Poll: If you could know your baby's sexual orientation...

[Yukichin]

I'm gay, myself. If my child were gay, I'd keep him that way; if he were straight, I'd keep him that way as well. I have no place meddling in WHO my child is, just in teaching him right and wrong.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Rationalize it: who in their right mind would wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I want to be gay! I'm going to risk my life, I'm going to risk getting insulted and ostracized!". I know I never woke up one morning and decided to be gay; my only choice in this was acknowledging it, and I'm fairly sure that denying who you are is mentally unhealthy.

Also... for the Bible stuff, the Bible is up to interpretation; it's been translated many times, and still can be interpreted differently. I've heard that some of the lines (specifically the ones about "a man should not lay with another man") were added after its initial writing, and it was not written directly by God but by men interpreting his word. Not everyone believes in the Bible, anyway... and besides, doesn't it say not to judge others, that they'll be judged when they die?
Also, homosexual activity occurs sometimes in nature, in animals. (And please don't pull out the "BUT WE'RE NOT ANIMALS" card, anyone; we do the same stuff as animals, and stuff that animals don't do. But the "natural" argument? Well, if it occurs in nature, it MUST be natural, right?)

Also, I don't exactly dislike the flamboyant gays... I'm a little on the obvious side, myself. I can be friends with flamboyant gay guys, but they can get a little grating on the nerves (depending on how bitchy they are. I've encountered really bitchy flamers, and really sweet ones as well). I could never date a flamer, though... only friends.

 

[bmart008]

I would make my child bi-sexual, because obviously they make the best out of any situation.

I did pick that I'm straight and I wouldn't change the baby's orientation though.

 

[Ruffythepirate]

There are no consensus in the scientific community about what causes homosexuality. That basically means that the results in tests show different things. It also means that everyone in this thread that claims homosexuality to be genetical has no scientific backup what so ever.

 

[MoganFreeman]

Pff, it is nature AND nurture gentlemen.

I'd leave the genes alone and teach my children that they are allowed to fuck whomever they damn well please.

 

[Nova5]

Wouldn't do a damn thing to change them, but I would like to know so I could tell what gender shouldn't be alone with them while I'm out buying smokes. Heh.

 

[Smudge91]

I'm bi and chose i'm straight and wouldn't change the genes because straight was at the top of the poll im and secondly why should i decide the genes when the eviroment has a rathe large impact and the fact i wouldn't mind if they were gay or straight. There are more worrying things to think about rather than, "oh no they may be gay".

 

[Ezekel]

I'm gay, myself. If my child were gay, I'd keep him that way; if he were straight, I'd keep him that way as well. I have no place meddling in WHO my child is, just in teaching him right and wrong.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Rationalize it: who in their right mind would wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I want to be gay! I'm going to risk my life, I'm going to risk getting insulted and ostracized!". I know I never woke up one morning and decided to be gay; my only choice in this was acknowledging it, and I'm fairly sure that denying who you are is mentally unhealthy.

Also... for the Bible stuff, the Bible is up to interpretation; it's been translated many times, and still can be interpreted differently. I've heard that some of the lines (specifically the ones about "a man should not lay with another man") were added after its initial writing, and it was not written directly by God but by men interpreting his word. Not everyone believes in the Bible, anyway... and besides, doesn't it say not to judge others, that they'll be judged when they die?
Also, homosexual activity occurs sometimes in nature, in animals. (And please don't pull out the "BUT WE'RE NOT ANIMALS" card, anyone; we do the same stuff as animals, and stuff that animals don't do. But the "natural" argument? Well, if it occurs in nature, it MUST be natural, right?)

Also, I don't exactly dislike the flamboyant gays... I'm a little on the obvious side, myself. I can be friends with flamboyant gay guys, but they can get a little grating on the nerves (depending on how bitchy they are. I've encountered really bitchy flamers, and really sweet ones as well). I could never date a flamer, though... only friends.

You may not choose your genetic predisposition to be gay, but you still choose to act upon it.

The bible has been translated many times. But it was translated by scholars who have devoted their lives in the study of the original language. I am currently learning greek myself. There are numerous passages that claim homosexuality as sin. There are also numerous biblical scholars who say it was in the earliest manuscripts. And while you may not believe the bible, I do.

I am not judging you, I am merely stating that the moral law that I subscribe to says homosexuality is sin. This does not in anyway mean that you are worth less than I, or worse than I am on some kind of sin scale. All have fallen short of the glory of God. There are none righteous, not not one.

Nature is not a valid point of reference for morality. I have seen a mouse give birth to a litter of mice, and then eat them. Nature is pretty messed up. I am also not arguing against nature, because I claim our nature is corrupt. It is natural to hate those you don't like, does that make it moral?

