Would you replace a homosexual gene in your child if given the choice?

Scroll to see replies

So black people also aren't normal? And muslims aren't normal?

Even going by your logic, non-heterosexual people are "not normal" only insofar as non-White people are in the UK.

Walking through the UK, one would normally encounter white British people rather than non-white people, and in rural areas, people are normally white. It depends on perspective and what we mean by 'normal'. Homosexuality is not the norm in society, regardless. It would be rather unusual and abnormal for me to encounter more homosexuals than I would heterosexuals in day-to-day life. This is what I meant.

Reply 141

Daniellaaa

Yes,so they won't be bullied and ridiculed. I'm completely okay with homosexuality

Reply 142

Gavin2016

Original post by Parkerpenny

They are children......can we not just focus on them being happy and healthy? Why does sex and sexuality have to even come in to the question? My god what is wrong with the world?

What about the father's viewpoint - many might feel raising a son who is homosexual means there efforts and money used to support the child are going on someone who can't reproduce - or highly unlikely/ unconventionally. So a bit of a disappointment in terms of carrying on the family?

Reply 143

Beat

To those who believe it is the right thing to do to prevent oppression and segregation, how else are we supposed to make people realise that homosexuality is natural, and that it is a trait that we are either born with or are born to develop at a later stage in life?

Reply 144

antonyzac

"I want to carry on the bloodline", "I want grandchildren".

How selfish... What if your straight child didn't want children? Would you forcefully make them do that too? It certainly seems so with your logic of replacing their genes.

For those that would replace the gene because of bullying, you replacing your child's gene is just perpetuating the stigma associated with sexuality. If no one replaced the gene, it's indirectly telling society that everyone's OK with homosexuality, and bullying will dramatically fall on that front. It's kind of ironic that you're concerned with bullying but would be OK with perpetuating it.

Reply 145

_Fergo

Original post by Gavin2016

So, the only reason you're spending "money and effort" on your children would be solely to carry on the family?

What a selfish point of view.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 146

sleepysnooze

ummmmm...I might, but either way I'm not bothered. I'd only do it if it meant that they'd have a more comfortable life. theres the other issue of undermining your child's integrity

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 147

MrsSheldonCooper

No I honestly wouldn't, despite coming from an Asian family. I'd rather have my child happy with his life rather than depressed.

If my child was bullied in school for being gay, I would hunt the people who bullied him/her and give them hell on earth.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 148

hoping4Astars

I don't even believe that homosexuality is caused by genes, so no. Even if my child became gay I would not hate them for it or love them any less, regardless of my beliefs on the subject,

Reply 149

Gavin2016

Original post by antonyzac

But would you be happy for your child to be bullied just to tell society something? How might he feel?

Reply 150

antonyzac

Original post by Gavin2016

But would you be happy for your child to be bullied just to tell society something? How might he feel?

My point exactly; there needs to be a fundamental shift in thinking in our society. I alone, by not getting the gene changed, can't do anything to change societal views. It is collective action that is needed to cause societal change, and clearly ~49% of this sample isn't up to that task.

Bullying is always a terrible thing, and it will always happen. Every day someone sends their child to school, there is a chance of them being bullied. It's the support that arises from that bullying that matters. Loving, accepting parents, and loving, accepting friends will make a loving and accepting society where we can only hope bullying on this matter stops. I hope that's clear...

Reply 151

LeoAngliae

Original post by Gavin2016

So if the doctors told you that your son due to be born would be homosexual as he had a dominant gene for homosexuality. Would you replace that gene with another of yours (a straight version) if given the choice by doctors to stop your child becoming homosexual later in life? Hypothetical situation of course.

No. Why would I do that?

(1) It's rare a gene controls just one thing. The physical expression of genetic code is substantially influenced by the "genetic context" and so changing this gene might have other unexpected effects

(2) It would be an unpardonable interference in the child's autonomy as a person and there is no medical justification. You should not carry out medical procedures where there is no real medical justification

(3) Such a decision could only come from pure bigotry. There really is no justification to claim you would do it just to "spare" them from teasing, etc. That kind of hatred has been pretty much stamped out in this country, and it's getting better all the time.

It's not the 1950s anymore. A gay person can grow up and be accomplished, be open about their sexuality at university and in their career, met a like-minded guy, get married and have kids. There really is no reason to interfere in their sexuality except to gratify one's own prejudices. It's pathetic, really

Reply 152

LeoAngliae

Original post by Daniellaaa

Yes,so they won't be bullied and ridiculed. I'm completely okay with homosexuality

So basically your position is that you are happy to wipe out homosexuals from the population in order to "save" them from bullying and ridicule?

