NationStates Jolt Archive

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

What? Why? Why would he want to "correct" "god's work"?

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.
It's a step in the right direction at least.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


Nope.

Gah. Reading that, there are a hundred things to get angry about, but it really all boils down to the question what the hell it is about homosexuality that scares Christian nuts out of their wits.

The bible also says killing and stealing and, hello, adultery is wrong but I have yet to see the fundamentalists get their panties in a wad over either of those. Except of course when the "killing" involves fetuses, then they're right there picketing.

Bigoted assholes.

It's a step in the right direction at least.

*sticks foot out in front of staircase on the top of a 50 story building and watches him fall*

What...he deserved it ;)

I'd make all my babies gay.

I mean...if it could go one way, why not the other?

What? Why? Why would he want to "correct" "god's work"?

Oooh, good point, Cabra! :p

What? Why? Why would he want to "correct" "god's work"?

if his child was born with a heart condition I am sure he would seek out surgery for that too......(at least I am sure he would bring up something like that in his defense)

if his child was born with a heart condition I am sure he would seek out surgery for that too......(at least I am sure he would bring up something like that in his defense)

Am I the only one who sees the major contradiction in this? ;)

Nope.

Am I the only one who sees the major contradiction in this? ;)

explain [/devil's advocate]

if his child was born with a heart condition I am sure he would seek out surgery for that too......(at least I am sure he would bring up something like that in his defense)

A heart condition is a medical condition that could significantly reduce the quality of life of the child and possibly lead to an extremely early death.

Being gay is a difference in sexuality that carries with it no inherent potential for harm. And I say inherent, because were you to remove all other factors, the heart condition would still be a life-threatening heart condition, while homosexuality wouldn't be something people get kicked out othe military for.

Hmm...something tells me the latter half of that didn't come out as cogent as I'd intended.

explain [/devil's advocate]

It's something I've been trying to get my mind around for a while now - unsuccessfully, as usual.
IF it can be assumed that homosexuality is genetic, and if it further can be assumed that god has a hand in creating humans (as I understand Christians believe), would it not have to be assumed that god for some reason beyond our comprehension (of which there seem to be a lot, so this seems to fit right in) intended that child to be gay?

A heart condition could be claimed to be caused by external factors during the baby's development. A genetically determined homosexual preference can't. It's been there from the moment of creation.

oh, I know, but if he is so deluded he would say that being gay significantly reduces the quality of life and can lead to an early death (AIDS, etc, because you know they think that only teh gayz get AIDS)

Well, I was going to argue that as a minister, he's probably a lot more concerned with the wellfare of the soul of the baby in question than its body...

A heart condition is a medical condition that could significantly reduce the quality of life of the child and possibly lead to an extremely early death.

Being gay is a difference in sexuality that carries with it no inherent potential for harm. And I say inherent, because were you to remove all other factors, the heart condition would still be a life-threatening heart condition, while homosexuality wouldn't be something people get kicked out othe military for.

Hmm...something tells me the latter half of that didn't come out as cogent as I'd intended.

oh, I know, but if he is so deluded he would say that being gay significantly reduces the quality of life and can lead to an early death (AIDS, etc, because you know they think that only teh gayz get AIDS)

oh, I know, but if he is so deluded he would say that being gay significantly reduces the quality of life and can lead to an early death (AIDS, etc, because you know they think that only teh gayz get AIDS)

Right, but only a completely irrational person with no knowledge of the facts would make a claim like that. And hopefully Darwinism woud kick in soon after.

It's something I've been trying to get my mind around for a while now - unsuccessfully, as usual.
IF it can be assumed that homosexuality is genetic, and if it further can be assumed that god has a hand in creating humans (as I understand Christians believe), would it not have to be assumed that god for some reason beyond our comprehension (of which there seem to be a lot, so this seems to fit right in) intended that child to be gay?

A heart condition could be claimed to be caused by external factors during the baby's development. A genetically determined homosexual preference can't. It's been there from the moment of creation.

my disease is caused genetically I still treat it (not that I think being gay is a disease, but I am just trying to help you better form your side.....by playing devil's advocate)

Right, but only a completely irrational person with no knowledge of the facts would make a claim like that. And hopefully Darwinism woud kick in soon after.

what Darwinsim?

my disease is caused genetically I still treat it (not that I think being gay is a disease, but I am just trying to help you better form your side.....by playing devil's advocate)

I don't want to sound insensitive in saying this, but I can't think of a way to say it more tactfully.

Couldn't it be argued that your condition, and the heart condition in your earlier example are also God's will? And therefore not to be messed with?

what Darwinsim?

Sort of my twisted way of wishing death on the fool.

I don't want to sound insensitive in saying this, but I can't think of a way to say it more tactfully.

Couldn't it be argued that your condition, and the heart condition in your earlier example are also God's will? And therefore not to be messed with?

you could. I wouldn't.

What? Why? Why would he want to "correct" "god's work"?

Ba-zing!

my disease is caused genetically I still treat it (not that I think being gay is a disease, but I am just trying to help you better form your side.....by playing devil's advocate)

Ok, that leads me to the conclusion that you don't believe that god's work is perfect...
Which leads to the question did he intend to do a shoddy job, or is he incapable of doing better?

you could. I wouldn't.

Some actually do. I admire their faith, in between fits of giggles.

why would anyone want 2 change if their baby's gay or not? true gay ppl are great and reali gud friends! screw 'changing god's work' - everyone knows god is a load of crap, but gay ppl are kwl - only the ones tht are gay tho, not the ppl that pretend! ^_^

Ok, that leads me to the conclusion that you don't believe that god's work is perfect...
Which leads to the question did he intend to do a shoddy job, or is he incapable of doing better?

I have an acquaintance who thinks that in the beginning the human genome was perfect but years of sin and abuse have caused it to degrade and that's the reason that we have disease today.

Some actually do. I admire their faith, in between fits of giggles.

I giggle until they kill off their kids, then I am mad.

I have an acquaintance who thinks that in the beginning the human genome was perfect but years of sin and abuse have caused it to degrade and that's the reason that we have disease today.

Interesting... did you ask them how they think the genome can be "abused"?
Also, that would mean that in the begining, there was no homosexuality, right? In which case it would make no sense at all to put a law against it into the bible...

I have an acquaintance who thinks that in the beginning the human genome was perfect but years of sin and abuse have caused it to degrade and that's the reason that we have disease today.

So it has nothing to do with repeated inbreeding due to having a single initial mating pair.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

No, why would I?

Of course, I don't even want to know the sex of my child before birth, so even if there were a test for sexuality, I don't think I'd have it done.

Whoever this man is, I hope he will be cursed with SCORES of flaming, effeminate gay male offsprings, and LEGIONS of tomboyish, masculine female lesbian spawns.

Clearly, God's work in that case would be to send those wonderful children to him to make him get through his thick, albeit empty head, that he doesn't care in the least who gets into bed with who as far as gender is concerned.

why would anyone want 2 change if their baby's gay or not? true gay ppl are great and reali gud friends! screw 'changing god's work' - everyone knows god is a load of crap, but gay ppl are kwl - only the ones tht are gay tho, not the ppl that pretend! ^_^

Welcome to NSG.