Is it natural to be self sacrificing? Is it natural to lay down your life for someone else? Is it natural to place others before yourself? These go against our nature, does that make in immoral?

 

[Inverse Skies]

I wouldn't care. It doesn't matter what way my child is born in that sense, homosexuality isn't a disease and therefore shouldn't be treated as one. I would love my child no matter what they turned out like, so I don't mind what sexual orientation they were.

 

[Callate]

It depends. In this glorious future society, is there a significant possibility that being gay is going to get my child beaten to death? Because if so, I'm afraid I'm going to have to have them be straight. Losing a child would be more than I could deal with, and puberty is quite hard enough without fearing ostracization by one's peers.

If we've gotten past drunks taking swings at people they imagine to be "queers" and thugs dragging them behind cars, then I'm perfectly happy to let nature take its course.

As far as genetics go, there seems to be increasingly convincing evidence that there's a physical difference in the brains of male heterosexuals and male homosexuals, and that there is in fact a genetic link. You don't necessarily see a decrease in homosexuality in places with, say, a strong religious element that condemns homosexuality; what you do see is a lot of repression, and a fair number of teenagers killing themselves. And more than a few sad cases of people believing that if they fully devote their lives to God, surely He will cure them of what they've been told from early on is a terrible desire to sin against Him, only to find out under pressure that it isn't the case.

Assuming there is a genetic link, there's no more reason to believe that homosexuality would "breed itself out" than that hemophilia or Tay-Sachs disease would do the same, and they're both very much still with us. I also find it rather hard to believe that a significant percentage of people would intentionally "choose" a "lifestyle" that may well put them at odds with their family, cut them off from their friends and religious background, and, oh, possibly get them assaulted and/or killed.

People will believe what they choose to believe, of course. But at a certain point, it's really silly to suggest that it's a straight-up either-or.

 

[Racistman3d]

Why would I care about them being gay? as long as they're happy and healthy I don't care.

 

[Sebenko]

Me and you both. Flamboyant gays make me uncomfortable, the sound of their voice, their personalities, ughh just everything. I like guys that look like guys.

Agreed. Goddamn faggots, stop messing with my drapes, they're fabulous enough the way they are.

Anyway I voted for change my kid straight because it really sucks being gay growing up, especially in certain areas (Hawaii fml).

Meh, I wouldn't change it, I'd leave the genes the way they "naturally" (though I am loathe to use that word in discussions of homosexuality) occurred. It wasn't too bad here in the North, a place known for its progressive attitude and liberal leaning Not really. But it still worked out OK around here.

 

[Aytasammich(theoriginal)]

So with the infinite potential afforded by this new capability, we waste it on sexuality? (Noting that I'd imagine such a screen would be frowned upon)
Man, I'd find any and all genes relating to:
Body type, intellect, senses- even wings if possible.
And then I'd mesh them together and make a super-soldier. Or perhaps S.O.L.D.I.E.R
Anyhow, as long as they don't have the Hitler gene (The evil parts, anyway) I would leave them be.

Agreed. Goddamn faggots, stop messing with my drapes, they're fabulous enough the way they are.

Coming up on the ol' danger line.

 

[Mad World]

I would want my child to be straight. However, no matter what, I would still love my child.

 

[Nickolai77]

I chose the option where "I am straight and i would change my childs genes to straight". Why?

Largely for practical and realistic reasons rather than moral reasons (I don't believe homosexuality is wrong.) I want to be able to relate to my son or daughter when they become a teenager and start to date other people. I would want to be able to give them advise or help them out where necessary like any good farther would. If they where homosexual i wouldn't be able to relate to them, and therefore not able to help them in terms of relationships. Also, beyond personal reason's, it is and always will be a straight person's world, because quite simply there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I don't want my son or daughter to be discriminated against in school, i want them to be able to settle in and do well in life , i want them to be able to relate to "them songs on the radio" or be able to relate to the typical romantic films at the cinema. I want them to be able to relate to any relationship troubles that his or her friend may have, because being homosexual does alienate you to a certain degree.

 

[Lieju]

I'm gay, and I wouldn't see the need to change his/her sexual orientation, since I don't think it would matter.

However, if scientists discovered a nerd-gene, I would totally have them activate it.

 

[Semitendon]

I'm gay, myself. If my child were gay, I'd keep him that way; if he were straight, I'd keep him that way as well. I have no place meddling in WHO my child is, just in teaching him right and wrong.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Rationalize it: who in their right mind would wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I want to be gay! I'm going to risk my life, I'm going to risk getting insulted and ostracized!". I know I never woke up one morning and decided to be gay; my only choice in this was acknowledging it, and I'm fairly sure that denying who you are is mentally unhealthy.

