Would you replace a homosexual gene in your child if given the choice?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by LeoAngliae
So there you go. Occurs in nature, therefore natural.
It wasn't that hard, was it?
It wasn't that hard, was it?
Im guessing you dont detect sarcasm lol!
Stop crying because people have different beliefs to you.
A lot of people think homosexuality isnt natural, because you are one doesnt mean you have to be up in arms and in everyones face
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Dopesmoker
lols, what a load of BS.
even if you're a PC zealot who wants to believes that, you would still make them hetero, because we still live in a world where they are likely to have an easier life because of it.
even if you're a PC zealot who wants to believes that, you would still make them hetero, because we still live in a world where they are likely to have an easier life because of it.
Even so, I wouldn't go the extreme of altering their genes to change their sexuality, simply based on the assumption that they'd have an easier life. People can be cruel, and if not a person's sexuality, then there will likely be something else that they will discriminate against and give them a hard time about, if given the opportunity.
Original post by ComputerMaths97
This is you twisting agendas.
Changing a sexuality changes absolutely nothing about their child other than who they want to sleep with - that is all we're discussing. That's not selfish in any way whatsoever, because it does not effect anyone in any way. Breathing is more selfish than changing someone's sexuality without them knowing.
Yeah, and like has been argued for centuries, too much freedom is a bad thing. You can't just let your kids agree with everything the media says, you have to help push them to a more open-minded approach to life, away from the Media's "This is right, and this is wrong" ways. There is not a single thing wrong with exercising a preference - in fact I think it should be encouraged, however that's up for debate I assume.
Changing a sexuality changes absolutely nothing about their child other than who they want to sleep with - that is all we're discussing. That's not selfish in any way whatsoever, because it does not effect anyone in any way. Breathing is more selfish than changing someone's sexuality without them knowing.
Yeah, and like has been argued for centuries, too much freedom is a bad thing. You can't just let your kids agree with everything the media says, you have to help push them to a more open-minded approach to life, away from the Media's "This is right, and this is wrong" ways. There is not a single thing wrong with exercising a preference - in fact I think it should be encouraged, however that's up for debate I assume.
What you're saying and your opinion don't make sense. You want your children to have a free choice and be open-minded, yet you'd want to get rid of a homosexuality gene, removing their choice from life. Yes there are influences in behaviour, but so are a lot of things. Like religion, people will be born into a religious environment and be expected by their parents to perform in certain religious duties (like praying to Allah or attending church on Sunday), they don't get the choice in that. The media is biased, yes, the BBC is known to swing more to the left in politics and tabloids like the Sun tend to swing more to the right.
Your child is a person too, you should let them be free in what they want and you shouldn't be controlling. You should be their shelter and protection but not their leader, they should make their own decisions on who they are when they are ready too.
Original post by BlackSweetness
And are you having a laugh? If men cannot have children naturally then how is homosexuality "natural"
And are you having a laugh? If men cannot have children naturally then how is homosexuality "natural"
I think you might not be very bright, thus your difficulty grasping this rather simple issue.
Natural = occurs in nature
You accept that homosexual behaviour occurs in nature. Therefore, it is natural. He answered his own question, if he did but know it
Original post by Blondie987
Yep, because disabilities cause problems for the individual outside of the irrational views of others, I would have thought that was obvious?
That's interesting.
Looks like you are also 'talking about altering something about their child to make them fit in with societies bigoted ideals! Smh'
In addition, homosexuality can also cause problems for the individual outside of the irrational views of others...
Original post by LeoAngliae
I think you might not be very bright, thus your difficulty grasping this rather simple issue.
Natural = occurs in nature
You accept that homosexual behaviour occurs in nature. Therefore, it is natural. He answered his own question, if he did but know it
Natural = occurs in nature
You accept that homosexual behaviour occurs in nature. Therefore, it is natural. He answered his own question, if he did but know it
Like i said, i was being sarcastic.
Homosexuality almost never occurs in nature, i have no idea where you get this idea from plus you have no proof it does.
Original post by BlackSweetness
Im guessing you dont detect sarcasm lol!
I'm sorry you're upset, it is a pretty simple subject though.
Natural = occurs in nature.
You admitted it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. The logic of it really is quite simple. Maybe you are having trouble with the definitions of words? As it is, your understanding/definition of natural seems to be muddled.
Natural isn't a synonym for "Whatever I agree with"
To the people that said no, i have another question.
If you could choose for your next child to be gay right now? Would you do it?
I'm trying to work out if you guys said no the poll because
A. It involves changing DNA
B. You genuinely would rather your could have a much tougher life just so you feel like you've done something morally right
I honestly feel like it's the DNA factor putting most of you guys off. There's no logical reason for wanting your child to have a harder life
If you could choose for your next child to be gay right now? Would you do it?
I'm trying to work out if you guys said no the poll because
A. It involves changing DNA
B. You genuinely would rather your could have a much tougher life just so you feel like you've done something morally right
I honestly feel like it's the DNA factor putting most of you guys off. There's no logical reason for wanting your child to have a harder life
Original post by BlackSweetness
Homosexuality almost never occurs in nature, i have no idea where you get this idea from plus you have no proof it does.
Homosexuality almost never occurs in nature, i have no idea where you get this idea from plus you have no proof it does.
Actually, homosexual behaviour has been observed in over 1,500 species. This wikipedia article might be a good place for you to start educating yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
To all the religious people saying yes - isn't gene engineering/therapy against most Abrahamic religions?
Original post by Lawliettt
To the people that said no, i have another question.
Are you upset that more people didn't choose the same option as you? It's really not that difficult to grasp; many people believe there's nothing wrong with homosexuality and there's no reason to interfere in your child's development.