Here, have a pamphlet, it explains everything! Everything from good grammar and spelling practices to how to make a coherent post that everyone can understand, as well as the dos and don'ts of NSG, which includes, but not limited to proper use of sentences and a requirement that if your post is incoherent, you must either be stoned or drunk, otherwise you must face the Grammar/Spelling Nazi Brigade.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e34/nightlightkid/GrammarTime.gif

Religion is BAD, M'KAY?


nobody stops to consider that any group telling THEY alone are right and deserve salvation, and all the others are: heathens, sinners, idolators, liars and what not else are DANGEROUS at best?

start to think for yourselves, and if that is not posible, just go back to watching the Simpsons and South park please

So it has nothing to do with repeated inbreeding due to having a single initial mating pair.

according to him? no. He claims Adam and Eve had perfect DNA and so their kids were able to breed together without problem, however after Noah and the rain the atmosphere changed and we had more radiation on Earth and so the genome began to slowly degrade, which he claims supports why people lived for hundreds of years in the OT but not today.

I never claimed him sane.

Interesting... did you ask them how they think the genome can be "abused"?
Also, that would mean that in the begining, there was no homosexuality, right? In which case it would make no sense at all to put a law against it into the bible...

he claims mostly environmental factors, like radiation in the atmosphere and such. this particular person believes homosexuality is a choice so I can't question him about it much.

sanity is only a concept...


who's version of it would be TRUE?


interesting

call me what you like, at least you are talking about me, ghah

he claims mostly environmental factors, like radiation in the atmosphere and such. this particular person believes homosexuality is a choice so I can't question him about it much.

So, in essence, god's work. Mankind was only able to put radiation in the atmosphere in the middle of the last century... nowhere near enough time to account for homosexuality in Ancient Greece :)

Edit : Oops. Ok. He doesn't believe homosexuality to be genetic. Just disregard my post ;)

according to him? no. He claims Adam and Eve had perfect DNA and so their kids were able to breed together without problem, however after Noah and the rain the atmosphere changed and we had more radiation on Earth and so the genome began to slowly degrade, which he claims supports why people lived for hundreds of years in the OT but not today.

I never claimed him sane.

:eek: No, no you didn't.

he claims mostly environmental factors, like radiation in the atmosphere and such. this particular person believes homosexuality is a choice so I can't question him about it much.

My Bible facts are a little fuzzy, but didn't Sodom and Gomorra happen before the Flood?

Yes. As long as the procedure is safe for the baby and the mother, why on Earth not?

Why, though? I mean, what for?

The part that bothers me most about the article, really, is this:

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem."

I call bullshit. This guy isn't Jesus Christ, so he's not the arbiter of the "only way a Christian can look at it."


Yes. As long as the procedure is safe for the baby and the mother, why on Earth not?

(a) No medical procedure is 100% safe. There are always possible side effects.

(b) Why perform a medical procedure that has no medical significance?

(c) If you won't love your child regardless of their sexuality, you are unfit to be a parent.

My Bible facts are a little fuzzy, but didn't Sodom and Gomorra happen before the Flood?

Sodom and Gomhorra were destroyed because the villagers wanted to rape the angels. Religious nuts clearly have a lot of difficulty grasping the fondamental difference betweem consensual, loving gay relationships and attempted rape and molestation. One of the two is clearly reprehensible, the other is not.

I don't remember whether it was destroyed before the flood or not, however. But in light of what I just said above, it really doesn't matter, since it was divine punishment rained down upon would-be-rapists, not divine retribution on OMG TEH EBIL GAYS.

:eek: No, no you didn't.

it's interesting to talk to him though, mostly I just ask questions and nod and smile when he talks.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

Yes. As long as the procedure is safe for the baby and the mother, why on Earth not?

My Bible facts are a little fuzzy, but didn't Sodom and Gomorra happen before the Flood?

yes.

Like I said though, this particular person doesn't believe homosexuality is genetic.

I'm given to understand from my Christian friends that the Bible doesn't actually say anything negative about homosexuality in any event. But what do I know? I don't consult dusty old books in order to get on with living.

The negative material about homosexuality comes from the Old Testament, namely Leviticus. The New Testament doesn't have the same take on it. AFAIK...

Gah. Reading that, there are a hundred things to get angry about, but it really all boils down to the question what the hell it is about homosexuality that scares Christian nuts out of their wits.

The bible also says killing and stealing and, hello, adultery is wrong but I have yet to see the fundamentalists get their panties in a wad over either of those. Except of course when the "killing" involves fetuses, then they're right there picketing.

Bigoted assholes.

I'm given to understand from my Christian friends that the Bible doesn't actually say anything negative about homosexuality in any event. But what do I know? I don't consult dusty old books in order to get on with living.

I'm given to understand from my Christian friends that the Bible doesn't actually say anything negative about homosexuality in any event. But what do I know? I don't consult dusty old books in order to get on with living.

Actually, that's not quite exact.

The bible has few and far between passages condeming homosexuality, the most well-known being the book of Leviticus, in which nice rules of higyene and conduct are present, such as the rules for selling your daughter as a slave, and Paul's writing to the Romans, Paul being overly contemptuous and misogynistic towards women, homosexuality, and sexuality in general.

So there are occurences, but they're disputable, seeing as Jesus, the son of God himself, never mentions homosexuality in the four gospels. Not even once. Yet, he openly speaks up against adultery on numerous occasions. One would think the religious nuts should change their focus and instead try to find an in-utero way to cure adultery before it even happens, instead of their continued gay bashing.

Yes. As long as the procedure is safe for the baby and the mother, why on Earth not?

Would it not be the height of hypocricy for an avowed Christian to presume to vet God's handiwork?

It's bullshit like this that gives Christianity a bad name. I hope you realize this, Smunk.

What? Why? Why would he want to "correct" "god's work"?

I'll miss you when they round the Crusades out to an even ten.


Has anyone ever noticed that Smunkee is the least conservative conservative christian on the planet?

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.Heil Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr!If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?No, but if I was American, and for some reason couldn't emigrate, I'd probably buy the kid a gun and a membership to the local shooting range.

Perhaps US religious fanatics should get together with the Chinese. I hear they don't want any female children, so perhaps it's the way for the fanatics to finally stop people having consensual sex.

It's bullshit like this that gives Christianity a bad name. I hope you realize this, Smunk.

And Smunkee is to blame how, exactly?

The negative material about homosexuality comes from the Old Testament, namely Leviticus. The New Testament doesn't have the same take on it. AFAIK...

Duh. Of course not. Jesus's disciples were almost entirely male, and all those long walks when they had to break camp...


Well, it certainly contributes to a liberal view on homosexuality.


:p

And Smunkee is to blame how, exactly?

Wrong place, wrong time.

Why, though? I mean, what for?

Maybe I want to have grandkids, for starters.

Then there's the whole thing about gays being discriminated against. Maybe not officially in these days, but there is a good chance he'd get his ass kicked all the way through school. What kind of a parent would I be, if I didn't prevent that even if I had a chance?

Overall, gays generally (or so I've heard) often suffer from a wide range of psychological problems due to feelings of not fitting in, or stuff like that. By making the change, I can save the kid a lot of trouble in life, and there is no reason whatsoever to not make the change.

Oh yes, I'm also a bigot, who would rather have straight kids. That's the answer you wanted, right? Taking those previous points into account, though, that shouldn't matter.

(a) No medical procedure is 100% safe. There are always possible side effects.

Just for the sake of the argument. If this ever actually becomes an issue for me, I'll decide the acceptable risk level then.

(b) Why perform a medical procedure that has no medical significance?

I don't see what that has to do with it. It would be pretty much the same thing as plastic surgery, and I have nothing against that either.

(c) If you won't love your child regardless of their sexuality, you are unfit to be a parent.

Sure I would. But if I can decide the child's sexuality before he is even born, why shouldn't I choose one that suits me best?

Would it not be the height of hypocricy for an avowed Christian to presume to vet God's handiwork?