Also... for the Bible stuff, the Bible is up to interpretation; it's been translated many times, and still can be interpreted differently. I've heard that some of the lines (specifically the ones about "a man should not lay with another man") were added after its initial writing, and it was not written directly by God but by men interpreting his word. Not everyone believes in the Bible, anyway... and besides, doesn't it say not to judge others, that they'll be judged when they die?
Also, homosexual activity occurs sometimes in nature, in animals. (And please don't pull out the "BUT WE'RE NOT ANIMALS" card, anyone; we do the same stuff as animals, and stuff that animals don't do. But the "natural" argument? Well, if it occurs in nature, it MUST be natural, right?)

Also, I don't exactly dislike the flamboyant gays... I'm a little on the obvious side, myself. I can be friends with flamboyant gay guys, but they can get a little grating on the nerves (depending on how bitchy they are. I've encountered really bitchy flamers, and really sweet ones as well). I could never date a flamer, though... only friends.

Here's the thing. . I know that a lot of gay people have bad experiences when dealing with Christians. So, I am going to try to show you an alternative point of view without being insulting.

1. The homosexuality is genetic or choice concept

I believe that homosexuality is not genetic. I see little evidence for that assumption, from an evolutionary point of view as well as a Biblical point of view. That said, I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice either. At least, in most cases. As you said, who would want to be gay? Maybe true, maybe not. I believe that most gay people are gay due to a series of psychological events and social situations.

You can compare this most easily with a woman who constantly gets into abusive relationships. The woman knows that she doesn't want to be in abusive relationships and yet still gets involved with men that abuse her. Why is she attracted to this abuse? Not genetics, but a psychological development that led her to be attracted solely to abusive men.

Homosexuality is similar, the homosexual knows they shouldn't be attracted to the same sex, but cannot help themselves. It's not a choice, and not genetics, but it feels like it is something you were born with. So, my opinion is that the homosexual is not born gay, but feels like they were, and may not have any more control over those feelings than they do the desire to breath.

2. The interpretation of the Bible

The idea that the Bible disagrees with homosexuality is one of the few commonly know concepts that is correct. But, I will say this, there is NO reason that homosexuals should be condemned so violently by some Christians. In the Bible homosexuality is listed as a sin, so is lying, stealing, murder, hate, and a great many other things. Myself, and many other Christians do not view any one sin as being greater than another. In essence, doing any one sin is enough to keep you from being with God. It is impossible to not sin, and God knew this, so he sent his son to accept responsibility for ALL of the sins in the world. All we have to do is accept the gift of his son taking responsibility and try to live as sin free as possile. So, any homosexual, being no more or less sinful than anyone else, has the option to chose Jesus, and start a relationship with God. My view is that homosexuals are just as capable of going to heaven as anyone else.

I hope that clears up some of the Christian and non-genetic viewpoints out there. I know that many Christians do not share my beliefs, but you should know that being a Christian does not mean hating or condemning homosexuals. I hope that I have told you my view point without being insulting. I think that we may have differing opinions on the issues of homosexuality, but that is no reason we can't be civil, kind to each other, or even friends.

 

[Markness]

The bible has been translated many times. But it was translated by scholars who have devoted their lives in the study of the original language. I am currently learning greek myself. There are numerous passages that claim homosexuality as sin. There are also numerous biblical scholars who say it was in the earliest manuscripts. And while you may not believe the bible, I do.

I am not judging you, I am merely stating that the moral law that I subscribe to says homosexuality is sin. This does not in anyway mean that you are worth less than I, or worse than I am on some kind of sin scale. All have fallen short of the glory of God. There are none righteous, not not one.

Hey, your a christian and you seem decent enough. How come other Christians seem to take whats written in the bible as a reason to ostracise and harm (emotionally and/or physically) others while ignoring and/or contradicting other stuff that is written in the bible? I'm a bit confused how they can try and force people to be straight while ignoring the other passages that tell you to respect your fellow man.

edit: wow the guy above just answered it.

 

[Lieju]

You may not choose your genetic predisposition to be gay, but you still choose to act upon it.

Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with it.

Nature is not a valid point of reference for morality. I have seen a mouse give birth to a litter of mice, and then eat them. Nature is pretty messed up. I am also not arguing against nature, because I claim our nature is corrupt. It is natural to hate those you don't like, does that make it moral?

Is it natural to be self sacrificing? Is it natural to lay down your life for someone else? Is it natural to place others before yourself? These go against our nature, does that make in immoral?

How do you define what is natural and what is not? And I agree that is not a good way to define what is moral and what is not, but I'm also confused as to why you would think altruism "goes against our nature". After all, we can see it in kids and other social animals.

 

[likalaruku]

I'm bisexual. What the hell am I supposed to pick?