The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Scroll to see replies

More people have voted yes than no, what a horrible time to be alive.
Original post by LeoAngliae
It's an intellectually fatuous position to say that you would exercise a right you do not claim for yourself. If you have no confidence in the justness of such a right then it is puerile to say you would blindly just go along with it and use it, without exercising any actual moral agency on your own part


That's only if you assume everyone's main priority in life is to be perfectly moral. I think it's quite an unrealistic assumption. I think lots of people would exercise a right they are given, not because they have the confidence that it is morally correct for them to have it, but rather just simply because they or their loved ones are better off that way.

I'm not at all ashamed to admit that if I had children, I'd care for their personal well-being a lot more than that of the millions of unknown strangers who make up society as a whole.


Or perhaps I might exercise a right, not because I actively believe it is moral for me to have it, but because I anticipate that lots of other people will be exercising it. Simple example: if the state made it totally optional to pay tax (I don't believe they should) I certainly would not pay tax, and I don't think many people in their right mind would. I would think that me paying it on my own would accomplish nothing other than disadvantaging me.

Similarly, in a case such as this gene replacement scenario, it might be the most moral if nobody was given this right, or even if they were, nobody exercised it. But I anticipate that 50% of people will exercise it, whether moral or not. So regardless of which option I choose myself, the consequences to society are hardly any different, because society isn't going to club together with me and all choose the same thing. There's little marginal benefit in myself forfeiting a choice that I've been given, the only consequence is a disadvantage to myself and my own children.
Original post by joey11223
at what age do you believe a conscious decision occurred for you to become heterosexual (assuming you are)?

When it comes to sexual fetishes/paraphilias, are these also conscious decisions?


I don't think it's a valid piece of logic to suggest that, if being homosexual is a conscious decision, then being heterosexual must also be a conscious decision.

It's not inconceivable that someone can be born as something by default (with no conscious decision) but then consciously choose to change it. For example, I grew up with certain "phobias" that I didn't consciously choose to have; however, I did consciously choose to overcome them. I don't see why the same can't apply to "-phillias" too.

I'm not saying I think homosexuality is a conscious decision; I wouldn't know. I just don't agree with the logic.
Everyone banging on about overpopulation this and but homo that, i wouldnt change my kid because thats what my child is. If i mess about with the genes (assuming a gay gene) I take away what my child is, i make them someone different and that to me is unconscionable. Unless its a genetic defect (in which case i may consider) then no, any natural occurrence - and yes homosexuality is natural - is just part of who my child will be.
No. Because I'd accept my kid for everything they are.
Original post by tazarooni89
I don't think it's a valid piece of logic to suggest that, if being homosexual is a conscious decision, then being heterosexual must also be a conscious decision.

It's not inconceivable that someone can be born as something by default (with no conscious decision) but then consciously choose to change it. For example, I grew up with certain "phobias" that I didn't consciously choose to have; however, I did consciously choose to overcome them. I don't see why the same can't apply to "-phillias" too.

I'm not saying I think homosexuality is a conscious decision; I wouldn't know. I just don't agree with the logic.


Your post lacks maturity.

If you are to accept that heterosexuality exists by default, you must necessarily accept the same for homosexuality too. Both are attractions to a specific gender, differing in that alone. There is no basis to saying you're born heterosexual but then choose to be gay. What are we? 10? If people had that choice, no one would make it, particularly in countries like Saudi Arabia and whatnot.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Ordinarily, no; but ginger and gay? That's practically child-abuse.
This thread is disgusting. If you would change your child because of their sexuality, you don't deserve to be a parent.
I wouldn't get apocalyptic over this. If the question was "would you abort your child because they had the homosexual gene?" and a majority answered yes, then I'd be worried.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Everyone banging on about overpopulation this and but homo that, i wouldnt change my kid because thats what my child is. If i mess about with the genes (assuming a gay gene) I take away what my child is, i make them someone different and that to me is unconscionable. Unless its a genetic defect (in which case i may consider) then no, any natural occurrence - and yes homosexuality is natural - is just part of who my child will be.