Who says I'm an avowed Christian? I'm more of an agnostic verging on Christianity.

yes.

Like I said though, this particular person doesn't believe homosexuality is genetic.

The correct answer for that question ("was Sodom and Gomorrah before the flood?"), was No, not yes. The story is about Lot (who was contemporary with Abraham)... The story goes that Abraham was thousands of years after Noah and the world was repopulated by then.

The correct answer for that question ("was Sodom and Gomorrah before the flood?"), was No, not yes. The story is about Lot (who was contemporary with Abraham)... The story goes that Abraham was thousands of years after Noah and the world was repopulated by then.

sorry about that. :) we are all allowed one slip up a day right?

And Smunkee is to blame how, exactly?

She's not really to blame, other than the fact that she doesn't seem to care how christianity as a whole looks to others who see stuff like this all over the place.

And Smunkee is to blame how, exactly?

because I am evil? because Szanth doesn't like me? because I am Christian? because I am using someone else's arguments to play devil's advocate (literally)

She's not really to blame, other than the fact that she doesn't seem to care how christianity as a whole looks to others who see stuff like this all over the place.

you seem to be under the impression that I have some kind of control over the situation.

sorry about that. :) we are all allowed one slip up a day right?

OH I hope more than one! :eek: ;)

OH I hope more than one! :eek: ;)

haha.....I get my chronology screwed up today, since I am doing 40 things at once, although that's a big error as you pointed out LOL

Has anyone ever noticed that Smunkee is the least conservative conservative christian on the planet?Not on the planet, though possibly in the US. I have a number of German friends very similar in outlook to her. Hell, if I hadn't seem her proclaim shit about punkbands & pink hair, I would've assumed she was a skin.

you seem to be under the impression that I have some kind of control over the situation.

No, but you just don't seem to care. I have no control over any of the topics we discuss in NSG, but I care - I put forth my opinion and let it be known "Hey, athiests are just as good or bad as any other religion" so that people know where I stand and just maybe I'll reach someone and change their mind about something they were previously ignorant about.

I don't think you're evil and I know you're not a 'whacko' christian, I just find your "meh" attitude to something that affects a group you're a part of to be a bit disconcerting.

Homosexuality is a choice, and a disgusting one at that.

Actually, that's not quite exact.

The bible has few and far between passages condeming homosexuality, the most well-known being the book of Leviticus, in which nice rules of higyene and conduct are present, such as the rules for selling your daughter as a slave, and Paul's writing to the Romans, Paul being overly contemptuous and misogynistic towards women, homosexuality, and sexuality in general.

So there are occurences, but they're disputable, seeing as Jesus, the son of God himself, never mentions homosexuality in the four gospels. Not even once. Yet, he openly speaks up against adultery on numerous occasions. One would think the religious nuts should change their focus and instead try to find an in-utero way to cure adultery before it even happens, instead of their continued gay bashing.

Yes, but doesn't Leviticus, on the same page that it calls for the death of homosexuals, call for the death of anyone who shaves the hair around their temples? (The temples on your forehead, not holy temples)

I don't see those same fundies advocating stoning skinheads to death.

Homosexuality is a choice, and a disgusting one at that.

But I bet you'd not say no to watching a couple of good-looking lesbians go at it, now would you? :rolleyes:

Homosexuality is a choice, and a disgusting one at that.

Care to back that up with something?

Homosexuality is a choice, and a disgusting one at that.

Care to back that up with something?

Nah, he's just trying to be obnoxious. I wouldn't worry about it.

I enjoy instances of the pot calling the kettle black.

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

Care to back that up with something?

I'll take "No" for 500, Alex.

Care to back that up with something?

I find reality to work fine.

Care to back that up with something?

Oh, why bother?

'Disgusting'? Been there, done that, don't feel like handing out free soapboxes to knucklewalking mouthbreathers today.

Oh, why bother?

'Disgusting'? Been there, done that, don't feel like handing out free soapboxes to knucklewalking mouthbreathers today.

I enjoy instances of the pot calling the kettle black.

I find reality to work fine.

Didn't think you did, but I had to check before I counted you among the Cornies of NSG.

Apparently my Morondar is working perfectly today.

But I bet you'd not say no to watching a couple of good-looking lesbians go at it, now would you? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't be surprised if he gets off on it daily.

Cafeteria Religion ftw. After all, no religion is exempt from this.

Oh I understood that from the word go.

I'm just wondering if you're a troll or a devil's advocate.

Lol, either way, he's gotten the attention he was looking for.

Didn't think you did, but I had to check before I counted you among the Cornies of NSG.

Apparently my Morondar is working perfectly today.

I like personal attacks. Do continue. I find the annoyance of people I don't know amusing.

I enjoy instances of the pot calling the kettle black.

You wanna find out what I use my knuckles for, puppet-boy?

Think about my name for a second. It'll come to you.

Oh I understood that from the word go.

I'm just wondering if you're a troll or a devil's advocate.

Has anyone ever noticed that Smunkee is the least conservative conservative christian on the planet?
I am actually a very conservative Christian, I just don't mix faith and politics.
Not on the planet, though possibly in the US. I have a number of German friends very similar in outlook to her. Hell, if I hadn't seem her proclaim shit about punkbands & pink hair, I would've assumed she was a skin.
I think you lost me somewhere :confused:

No, but you just don't seem to care. I have no control over any of the topics we discuss in NSG, but I care - I put forth my opinion and let it be known "Hey, athiests are just as good or bad as any other religion" so that people know where I stand and just maybe I'll reach someone and change their mind about something they were previously ignorant about.

I don't think you're evil and I know you're not a 'whacko' christian, I just find your "meh" attitude to something that affects a group you're a part of to be a bit disconcerting.
the only really important group I associate with are the people who live in my house, I am a Christian, I am a woman, I am an American, and I am of European decent. I don't go around trying to distance myself from women when Bottle says something I don't agree with, I don't try to distance myself from my country when W goes on about his idiocy, I don't try to back away from my ancestry when another pale person whose family got over here on the boat from Ireland says something idiotic, I don't know why it would behoove me to continually speak out against whatever idiotic Christian might state even if they do belong to the same denomination as me. People in general fall between the range of idiot and intelligent, I don't really see it necessary to point that out daily.

I think you lost me somewhere :confused: I was just pointing out there's nothing unique about your version of being a conservative Christian.

I am actually a very conservative Christian, I just don't mix faith and politics.

I think you lost me somewhere :confused:


the only really important group I associate with are the people who live in my house, I am a Christian, I am a woman, I am an American, and I am of European decent. I don't go around trying to distance myself from women when Bottle says something I don't agree with, I don't try to distance myself from my country when W goes on about his idiocy, I don't try to back away from my ancestry when another pale person whose family got over here on the boat from Ireland says something idiotic, I don't know why it would behoove me to continually speak out against whatever idiotic Christian might state even if they do belong to the same denomination as me. People in general fall between the range of idiot and intelligent, I don't really see it necessary to point that out daily.

Because otherwise people don't know if you agree or not, and form incorrect opinions based on it.

Because otherwise people don't know if you agree or not, and form incorrect opinions based on it.

again, you seem to have this idea that I control the situation. people will believe about me what they want no matter what I say, so why should I have to communicate with those people if I don't want to?

I was just pointing out there's nothing unique about your version of being a conservative Christian.

what was with all the pink hair and punk rockers and what is a skin? (sorry for my ignorance)

again, you seem to have this idea that I control the situation. people will believe about me what they want no matter what I say, so why should I have to communicate with those people if I don't want to?