The bullying and discrimination aspect that you claim is massively exaggerated and really just a convenient cover for your anti-gay bigotry so you can claim it's "for the children".
To the extent that such bullying and discrimination is common, it tends to be amongst poorer and less educated demographics (possibly why you mistakenly believe it is common?).
And to the extent it exists, it is vanishing over time and likely to be a complete non-issue by the time the child is 15.
Original post by LeoAngliae
Bigots usually mistakenly believe that their backward views are far more prevalent than they actually are.
That's why people like you were genuinely shocked when the gay rights faction steamrolled over you with apparent ease in the marriage equality debate
That's why people like you were genuinely shocked when the gay rights faction steamrolled over you with apparent ease in the marriage equality debate
Err no, nothing she said is pulling at straws. If you think most hetero people dont want hetero kids, then you're delusional.
Original post by LeoAngliae
I'm sorry you're upset, it is a pretty simple subject though.
Natural = occurs in nature.
You admitted it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. The logic of it really is quite simple. Maybe you are having trouble with the definitions of words? As it is, your understanding/definition of natural seems to be muddled.
Natural isn't a synonym for "Whatever I agree with"
Natural = occurs in nature.
You admitted it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. The logic of it really is quite simple. Maybe you are having trouble with the definitions of words? As it is, your understanding/definition of natural seems to be muddled.
Natural isn't a synonym for "Whatever I agree with"
It occurs in nature, still doesnt mean its a natural thing, if it was natural, men and men would be able to conceive.
Your trying to being definitions and mumbojumbo into this...
Im asking you this?
Why are you a homosexual and what advantage does it bring?
Considering almost every human trait has its usefulness in its own way in relation to place of origin ie being black, having slow and fast metabolism, being ginger.
Original post by Lady Comstock
To all the religious people saying yes - isn't gene engineering/therapy against most Abrahamic religions?
God hates gays more than he hates genetic engineering
Original post by LeoAngliae
Or they're saying it because they don't see anything wrong with being gay
I haven't said otherwise though. And that's not the issue. You're over complicated things. I've said it already but I'll ask again. Would you choose for your next child to be born gay? No strings attached. No operation. He/she would just magically be born gay at your wish.
There's no logical reason for doing it what so ever. You've tried to downplay it but you know damn well that unfortunately in this society, he'll be judged and have a tougher life in general. The issue isn't about gays being morally wrong. It's about giving your child an easier life.
The only reason 99% of the people said no is because OP mentioned changing DNA. That's it.
Original post by cherryred90s
That's interesting.
Looks like you are also 'talking about altering something about their child to make them fit in with societies bigoted ideals! Smh'
In addition, homosexuality can also cause problems for the individual outside of the irrational views of others...
Looks like you are also 'talking about altering something about their child to make them fit in with societies bigoted ideals! Smh'
In addition, homosexuality can also cause problems for the individual outside of the irrational views of others...
Nope! Wrong again! Disabilities can cause troubles for people including extreme pain, learning problems and not being able to do certain things that others can regardless of societies views whereas homosexuality harms no one except the homophobes who like to quote a book from over 6,000 years ago detailing the teachings of someone who may or may not exist
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by LeoAngliae
Bigots usually mistakenly believe that their backward views are far more prevalent than they actually are.
That's why people like you were genuinely shocked when the gay rights faction steamrolled over you with apparent ease in the marriage equality debate
That's why people like you were genuinely shocked when the gay rights faction steamrolled over you with apparent ease in the marriage equality debate
It's not good to assume. I really have nothing against gay people, someone's sexual preference is none of my business. But I feel there is a false acceptance, possibly caused by fear of backlash and being labelled a homophobe. But everyones so supportive in normalising homosexuality but if presented with a choice, No straight person Aspires for gay children the way we aspire for straight children.
Just a social commentary, not an ignorant remark.
Original post by LeoAngliae
Perhaps we're both interpreting the OP's question differently. I don't think it's so much a case of "Do you think we should have the right to interfere with genes". In this hypothetical scenario, for better or for worse, people do have the right to genetically alter their children (i.e. there's no need to "claim" it), and the question being asked is whether or not we would exercise it.
Maybe you're justified to say that, if I think that I ought to have the right to remove the gay-gene, I can't deny that other people also ought to have the right to remove the Islam gene too (even if I don't think it's a good idea to actually exercise it).
But that's not the way I interpret the question. I see it in a much more simple way, as an "is" rather than an "ought"; You do have the right to remove your child's gay gene, regardless of what the legal position on Islam genes may be, and the option you choose has no influence on what anyone else does - all it does is control whether your child is straight or gay. In such a case, I would choose to make them straight.
Whether I believe I ought to have the right to do this is another matter - I'm still not personally decided on that. But if I had the right, my personal choice would be to exercise it.
Original post by LeoAngliae
Bigots usually mistakenly believe that their backward views are far more prevalent than they actually are.
That's why people like you were genuinely shocked when the gay rights faction steamrolled over you with apparent ease in the marriage equality debate
That's why people like you were genuinely shocked when the gay rights faction steamrolled over you with apparent ease in the marriage equality debate
I worry for you
Original post by BlackSweetness
GOD YESSS!
Would do it in a heartbeat'!
I want my son to grow up as a proper man. (Not saying homosexuals arent real men btw)
Would do it in a heartbeat'!
I want my son to grow up as a proper man. (Not saying homosexuals arent real men btw)
thats literally exactly what your saying? you said you would change your son from being homosexual so he can be a 'real man' so your saying if your gay your not a 'real man' whatever a 'real man' is.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
