Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

What would you do if your children are homosexual Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imasuperhero)
    Yes because girls never participate in receiving anal sex...



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How many girls do you know with hairy butt cracks lol
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maid Marian)
    I'd be disappointed, not going to lie, but I'd still love them and support them anyway.
    In what way, before I pass judgment?

    (Original post by maskofsanity)
    If I am honest - and I don't believe this is homophobic - I would be quietly disappointed. Not in my child, obviously, just in general. I like the idea of parenting a child that I know I can fully relate to and that we'd have very similar interests. I look forward to chatting to my son about girl problems or to my daughter about being cautious! I think I'm just set on a 'traditional'/'normal' family and I would be concerned that we wouldn't be as close as I'd hope.
    Although I consider myself mostly homosexual, this post was actually nice to read for a reason I have yet to put my finger on. Thank you.

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Not really, my kids won't be in the kind of environment that tends to play a huge part in determining this unusual orientation.
    Do you really know which environment it is, or even an environment you have control over? This seems more like a guess.

    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Homosexuality is not inherited, nor is it genetic, so there is absolutely no chance of me - being control of their nurture- having to go through this. I would have regular conversations with them from an early age of what they biologically are(a man) or my partner if we had a daughter (a woman!). We'd obviously educate them about biology, about nature, about how society works, and such. My son or daughter would be biologically designed for the opposite sex. Thus, homosexuality is a deviance from this natural design. I do not hate gay people. From a clinical point of view, I believe men are designed biologically for women, and vice versa. Thus, homosexuality -or any non heterosexuality- is a deviance.
    not inherited/genetic =/= nurture which you have control over
    nurture =/= control
    nurture =/= socialisation

    Please don't say it's wrong to your children, because it will lead to unhappiness as its not a choice.
    Just to clarify
    deviance from your concept of "biological" design =/= choice either
    in case you think it does.

    natural means "without human interference" so just because homosexuality might deviate from what you consider the normal design, doesn't mean it's not natural. It's less natural, suppressing it, which is what you would be doing.

    (Original post by Alex_Jones)
    Is it that time of the month when all the gay threads start to pop up...
    :ahee:

    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    And you are spot on. The leader of the Human Genome project has said that homosexuality is not hardwired - nurture plays a massive role. We human beings are sentient, have consciousness, and people have had sex with the same gender, children, animals, members of the opposite sex, and all other forms of sexuality. If there is a desire, there will be people going through different routes to fulfil it. One can choose what they are attracted to, by virtue of the kind of experience they expose themselves to, and the reinforcing of experiences.
    But not to worry I want my child -if I have any- to understand they are male or female, understand what they are biologically adapted for, ect. If I had a leg which did not work, would I embrace that leg and say ' anyone who is disappointed is wrong' ? Or would I say 'let us try to get treatment for it, to ensure as best as we can, we can allow the leg to fulfil it's original use. Homosexuality is not genetic or predetermined, but the analogy holds.
    Hello poster from earlier again.
    again
    not hardwired (inherited/genetic) =/= nurture which you have control over
    nurture =/= socialisation
    nurture =/= choice

    Nurture does play a massive role, from what I understand, but not in the way you think. Google "gene expression/epigenetics", technically it's about how environment affects to what degree a gene is "on" and "off", how the environment acts with genes. People rarely choose what they are exposed to, so that eliminates the choice in your argument.
    e.g. one doesn't choose what their parents fed them, what school they went to, their classmates usually, a lot of their social groups, the quirks of their friends, posters on walls in schools, fashion etc.

    Curious, to what extent do you distinguish a difference between sexual behaviour and sexual orientation?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    In what way, before I pass judgment?


    Dude, that post is ancient.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Would be disappointed but get over it fairly quickly lol.

    I want grandkids lmao.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't care one way or the other. I care about my kids, not their gender orientation
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What if they're heterosexual? :lolwut:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I really really want chicken nuggets nicely dipped in BBQ sauce....
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    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.
    ye lol your organs are pretty important. You should get more in return than just satisfaction for giving it to someone.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Kick them out the house.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    i wouldnt give a damn
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No chance of that happening to me, I'd raise them in such a way there's no chance they'd turn out queer.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.