Wait! :eek: There's something Smunkee doesn't control? :eek: *runs & hides*

what was with all the pink hair and punk rockers and what is a skin? (sorry for my ignorance)The only people I know personally who shares your general worldview (so much you'd be surprised, I think) and self identify as conservative Christians, are skinheads. Hence me saying if I didn't know better, I would've taken you for one as well. Don't worry, if anything, it's a compliment.

Homosexuality is a choice, and a disgusting one at that.

Heterosexuality is a choice, and an immoral, sinful one at that.

again, you seem to have this idea that I control the situation. people will believe about me what they want no matter what I say, so why should I have to communicate with those people if I don't want to?

Yes, some will believe some things about you regardless of what you say, but -most- will believe things based on what you do and -don't- say, so there you do have control of the situation.


A skin is a white supremacist. Skinhead.

The only people I know personally who shares your general worldview (so much you'd be surprised, I think) and self identify as conservative Christians, are skinheads. Hence me saying if I didn't know better, I would've taken you for one as well. Don't worry, if anything, it's a compliment.

I don't like skinheads :( why would you think I was one?

Yes, some will believe some things about you regardless of what you say, but -most- will believe things based on what you do and -don't- say, so there you do have control of the situation.

A skin is a white supremacist. Skinhead.This post is a great example of why you shouldn't jump to conclusions about shit you're ignorant of.

Muslims are, by and large, not hellbent on the destruction of Jews, Israel, secular society and non-Muslims. A few are though, and because of the coverage they recieve in the media, there's not enough hours in the day for normal, sane Muslims to condemn them for it. Nor should they have to.

Christians - and skinheads, for that matter - are in exactly the same situation. Christians make up for 70% and upwards of the various peoples of Europe, for example. Is it really fair to expect them to throw a fucking press conference every single time some asswipe spews insane gibberish in the media? Or could it perhaps be that it's more reasonable to assume that since this overwhelming majority have never expressed any sort of sympathy for the few crazies, and in no way lend support to the crazies by their actions, that the crazies just might be speaking for the crazies, and the crazies alone?

And no. Skinheads aren't fucking racists. If you knew anything about the culture, you'd know it & racism are mutually exclusive. In any case, the skins I mentioned are SHARP, Skinheads Against Racial/Religious Prejudice.

I don't like skinheads :( why would you think I was one?

I think European skinheads and American skinheads are two entirely unrelated things... only they look alike.

From my understanding, I might be wrong, everyone feel free to clarify where they can...

European skinheads are rebels, perhaps Christians, against the standard norm of their society in Europe

American skinheads are xenophobic Aryan race Nazi’s

I thought the subject concerned homosexualism and its (very) early correction?

This post is a great example of why you shouldn't jump to conclusions about shit you're ignorant of.

Muslims are, by and large, not hellbent on the destruction of Jews, Israel, secular society and non-Muslims. A few are though, and because of the coverage they recieve in the media, there's not enough hours in the day for normal, sane Muslims to condemn them for it. Nor should they have to.

Never said they were. In fact, I've told that same thing to many on these very forums.

Christians - and skinheads, for that matter - are in exactly the same situation. Christians make up for 70% and upwards of the various peoples of Europe, for example. Is it really fair to expect them to throw a fucking press conference every single time some asswipe spews insane gibberish in the media? Or could it perhaps be that it's more reasonable to assume that since this overwhelming majority have never expressed any sort of sympathy for the few crazies, and in no way lend support to the crazies by their actions, that the crazies just might be speaking for the crazies, and the crazies alone?

Slight difference between "press conference" and not posting your thoughts, positively or negatively, on an online forum where that's basically all people do.

And no. Skinheads aren't fucking racists. If you knew anything about the culture, you'd know it & racism are mutually exclusive. In any case, the skins I mentioned are SHARP, Skinheads Against Racial/Religious Prejudice.

Maybe I'm just confused. I thought the whole point of being a skinhead was being racist and bigoted, otherwise you're not a skinhead, you're just a guy with a shaved head. What's the point in identifying yourself by your hairstyle? "We shave our heads AND we're against racism!" Couldn't you do that with hair, as well? Or couldn't you be a representative of maybe whatever religion you happen to be or whatever race you happen to be and do that same thing? Just seems odd. I've never heard of such a thing, maybe I'm out of the loop..

I think European skinheads and American skinheads are two entirely unrelated things... only they look alike.

From my understanding, I might be wrong, everyone feel free to clarify where they can...

European skinheads are rebels, perhaps Christians, against the standard norm of their society in Europe

American skinheads are xenophobic Aryan race Nazi’s

*shrugs* Same in America, they just don't call themselves skinheads, they're just dudes with shaved heads. It's still a symbol of rebellion, much like a mohawk, but in America the term "skinhead" was already taken by bigots, so, yeah.

God damn, I just realized how hijacked this thread became.

Please learn to quote Szanth.Never said they were. In fact, I've told that same thing to many on these very forums.

Slight difference between "press conference" and not posting your thoughts, positively or negatively, on an online forum where that's basically all people do.I never accused you of condemning Muslims for the acts of insane people, it was an analogy used in an attempt to make you see the idiocy of doing the same to Christians. And Smunk did voice her opinion, didn't she? She just didn't throw a press conference to ensure the entire world didn't assume gibbering insane wretches speak for her - and she shouldn't have to.Maybe I'm just confused. I thought the whole point of being a skinhead was being racist and bigoted, otherwise you're not a skinhead, you're just a guy with a shaved head. What's the point in identifying yourself by your hairstyle? "We shave our heads AND we're against racism!" Couldn't you do that with hair, as well? Or couldn't you be a representative of maybe whatever religion you happen to be or whatever race you happen to be and do that same thing? Just seems odd. I've never heard of such a thing, maybe I'm out of the loop.You're not confused, you're just making shit up and telling yourself it has real world relevance. Medication might help sort that problem out for you, but I'm no professional, so don't take my word for it.

The cult was the mating of rudeboy & mod culture. Most of the really famous skinheads are black, and if you actually looked, instead of just imagining shit & assuming it's real, you'd find skinhead culture's alive and kicking in virtually every country and amongst all the peoples of the planet.

The culture was never really about politics, though class solidarity, anti-racism and a strong work ethic has always been part of it.

Maybe you should ask the next skin you meet. Or Google. Or go visit the fucking library.

LOL ;)


Okay, I'll bring it back on track...


IF, now everyone read that again, IF the assumption was correct, the assumption the preacher made in his paper, that the treatment for the fetus would be a hormonal treatment for a hormonal condition, THEN what he is talking about is not genetics. His position is that genetic alterations are wrong, but hormonal treatments are okay. So if you are going to attack him, you can't rightly use the argument that 'God' created the baby that way, because the causation is an environmental one in the womb, not the DNA?RNA genetic disposition of the fetus.... Do you see the difference?

To say God created the child that way now would be like saying God created the starving child to starve... No, food cures the ailment, just like hormones would cure the deficiency in the developing fetus.


(AGAIN NOTE: I am not saying that homosexuality is caused or cured by hormonal conditions of the womb, I'm only saying what the preacher in the paper said, for clarification... but people in the thread keep talking about genetic alterations, which is a different thing entirely.)


Pump enough hormones into the womb and you can turn an XY fetus into a female. So this preacher man is pro-gender selection of our children?

God damn, I just realized how hijacked this thread became.

LOL ;)


Okay, I'll bring it back on track...


IF, now everyone read that again, IF the assumption was correct, the assumption the preacher made in his paper, that the treatment for the fetus would be a hormonal treatment for a hormonal condition, THEN what he is talking about is not genetics. His position is that genetic alterations are wrong, but hormonal treatments are okay. So if you are going to attack him, you can't rightly use the argument that 'God' created the baby that way, because the causation is an environmental one in the womb, not the DNA?RNA genetic disposition of the fetus.... Do you see the difference?

To say God created the child that way now would be like saying God created the starving child to starve... No, food cures the ailment, just like hormones would cure the deficiency in the developing fetus.


(AGAIN NOTE: I am not saying that homosexuality is caused or cured by hormonal conditions of the womb, I'm only saying what the preacher in the paper said, for clarification... but people in the thread keep talking about genetic alterations, which is a different thing entirely.)

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

No, for two reasons:

1. It's immoral.
2. I wouldn't care.

No, for two reasons:

1. It's immoral.
2. I wouldn't care.Why is it immoral?

Just for S&Gs I'm going to rephrase my questions, just slightly. If you could know, before birth, that your child was going to be a religious fanatic, and there was a medical procedure that would change that, would you change it?

And, for the record, If I had the option of changing my children's sexuality, I would not. In point of fact, unless something were directly life/health threatening, I would leave it alone.

Why is it immoral?

Please tell me you're joking.

I GOT CABBAGE PATCH GIRL!

Why is it immoral?

Because it's objectifying another person - treating her as if she should exist to suit you, rather than be a person in her own right.

They are talking about a fetus after all... So now a fetus is a person?

:rolleyes:

No, the child is a person.

Maybe I want to have grandkids, for starters.

Homosexuals are not infertile.

Then there's the whole thing about gays being discriminated against. Maybe not officially in these days, but there is a good chance he'd get his ass kicked all the way through school. What kind of a parent would I be, if I didn't prevent that even if I had a chance?

(a) Your children will have to endure being made fun of for something. That is part of growing up. A parent who tries to prevent all of it is a bad parent.

(b) The way to stop this sort of thing is not to be a part of it, which is what you are advocating.

Overall, gays generally (or so I've heard) often suffer from a wide range of psychological problems due to feelings of not fitting in, or stuff like that. By making the change, I can save the kid a lot of trouble in life, and there is no reason whatsoever to not make the change.

....except that you then become the reason that homosexuals go through those feelings by making it clear that, to you, they have no place in human society.

Besides, the younger the generation, the less problem people tend to have with people of other sexualities. By the time we have children, it probably won't be much of an issue at all.

I don't see what that has to do with it. It would be pretty much the same thing as plastic surgery, and I have nothing against that either.

Would you perform plastic surgery on a fetus? Shouldn't plastic surgery be something that a person decides for themselves, unless they are correcting a deformity that affects quality of life?

Sure I would. But if I can decide the child's sexuality before he is even born, why shouldn't I choose one that suits me best?

Because that is a contradiction to the first statement. If sexuality matters to you, then it factors into how you feel about your children. If it doesn't, then you have no reason to alter it, as you'll be able to parent your child no matter what their sexual orientation (or sex, or hair color, or any other trait) turns out to be.

Please learn to quote Szanth.I never accused you of condemning Muslims for the acts of insane people, it was an analogy used in an attempt to make you see the idiocy of doing the same to Christians. And Smunk did voice her opinion, didn't she? She just didn't throw a press conference to ensure the entire world didn't assume gibbering insane wretches speak for her - and she shouldn't have to.You're not confused, you're just making shit up and telling yourself it has real world relevance. Medication might help sort that problem out for you, but I'm no professional, so don't take my word for it.

The cult was the mating of rudeboy & mod culture. Most of the really famous skinheads are black, and if you actually looked, instead of just imagining shit & assuming it's real, you'd find skinhead culture's alive and kicking in virtually every country and amongst all the peoples of the planet.

The culture was never really about politics, though class solidarity, anti-racism and a strong work ethic has always been part of it.

Maybe you should ask the next skin you meet. Or Google. Or go visit the fucking library.

Or maybe I should report you to the mods for flaming, hm? Try not to be so condescending, it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, trying to mask it with insults.

Smunk voiced her opinion, somewhat, I suppose. But I was referring to another thread in which I argued that a site called www.godtube.com made christians look stupid, and would take offense to such a thing if I were a christian. So you see, this really relates to something you had no part in from a previous time. Butt out.

Where I live, if you mention 'skinheads', everyone considers it to be the same thing: bald white bigots, a la American History X. Maybe it's different where you are, I'm not judging you or where you live, but I don't appreciate you assuming that just because where I live and what I've experienced to be different than you that I'm entirely ignorant of something you consider to be a globally accepted definition and I'm the only guy who doesn't get it. If I'm wrong, and skinheads are, indeed, a widely known clique of upstanding citizens who identify themselves by their haircut, then my hat's off to you, but I've never heard of it.

Because it's objectifying another person - treating her as if she should exist to suit you, rather than be a person in her own right.

They are talking about a fetus after all... So now a fetus is a person?

I disagree with designer babies anyway. But say I did have to choose, I would choose straight. This is because, if you look at this realisticly, the child will probably have a better all round life suffering less persecution/discrimination and will probably find it easier to just "fit in" and not feel like an outcast through teenhood. I'm not saying thats a good thing, but it's the way it is right now.

They are talking about a fetus after all... So now a fetus is a person?

/facepalm


Welcome to my ignore list, I cannot take you seriously.

Yeah but think about how the kid would feel knowing they were originally supposed to be something other than what you made them to be. I mean, genetic alterations like strength and intelligence, that's no problem that I can see, but to hear from your dad "Hey y'know in mommy's womb you were cockthirsty, so we had to pump you full of hormones. Yup. If not for science, you would be gay right now." - kinda traumatizing.

Which is why I am generally against designer babies, unless in certian circumstances.

Am I the only one who sees the major contradiction in this? ;)

Nah. You bring up a very good point.

Because it's objectifying another person - treating her as if she should exist to suit you, rather than be a person in her own right.

Precisely. A child isn't there to suit his or her parents. A child isn't there to suite anyone. A child is a person. A parent's job is not to try to fit that child to a mold, but to work with the child as she exists - to help her develop and mature into the person she will become. A parent who tries to force a child into a given mold doesn't want a child - they want a toy that they can put together in just the right way.

I disagree with designer babies anyway. But say I did have to choose, I would choose straight. This is because, if you look at this realisticly, the child will probably have a better all round life suffering less persecution/discrimination and will probably find it easier to just "fit in" and not feel like an outcast through teenhood. I'm not saying thats a good thing, but it's the way it is right now.

Yeah but think about how the kid would feel knowing they were originally supposed to be something other than what you made them to be. I mean, genetic alterations like strength and intelligence, that's no problem that I can see, but to hear from your dad "Hey y'know in mommy's womb you were cockthirsty, so we had to pump you full of hormones. Yup. If not for science, you would be gay right now." - kinda traumatizing.

Precisely. A child isn't there to suit his or her parents. A child isn't there to suite anyone. A child is a person. A parent's job is not to try to fit that child to a mold, but to work with the child as she exists - to help her develop and mature into the person she will become. A parent who tries to force a child into a given mold doesn't want a child - they want a toy that they can put together in just the right way.

