ya know, letting women charge people to carry their babies for them?

Reply 343

Rorschach II

Original post by Maid Marian

Dude, that post is ancient.

Lol, I found this thread, but never even realised how old it was (and felt bothered enough to start going through it).
I feel embarrassed now. :colondollar:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 344

aaronlowe

I wouldn't care one way or the other. I care about my kids, not their gender orientation

Reply 345

Chicken.M.

Original post by TorpidPhil

Well it's still possible to an extent...

What do you think about legalised the market for surrogate mothers? 'Ya know, letting women charge people to carry their babies for them?

I think that's fair since they're providing a service for the couple. At the least they should be compensated by the NHS.

Reply 346

TorpidPhil

Original post by ChickenMadness

I think that's fair since they're providing a service for the couple. At the least they should be compensated by the NHS.

Yeah, I'de allow it too tbf since they are choosing to be the surrogate anyway - it's their choice, much like legal, safe prostitution.

I wouldn't allow the market for blood to be legalised though as it would stop most donations and cost the NHS way too much in the long-run.

The organ market I'm not sure about, I think I'de legalise that too.

Reply 347

Lil08

What if they're heterosexual? :lolwut:

Reply 348

Ness'B

I really really want chicken nuggets nicely dipped in BBQ sauce....

Reply 349

Chicken.M.

Original post by TorpidPhil

ye lol your organs are pretty important. You should get more in return than just satisfaction for giving it to someone.

Reply 350

T.I.P

Kick them out the house.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 351

silverbolt

i wouldnt give a damn

Reply 352

voiceofreason234

No chance of that happening to me, I'd raise them in such a way there's no chance they'd turn out queer.

Reply 353

TorpidPhil

Original post by ChickenMadness

ye lol your organs are pretty important. You should get more in return than just satisfaction for giving it to someone.

People are going to whine about making people's health about money though - even though doing precisely that will save lives because more organs will be available... :rolleyes: