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

[T5seconds]

It?s easier ON THEM if there straight ... At least that?s what I think...

 

[konkwastaken]

I am straight and i would change a baby to be straight given the choice.

I don't have any problems with gays it's just that from what i have seen being straight just seems like an easier road, theres a lot of douchebags out there that do care about peoples sexual orientation and i don't want to subject my unborn child to waves of abuse from then when it could all be avoided with a "change it".

Also, it would be a lot easier for my child to find a partner and be happier for it.

 

[Mad World]

A good Christian doesn't disrespect or hate homosexuals. If a Christian wants to convey his or her beliefs, he or she should do so in a kind and respectful fashion.

... 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?)

Yes, we should not judge; however, I do not think believing homosexual acts to be wrong is judging. I do not believe someone will automatically go to Hell for being gay and committing gay acts, but I do believe it is wrong to commit said acts and that it is unnatural.

Unlike animals, we have souls. An animal may do a certain thing, but that does not automatically render it natural.

 

[linchowlewy]

I'm straight and not homophobic (i usually end up jumping to someones defence if someones being a dick to them 'cause they're gay) . but i think i would change it, just so i could have grandchildren. Not to mention with the way a lot of people are intolerant to gays now i wouldn;t want a gay son/daughter growing up in that world, it just doesn't seem right to me, having the option to choose how people will view your child and choosing the option where people will be negative. Of course if society at that time didn't care about gay people. then i would definately not change the orientation.

 

[WlknCntrdiction]

I don't need to defend myself tbh, but I would change the genes to straight, for quite obvious reasons.

 

[goldenheart323]

Where is the option for the fact Homosexuality is a choice, not a matter genes.
EDIT: Ok perhaps it is genes, but people can overcome genes.

Ok then. Care to back that up? If that's true that means that you could open up gay porn right now, choose to be gay, and get an erection without batting your shit around at all or thinking about anything else but those two guys doing it in the butt. After you've done that you have room to talk. Don't worry, apparently it's a choice so you could just turn strait again after you're done.
...

If he did, some people here would just claim he was finally accepting his true nature, and kidding himself or us by claiming he had gone straight again.
Oh, & I believe he's talking about how genes can make someone PREDISPOSED to having certain qualities, like being fat, thin, or muscular. These things can be effected by our personal choice of eating well and exercising. Not every physical trait is a 100% predestined by our genes.

If it TRULY is a genetic thing, then there's absolutely NO REASON to be appalled, disgusted, or offended when someone ELSE says they would prefer to have a straight kid. (Well, maybe for the anti-eugenics people can still be upset.) If it's simply genetics, how is it any different than choosing to have a blonde kid instead of one with brown or red hair? I have brown hair. If there were a poll asking if you'd choose to have a blonde kid instead of brown haired, I'm not going to be appalled, disgusted, offended, or morally outraged by their choice. The poll isn't asking if gay people are vile and should be wiped from the Earth. It's not asking if we should hunt you down, strap you to a chair in a small room, and brainwash you into being straight. It's asking what a person's individual choice for THEIR kid would be.

Also, even gay people in this thread admit being gay makes life harder and no sane person would choose it. Some of you gay people need to get off your high horse and stop berating others for wanting to make their kid's life easier.

Note:My comment's geared more towards the first many pages of this thread. The past few pages haven't been too bad.

 

[Kurokami]

Where is the option for the fact Homosexuality is a choice, not a matter genes.
EDIT: Ok perhaps it is genes, but people can overcome genes.

...Overcome your genes? Can you explain that?



Now I know I'm gonna hear some flame about this from people who ironically are so very closed minded in their opinion of me being blind so I invite anyone to actually READ my opinion instead of scraping off the tip and saying it doesn't have enough substance. In any case, I'll clarify that I have nothing against homosexuals, I've always felt my life would (now, not growing up) be so much simpler if I was one and frankly I find some of them to be very sophisticated (after all, they are people), however from my point of view its faulty in the sense that it doesn't result in natural procreation and if I could change my offspring's sexuality, I would. Simply because that's how it should be, with my childs ability to create a child.

Eight people voted for "I am straight and I would change the genes to be straight".

Disgusting.

Is that still disgusting for you? Would be nice to hear your reasoning.

 

[Mr. Mango]

I want my offspring to be more likely to produce offspring of their own. So yes, I'd change the genes.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

I haven't read through all of this, but I want to note that the people saying it's genetic and the people saying it's a choice are all idiots.