So then you agree with the Minister who wrote the article in question. Good.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.
7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

Please tell me you're joking.I wasn't.Because it's objectifying another person - treating her as if she should exist to suit you, rather than be a person in her own right.Doesn't that argument depend on the parent doing it for the parent's sake? What if, for example, the parent wishes to change the unborn's sexual orientation simply because life's easier with one particular sexual orientation. Is it still immoral to do it then?Or maybe I should report you to the mods for flaming, hm? Try not to be so condescending, it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, trying to mask it with insults.I'm not stopping you. If you're irrational enough to conclude my tone has any bearing on the validity of my arguments, then I suggest you at least seek an alternative source of information, like Google, the Wiki or your local library, when you yourself haven't got a clue.Smunk voiced her opinion, somewhat, I suppose. But I was referring to another thread in which I argued that a site called www.godtube.com made christians look stupid, and would take offense to such a thing if I were a christian. So you see, this really relates to something you had no part in from a previous time. Butt out.In that case, you failed to mention the basis for your argument. You cannot and should not expect your fellow posters to be psychic, and any confusion is of your own making.Where I live, if you mention 'skinheads', everyone considers it to be the same thing: bald white bigots, a la American History X.Which simply shows 'everyone' is whoefully ignorant and prejudiced as hell. Neo-Nazis and skinheads are not the same thing. It doesn't matter that you and your neighbour would rather they were.

It's relatively easy to find a society where it's generally accepted that Osama bin Laden speaks & acts for Muslims. All that means is that the society doesn't have a fucking clue & cannot be arsed to check the basis for their assumptions.

This is no different.If I'm wrong, and skinheads are, indeed, a widely known clique of upstanding citizens who identify themselves by their haircut, then my hat's off to you, but I've never heard of it.Few have, but that doesn't mean your baseless accusations are true. If anything, it simply means skins are a minority with limited access to the media and limited interest in having to tell everyone how idiotic it is to jump to conclusions that aren't supported by any evidence.

But hey, feel free to assume I'm making shit up simply because you don't like my tone & the content of my posts contradicts shit you've made up. But for fuck's sake; ask a skinhead or read up on their culture, before you assume your imagined shit is correct. Nobody's stopping you from verifying whether you've got reason to be prejudiced and call half my friends and family neo-Nazis.

Precisely. A child isn't there to suit his or her parents. A child isn't there to suite anyone. A child is a person. A parent's job is not to try to fit that child to a mold, but to work with the child as she exists - to help her develop and mature into the person she will become. A parent who tries to force a child into a given mold doesn't want a child - they want a toy that they can put together in just the right way.I don't disagree, but I don't see why modifying the potential child so it'll, for example, have an easier time in life, is immoral or necessarily indicative of any prejudice or particular 'molding desire' of the parents.

Thats exactly why I asked how it's immoral. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't do it. But I can't think of a universal argument for why it'd be wrong.

Yeah but think about how the kid would feel knowing they were originally supposed to be something other than what you made them to be. I mean, genetic alterations like strength and intelligence, that's no problem that I can see, but to hear from your dad "Hey y'know in mommy's womb you were cockthirsty, so we had to pump you full of hormones. Yup. If not for science, you would be gay right now." - kinda traumatizing.

"Supposed to be?" What is that? Is that a belief in God and preordination? If so, then I take it you are against all abortions etc., becasue every fetus has a "supposed to be" plan for it? So if changing it is wrong, killing it must be worse?

So then you agree with the Minister who wrote the article in question. Good.

No. The minister in question is suggesting that parents custom fit children to their own tastes - trying to ensure that the child will fit a particular mold. This is exactly the opposite of what I said.

What if, for example, the parent wishes to change the unborn's sexual orientation simply because life's easier with one particular sexual orientation. Is it still immoral to do it then?

I don't disagree, but I don't see why modifying the potential child so it'll, for example, have an easier time in life, is immoral or necessarily indicative of any prejudice or particular 'molding desire' of the parents.

Thats exactly why I asked how it's immoral. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't do it. But I can't think of a universal argument for why it'd be wrong.

That's more understandable, but it still amounts to pretty much the same thing. At that point, instead of trying to mold the child to their own tastes, they're trying to mold the child to suit someone else's tastes. The idea of molding is still the same. The parent doesn't want the child to grow into a person who might be different. The reason behind it is simply different.

A parent doesn't raise their child to be a little automaton just like everyone else so that the child will have an easy life. That's just another way of hoping for a robot. A parent raises a child to be his/her own person - whatever that may be, and tries to equip them with what they need to live a happy and fulfilled life, no matter how different they are.


And, in the process, they validate and add to the problems that those who are different face.

No. The minister in question is suggesting that parents custom fit children to their own tastes - trying to ensure that the child will fit a particular mold. This is exactly the opposite of what I said.


Ah, so you are against sending your kids to the very best schools, or parents exposing them to the best meuseums and music etc., because you are against 'parents forming them' into fitting a particular mold?

Ah, so you are against sending your kids to the very best schools, or parents exposing them to the best meuseums and music etc., because you are against 'parents forming them' into fitting a particular mold?

That isn't form fitting them. Parents absolutely should provide their children with the best possible opportunities and the expose them to art, etc. What a parent shouldn't do is tell that child that he has to like math and science when he goes to that really good school. Maybe the child excels at literature and is largely uninterested in math or science. While the child will still need to learn those subjects, his interest in literature, if that is what he likes and excels at, should be fostered. To try and force him to concentrate on math and science would be to try and form-fit him.

Likewise, the child should be exposed to museums, music, etc. But if the child ends up really, really liking country music and hates classical - that's the child's preference and it should be respected, no matter how much the parents may like it. If the child is uninterested in playing a musical instrument and prefers other hobbies, then those other hobbies should be fostered, no matter how much the parents really wanted a violinist.

Exposing children to various things and giving them the best opportunities you can doesn't form fit them, as they will become their own person within that framework. All the parent is doing is trying to make sure they have a wide range of experience and access to experience in order to do so. I know you aren't so dense that you can't see the difference, so please try.

Ah, so you are against sending your kids to the very best schools, or parents exposing them to the best meuseums and music etc., because you are against 'parents forming them' into fitting a particular mold?

The doesn't equate to altering a child's genes and you know it.

A thread like this has been done before a couple of months ago - in fact, it reached over 200 pages if I recall. I wonder if this one will break the record.

*so disappointed*

I saw the topic "gay babies" and was sure this was about teletubbies.

The doesn't equate to altering a child's genes and you know it.

Hormone treatments don't alter a childs genes either...

Hormone treatments don't alter a childs genes either...

So I take it you're also an advocate then of altering a child's gender using hormones and surgery? After all, that doesn't change genes.

That isn't form fitting them. Parents absolutely should provide their children with the best possible opportunities and the expose them to art, etc. What a parent shouldn't do is tell that child that he has to like math and science when he goes to that really good school. Maybe the child excels at literature and is largely uninterested in math or science. While the child will still need to learn those subjects, his interest in literature, if that is what he likes and excels at, should be fostered. To try and force him to concentrate on math and science would be to try and form-fit him.

Likewise, the child should be exposed to museums, music, etc. But if the child ends up really, really liking country music and hates classical - that's the child's preference and it should be respected, no matter how much the parents may like it. If the child is uninterested in playing a musical instrument and prefers other hobbies, then those other hobbies should be fostered, no matter how much the parents really wanted a violinist.

Exposing children to various things and giving them the best opportunities you can doesn't form fit them, as they will become their own person within that framework. All the parent is doing is trying to make sure they have a wide range of experience and access to experience in order to do so. I know you aren't so dense that you can't see the difference, so please try.


I wanted to see how far you intended to go in suggesting that parents shouldn’t have an impact on who their children grow up to be. Obviously you only meant they shouldn't have an impact on it if they go outside of the parameters you set for them...