This is such a pathetic, homophobic position to adopt. The level of actual bullying and ridicule these days is very low compared to what it used to be, and it's getting less all the time. If the child was conceived today, by the time they are working out their sexuality it will probably be a complete non-issue.

The people who say "yes" to this question are basically saying to gay people that it would be better if they didn't exist. They might convince themselves they are not being homophobic, but this procedure really could only have one justification which is to gratify the prejudices of the person making it

Reply 153

Farm_Ecology

Original post by antonyzac

It wouldn't be forcing the child though. If someone want's their children to have children, obviously they would prefer their children to want to have children. This doesn't mean they wouldn't accept their children if they chose not to.

Reply 154

LeoAngliae

Original post by Gavin2016

But would you be happy for your child to be bullied just to tell society something? How might he feel?

How much bullying actually happens on the basis of sexuality these days? A heck of a lot less than it used to be. Homophobes play up this angle (the same justifications they give for "reparative therapy") to justify a completely unjustifiable position.

To the extent that bullying may happen, these days it's much less the sort of systemic and deeply homophobic bullying than it is kids using any kind of difference as a vulnerability.

A mixed race child might be subject to a little more bullying, that's no reason why we should start meddling with their genes to make them look like a pure race of one or the other parent

Reply 155

LeoAngliae

Original post by Farm_Ecology

This is a completely bogus line of argumentation given gay people can and do have children.

It's clear from this thread that people will try any excuse, and if held up on one will move to another, to justify their determination to use eugenics to wipe out a natural variation that they are prejudiced against

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 156

Cheato

Hmm I think if most were honest they would. If you have gay children, they're unlikely to produce you grandchildren. Nearly every parents wants grandchildren don't they?

Reply 157

tazarooni89

Original post by antonyzac

For those that would replace the gene because of bullying, you replacing your child's gene is just perpetuating the stigma associated with sexuality.

Perhaps, but at least my own child won't be carrying that stigma.

If no one replaced the gene, it's indirectly telling society that everyone's OK with homosexuality, and bullying will dramatically fall on that front. It's kind of ironic that you're concerned with bullying but would be OK with perpetuating it.

Ah, but equally you could say that if everyone replaced the gene, it wouldn't matter whether people are okay with homosexuality or not, because homosexuality would simply no longer exist. Homophobic bullying would not only "dramatically fall", it would eventually be totally eradicated.

But you see, it doesn't make sense to say "if everyone did this" or "if nobody did this" in such a situation. I'm just one individual, who has to make whichever decision results in my own child being better off. I can't assume that, just because I choose a certain option, everybody else is going to follow suit. No matter which option I choose, other people are going to be split about 50:50 on whether they choose to replace the gene or not (going by this thread's current poll results). It's not up to me to cause a monumental shift in the attitude of the entire society and get them all to choose the same option as me. All I can do is think, given the world that we live in, is my child likely to be better off as a homosexual or a heterosexual?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 158

LeoAngliae

Original post by antonyzac

Well said. If everyone opted for this procedure then it would essentially result in wiping out the gay population (and it's possible that this would actually happen in certain countries in the world).

These days the level of bigotry against gay people decreased enormously; fifteen years from now when the kid was actually working out his sexuality, I imagine it would be pretty much non-existent given how quickly things have changed in the last 15 years.

It's not the 1950s, it's the 2010s; it's entirely possible for a young gay person to be open in their sexuality at university and then in their career, to meet another like-minded chap and marry him, have children, to be considered a normal and respectable person.

I can understand how bigoted homophobes would say "Yes, absolutely!" to this procedure (no doubt justifying it on the basis that they are "saving" their child from the "horror" of being gay). What is sinister is how people who claim not to be homophobic are nonetheless willing to advocate a policy that is essentially anti-gay eugenics.

I'm totally okay with being gay, I like the way I am. It's a part of me. I wouldn't change it if I could, and I think most of my gay friends feel the same way. It's just a natural variation in human sexuality that has been around since the year dot.

Reply 159

LeoAngliae

Original post by Gavin2016

What about if it was the pedo gene, would you replace that gene?

Obviously, given paedophilia can lead to criminality and possibly even imprisonment. It would be fundamentally damaging to their life prospects in a way that homosexuality clearly is not.

But you already knew that, didn't you? You're just an ugly little bigot, and your eagerness to compare homosexuality to paedophilia completely discredits you.

ISIS also asserts that homosexuality is essentially paedophilia, I wonder what else you have in common with them?