I'm not aware of a single biological (genetic) cognitive phenomenon that is completely absolute. There are many things that bias thinking and response in a certain direction, sometimes VERY strongly, but, again, I can't think of any that are actually one hundred percent (I should note that while I do study cognitive science, I can't possibly know all findings, so I would be interested if anyone could provide anything suggesting otherwise).

Though it is obviously incidental evidence, I am gay and would say that it was a choice to some degree. Naturally I feel as though I had a strong bias in this direction, but I don't think that I would have been entirely unhappy if I had gone in the other direction. The bias would still be present, like an addict in recovery (I feel awkward making that comparison, so please ignore the negative connotation there, but it's the best I can think of at this hour), but that doesn't mean I couldn't live a fulfilling life.

I think a better question is why it needs to be genetic for it to be moral. The effort to reframe the debate in terms of choice vs. genetics is, to me, extremely offensive. Implicit in that line of thinking is that what I'm doing is wrong, but that it should be tolerated anyway because I can't help it. Why not instead argue that there's nothing wrong with what I do regardless of its cause?

Edit: To all of the people who want their kids to be more likely to have kids, that's probably the worst possible moral choice you could make if you have any regard for the environment or, consequently, the lives of your children (who will need to live in that environment).

 

[Sun Flash]

Nothing against gays, but the only reason I'd have kids was to get grandkids.

In saying that, if I do have child who turns out to be homosexual, it wouldn't bother me.

So, yeah ?

 

[J474]

I'm bisexual, and voted for 'straight and wouldn't change' as I am likely to go for a long-term heterosexual relationship and have children. I do not, however, feel that I would be happy with any child, no matter what their sexuality is, and my respect is greatly lessened for anyone who would change it.

 

[Spacelord]

The question is based on the premise that homosexuality is firmly rooted in genetic predisposition. From what I've come across in terms of research you can't really make such an assumption.

 

[RobCoxxy]

I wouldn't care what sexuality any of my kids were, ansd wouldn't treat 'em differently.
Plus how would you like to say that:

"Son, you were gay but we had you changed. We wouldn't have loved you otherwise."

 

[gibboss28]

I couldn't give a damn about what sexual orientation my child is, if he is happy then fair play to him.

 

[D0WNT0WN]

I am straight and I would want my child to be straight but I wouldnt interfere in anyway. I would just make another and hope for the best.

 

[cobra_ky]

Wouldn't care much. Although it could give me a heads up on what clothes to buy them when they're growing up. Dresses if they're boys, and lumberjack attire if they're girls.

that would transgenderism, which has nothing to do with homosexuality. but if your children really end up transgendered, you'll be able to tell at an early age.

The dress, maybe. But you obviously haven't seen one of those activist lesbians on the news with the short hair and clothes similar to that of a mechanic.

i reiterate, that has nothing to do with sexual preference. there are plenty of lesbians who love wearing dresses. there are plenty of heterosexual transvestites, and there are transgendered people of every sexual orientation.

Also, "that would transgenderism" ? There was absolutely nothing right with that, grammatically or otherwise. Transgenderism is not a thing. You would never call someone a transgender and have proper grammar or even be politically correct. It's transvestite or hermaphrodite depending on if there was surgery involved or if it was a birth defect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenderism

i went back and fixed the grammar, if that matters.

 

[cobra_ky]

Homosexuality is not an action.

From Merriam-Webster:
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

Erotic activity is most certainly an action.

let's be absolutely clear then. the state or quality of homosexuality is NOT a choice. engaging in homosexual activity is a choice. i can't imagine why someone without homosexual tendencies would choose to repeatedly engage in homosexual acts.

Listen, I want a son who can grow up playing catch with me.

you've confused homosexuality with quadriplegia.

 

[PredatorKing]

I would change the genes to straight not that I have things against gays but I want to have things in common with my son and I don't know any gay/camp people who like football.

Yeah, that's why I don't want a black child not that I have things against black people but I want to have things in common with my kids and I don't know any black people who don't like KFC, watermelon, and raping girls.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Sexuality is a choice?
Fiddling around with your offsprings hardwiring for the sake of "having things in common"?
The ignorance and intolerance showcased in this topic sickens me.

 

[Osloq]

I'd like to know early so I could start the years of abuse earlier than normal, that might get him straight. In all seriousness, I wouldn't like to know because I don't care. I'd raise my kid as best as I could to be a good man/woman and any choice they make would be theirs to make as long as it isn't life threatening to them or someone else. A friend's sexual orientation means very little to me and I'd much rather be friends with a nice gay person than a heterosexual dick head and I'd try and instil that same concept into my child. Except if he/she becomes a wallabies supporter. I'd have to kill him/her to hide my shame.