You agree that we ARE responsible for the development of our children. We ARE responsible for their physical development (braces, physical health and proper nutrition and health care I'm sure) as well as their mental development (schooling and exposure to new ideas etc.,). But you have a set or parameters of what you believe is acceptable for a parent to do and a minimum level of expectation of what you think a parent is responsible for…But additionally, you are judgmental of people that do not fall within the parameters you have set for them, you do not approve if they choose to raise their children outside of the parameters you have set for them.

If I force them to wear braces when they are fourteen and adamantly against it, do you approve or disapprove? What if I force them to take medications for ADHD (or some other behavior condition) that the child doesn't want to take... What if I force my children to learn to play the piano even if they hate it, does that mean the children should be taken away from me, should they be able to sue me when they are adults?

So I take it you're also an advocate then of altering a child's gender using hormones and surgery? After all, that doesn't change genes.

I've never been faced with that question. But we both know that a transgendered children have been operated on, or physically harmed children had plastic surgery done to alter they bodies... These things aren't done on a whim. Who are we to sit in judgment of what the parents and doctors felt obligated to try and do to help a small child. You and I both know that these things sometimes turn out tragically too.

Interesting isn't it, that this theoretical hormone treatment in-utero, could conceivably remove the need for such surgeries in the future.

All NationStates does is remind me of how many ignorant and bigoted people are out there... and makes me ashamed of the human race. :(

I've never been faced with that question. But we both know that a transgendered children have been operated on, or physically harmed children had plastic surgery done to alter they bodies... These things aren't done on a whim. Who are we to sit in judgment of what the parents and doctors felt obligated to try and do to help a small child. You and I both know that these things sometimes turn out tragically too.

Interesting isn't it, that this theoretical hormone treatment in-utero, could conceivably remove the need for such surgeries in the future.

While the potential for benefit from them is great, I still don't see it as proper justification to attempt to alter sexuality. Unless you're religious, you can't really argue that homosexuality is inherently a harmful or debilitating condition that needs to be changed. In fact the only reason why one might change sexual oriented in-utero is precisely because of religion-fueled dislike of homosexuals, either as a result of outright bigotry or simple belief that one who is homosexual is damned to hell.

While the potential for benefit from them is great, I still don't see it as proper justification to attempt to alter sexuality. Unless you're religious, you can't really argue that homosexuality is inherently a harmful or debilitating condition that needs to be changed. In fact the only reason why one might change sexual oriented in-utero is precisely because of religion-fueled dislike of homosexuals, either as a result of outright bigotry or simple belief that one who is homosexual is damned to hell.

What if the in-utero test reveals a fetus that's going to be transgendered, and they have the ability to alter that outcome before it happens, should they then be allowed to choose a gender for the child via hormone treatments?

What if the in-utero test reveals a fetus that's going to be transgendered, and they have the ability to alter that outcome before it happens, should they then be allowed to choose a gender for the child via hormone treatments?

So you're suggesting that should they ever gain the ability to predict that a child will ultimately undergo a sex change, should they be allowed to perform that sex change for them? Yes, as strange as it may sound, I find that acceptable on some level.

However, that's not the same thing as homosexuality.

I wanted to see how far you intended to go in suggesting that parents shouldn’t have an impact on who their children grow up to be. Obviously you only meant they shouldn't have an impact on it if they go outside of the parameters you set for them...

I never suggested that parents shouldn't have an impact on who their children grow up to be. What I said was that parents should not try and force their children into a mold of who the parents think they should be. There is a rather large difference.

My mother has had more impact than anyone else on my life. But she never tried to force me to fit into a little mold of who she thought I might be before I was born. Instead, she helped me along the way in my development - precisely what a parent should do.

You agree that we ARE responsible for the development of our children. We ARE responsible for their physical development (braces, physical health and proper nutrition and health care I'm sure) as well as their mental development (schooling and exposure to new ideas etc.,).

Yes, but we aren't responsible for deciding what ideas they will ascribe to. We aren't responsible for deciding what their likes and dislikes are, or what they want to be when they grow up. Children are individuals, just like anyone else. Any person who even approximates a good parent will be willing to allow them to be individuals and to develop as an individual, instead of a good little robot.

But you have a set or parameters of what you believe is acceptable for a parent to do and a minimum level of expectation of what you think a parent is responsible for…

And you don't?

But additionally, you are judgmental of people that do not fall within the parameters you have set for them, you do not approve if they choose to raise their children outside of the parameters you have set for them.

Disapproval and judgmental are not the same thing. But yes, I do judge them to be bad parents, as they are doing exactly what I believe bad parents do.

If I force them to wear braces when they are fourteen and adamantly against it, do you approve or disapprove?

Braces? That's mostly cosmetic. If they are adamantly against it, I'd disapprove. They can choose to do so when they are older if they wish.

What if I force them to take medications for ADHD (or some other behavior condition) that the child doesn't want to take...

Do they need it to function? If so, then you should ensure that your child takes it. Of course, if it's just a matter of, "He's hyper! OH noes!" that parent has a problem.

What if I force my children to learn to play the piano even if they hate it, does that mean the children should be taken away from me, should they be able to sue me when they are adults?

They shouldn't be able to sue you for it, as there wasn't any permanent harm done. But you are a shoddy parent. You should find out what your child's interests are, and foster them, rather than trying to force something on them that they will now probably never enjoy.

I've never been faced with that question. But we both know that a transgendered children have been operated on,

I think you mean intersex children. I don't know of any actual sex-changes performed during childhood. And, actually, doing so is pretty clearly a horrible idea. It basically involves the parents and doctor arbitrarily trying to choose a gender for a child because that child's genitalia (which they won't need for sex until they are much, much older) aren't normal. Many of these children have grown up very much confused about their gender identity - and generally without any knowledge of the choice their parents made.

or physically harmed children had plastic surgery done to alter they bodies...

There is a rather large amount of difference between correcting harm and making arbitrary changes.

These things aren't done on a whim. Who are we to sit in judgment of what the parents and doctors felt obligated to try and do to help a small child. You and I both know that these things sometimes turn out tragically too.

The question is, "Why did they feel obligated?" If the obligation was one of medical necessity, there is nothing to judge. If the obligation was one in which the doctor and parents were convinced that it was the best choice, then it is understandable. Parents now, however, have access to more information, and their choices should be informed by that.

If it was a matter of the parents simply wanting something different in their child, who would not suffer medical problems otherwise (which is exactly what the case under discussion here would be), then it has nothing to do with the child. It is all about what the parents want.

Interesting isn't it, that this theoretical hormone treatment in-utero, could conceivably remove the need for such surgeries in the future.

Most cases of intersex children have more to do with genetics than hormones. An extra sex chromosome, for instance. Another common* one is a mutated or completely nonfunctional androgen receptor. There certainly may be cases which were caused by hormones in utero, but there's no evidence that I have seen that this is often the case.

Meanwhile, this particular hormone treatment wouldn't do anything about the incidence of intersex children. A hormone treatment of some sort might, assuming that the cause is not genetic, but a hormone treatment targeted at changing sexuality would be different.


*None of these things are truly common, so this refers to common among those who are intersexed.

I wasn't.Doesn't that argument depend on the parent doing it for the parent's sake? What if, for example, the parent wishes to change the unborn's sexual orientation simply because life's easier with one particular sexual orientation. Is it still immoral to do it then?I'm not stopping you. If you're irrational enough to conclude my tone has any bearing on the validity of my arguments, then I suggest you at least seek an alternative source of information, like Google, the Wiki or your local library, when you yourself haven't got a clue.In that case, you failed to mention the basis for your argument. You cannot and should not expect your fellow posters to be psychic, and any confusion is of your own making.Which simply shows 'everyone' is whoefully ignorant and prejudiced as hell. Neo-Nazis and skinheads are not the same thing. It doesn't matter that you and your neighbour would rather they were.