If you take away the genetic defect, you are also taking away what your child is, because you are still interfering
Original post by That Bearded Man
I wouldn't get apocalyptic over this. If the question was "would you abort your child because they had the homosexual gene?" and a majority answered yes, then I'd be worried.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I would, depending on how far into pregnancy I was
Original post by supernerdural
This thread is disgusting. If you would change your child because of their sexuality, you don't deserve to be a parent.


How would you answer if the thread asked 'if you had to choose your child's sexuality, what would you choose?'
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
Your post lacks maturity.

If you are to accept that heterosexuality exists by default, you must necessarily accept the same for homosexuality too.
Both are attractions to a specific gender, differing in that alone. There is no basis to saying you're born heterosexual but then choose to be gay. What are we? 10? If people had that choice, no one would make it, particularly in countries like Saudi Arabia and whatnot.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Why? Lots of things exist by default, whilst an apparently equivalent thing doesn't. It was no conscious decision that I was born with black hair, for example. But if you saw me walking around with green hair, it probably was a conscious decision to deviate from the way I was born.

So I still think, at best, it is incomplete logic, to say that if one thing exists by default, then so must the other thing. Even if you happen to be right, the argument itself doesn't work.

Also I disagree that, if people had the choice between being homosexual or heterosexual, nobody would choose homosexuality. Just take a look at this thread's poll results.
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.


Isn't it still commonly believed homosexuality has environmental factors from early time in the womb?
Not to discount genetic ones but basically sexuality is a bit more complicated than flicking a switch.

Still to answer your question, no.

Homosexuality, at least in this part of the world is no real issue. I have absolutely no moral, spiritual or social issue with it.
Even if society was still grumpy about gays, I'd not do it, simply because I still don;t buy those arguments against it, and to do so (even if to apparently ease that child's passage through life) would not only condone those flawed justifications, but also perpetrate an opinion that makes life harder for the homosexuals who exist and didn't have the chance to just "turn it off".

Now if there was a paedophilia gene in my kid, I'd have that turned off in a heartbeat. For the sake of my kid and every other kid. Genetic tampering is not just justified, I think it's a moral obligation, if it solves a genuinely detrimental condition (be it a disability or thoroughly damaging sexuality).
Original post by cherryred90s
I would, depending on how far into pregnancy I was


I wouldn't go that far, but I think that's another possible q.

Posted from TSR Mobile
My friend wouldn't because everything happens for a reason.
Original post by cherryred90s
If you take away the genetic defect, you are also taking away what your child is, because you are still interfering


Thats true but it becomes a quality of life issue. I dont know if i could stand to see my child in constant pain so I'd rationalise it as a defect being a non-natural occurrence though the logic is flimsy at best
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Thats true but it becomes a quality of life issue. I dont know if i could stand to see my child in constant pain so I'd rationalise it as a defect being a non-natural occurrence though the logic is flimsy at best


What do you mean 'constant pain'?
I'm not sure, you tell me?
Original post by tazarooni89
Why? Lots of things exist by default, whilst an apparently equivalent thing doesn't. It was no conscious decision that I was born with black hair, for example. But if you saw me walking around with green hair, it probably was a conscious decision to deviate from the way I was born.

So I still think, at best, it is incomplete logic, to say that if one thing exists by default, then so must the other thing. Even if you happen to be right, the argument itself doesn't work.

Also I disagree that, if people had the choice between being homosexual or heterosexual, nobody would choose homosexuality. Just take a look at this thread's poll results.


What a wrong example. Firstly, black hair is not the default in humans, hence there are blond and red haired people. Your example is grossly incomparable. If you believe dying your hair is the same as choosing a sexuality, I'm afraid this discussion is long lost. In doing so, you're implying that you can change your sexuality whenever you want. So, let me ask you, can you choose to be homosexual now? As in, be attracted to men rather than women right this instant? Thought so...

Note that I'm talking about attraction, not sexual intercourse.

But I didn't out forth an argument. I'm simply showing how immature yours is (further evidenced by your example).

What?!? Those who would not alter their child's sexuality aren't doing it because they want their child to he gay - they're doing it because the accept their child for what it is. Who in their right mind would choose to be gay in Syria and risk being thrown off high buildings?!

Regardless, you should respect people the same even if they consciously chose to be gay. It's non of your business what they do with their lives.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you