It's relatively easy to find a society where it's generally accepted that Osama bin Laden speaks & acts for Muslims. All that means is that the society doesn't have a fucking clue & cannot be arsed to check the basis for their assumptions.

This is no different.Few have, but that doesn't mean your baseless accusations are true. If anything, it simply means skins are a minority with limited access to the media and limited interest in having to tell everyone how idiotic it is to jump to conclusions that aren't supported by any evidence.

But hey, feel free to assume I'm making shit up simply because you don't like my tone & the content of my posts contradicts shit you've made up. But for fuck's sake; ask a skinhead or read up on their culture, before you assume your imagined shit is correct. Nobody's stopping you from verifying whether you've got reason to be prejudiced and call half my friends and family neo-Nazis.

The problem we're having is simply which side of the pond we're on, much like the difference between an American going out for some rubbers and a pack of fags and a Brit doing the same thing. The American is going to have a MUCH more interesting night. I have used wikipedia as you sugested ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead ) and the problem (which they have failed to bring up on the wiki) is that in America the term skinhead is used almost exclusively to refer to "White Power or Nazi skinheads", or as you may call them "Boneheads". The other kinds of skinhead (Anti-racist (SHARP), Left wing, Right Wing, and Apolitical or Centrist) would not be called skinheads here and would simply be known as a Left Wing, Right Wing, Apolitical, or Anti-racist person who just happens to shave their head. Please remember that even though we both speak English not everyone here speaks British; and American can sometimes seem a different language entirely. Don't make me break out the :headbang: by accusing those of us who are unfamilar with the British usage of the term skinhead of "making shit up" any more, ok?

I never suggested that parents shouldn't have an impact on who their children grow up to be. What I said was that parents should not try and force their children into a mold of who the parents think they should be. There is a rather large difference.

My mother has had more impact than anyone else on my life. But she never tried to force me to fit into a little mold of who she thought I might be before I was born. Instead, she helped me along the way in my development - precisely what a parent should do.

Your mother had no choice but to mold you by her own expectations and her own experiences. You were molded by your mother (even if unintentionally) because your mother is herself, not somebody else. Meaning; she can't open you to the possibilities of being a daughter of a Chinese rice farmer, she can't expose you to being the daughter of an astronaut, she can't expose you to being the daughter of a Russian ballet dancer, unless she sent you to those places and removed herself from the equation. Thus, my point is, that everyone MOLDs their children by the simple fact that they are raising them. Open minded, or closed minded, educated or ignorant, children ARE the molded product of their parents even if they hate every single aspect of it... And with that in mind, how then could we argue that they don't have the right to mold them the way they want to try and make them, they are already doing it.



Yes, but we aren't responsible for deciding what ideas they will ascribe to. We aren't responsible for deciding what their likes and dislikes are, or what they want to be when they grow up. Children are individuals, just like anyone else. Any person who even approximates a good parent will be willing to allow them to be individuals and to develop as an individual, instead of a good little robot.

And hormone treatments while they are in utero is NOT going to turn them into little robots either.


And you don't?

Of course I do. But I'm the one arguing that they have the right raise their children as they see fit, you are the one that wants to restrict that right.


Braces? That's mostly cosmetic. If they are adamantly against it, I'd disapprove. They can choose to do so when they are older if they wish.


Do they need it to function? If so, then you should ensure that your child takes it. Of course, if it's just a matter of, "He's hyper! OH noes!" that parent has a problem.


They shouldn't be able to sue you for it, as there wasn't any permanent harm done. But you are a shoddy parent. You should find out what your child's interests are, and foster them, rather than trying to force something on them that they will now probably never enjoy.

And here, you and I entirely disagree, I see no common ground whatsoever in which to pursue further discourse in that matter. I DO believe that parents are not just allowed to dictate what their children are exposed to, they should be required to do the best for the child even if the child doesn't want to do it. Anything less and they will likely be raising a spoiled rotten brat.


I think you mean intersex children. I don't know of any actual sex-changes performed during childhood. And, actually, doing so is pretty clearly a horrible idea. It basically involves the parents and doctor arbitrarily trying to choose a gender for a child because that child's genitalia (which they won't need for sex until they are much, much older) aren't normal. Many of these children have grown up very much confused about their gender identity - and generally without any knowledge of the choice their parents made.

Agreed, and it's a horrible world sometimes and the best solutions are not always easy solutions...


There is a rather large amount of difference between correcting harm and making arbitrary changes.

The question is, "Why did they feel obligated?" If the obligation was one of medical necessity, there is nothing to judge. If the obligation was one in which the doctor and parents were convinced that it was the best choice, then it is understandable. Parents now, however, have access to more information, and their choices should be informed by that.

If it was a matter of the parents simply wanting something different in their child, who would not suffer medical problems otherwise (which is exactly what the case under discussion here would be), then it has nothing to do with the child. It is all about what the parents want.

I doubt you could find even a single American doctor that would agree make and 'arbitrary' sex change operation on a child... so why are you using it as point? Those surgeries aren't done 'arbitrarily.'


Most cases of intersex children have more to do with genetics than hormones. An extra sex chromosome, for instance. Another common* one is a mutated or completely nonfunctional androgen receptor. There certainly may be cases which were caused by hormones in utero, but there's no evidence that I have seen that this is often the case.

The androgen receptor malfunction causes a hormone imbalance in the fetus. As I'm sure you know but I'm not sure the other readers would know.


Meanwhile, this particular hormone treatment wouldn't do anything about the incidence of intersex children.

Agreed.

... A hormone treatment of some sort might, assuming that the cause is not genetic, but a hormone treatment targeted at changing sexuality would be different.

*None of these things are truly common, so this refers to common among those who are intersexed.

IF homosexuality is caused, let me say it again, IF it is caused by a hormonal imbalance in utero, then this type of condition IS common, 4% or more of all births, but they could theoretically be treated with this kind of hormone treatment.

I'd have it aborted or once born, I'd eat it.

Your mother had no choice but to mold you by her own expectations and her own experiences.

Of course she did. She could have limited my experience to exactly what she wanted. She could have hidden information that she didn't want me to know. She could have made sure I only ever heard one religious viewpoint and was forced to stick to it. These are all ways she could have tried to make me fit a mold that she had determined.

But she didn't do any of those things. She didn't try to force me into a mold. She guided me in finding my own. You seem to be missing the difference.

And hormone treatments while they are in utero is NOT going to turn them into little robots either.

That is the point of having them. Any treatment meant to change something about your child just because you want them to be a certain way demonstrates that you don't want a child. You want some sort of ideal that you've come up with in your head.

Of course I do. But I'm the one arguing that they have the right raise their children as they see fit, you are the one that wants to restrict that right.

?????? Where did I say anything about restricting?

I am pointing out what I think makes a good parent. I think any parent who indoctrinates their child in a religion is being a horrible parent, but you won't see me advocating for making it illegal. I think any person who would actually take hormones to change the future sexuality of their child shouldn't be having children at all, but you won't see me making it illegal.

And here, you and I entirely disagree, I see no common ground whatsoever in which to pursue further discourse in that matter. I DO believe that parents are not just allowed to dictate what their children are exposed to, they should be required to do the best for the child even if the child doesn't want to do it. Anything less and they will likely be raising a spoiled rotten brat.

Really? And what is best for all children is to be forced to take piano lessons even if they are completely uninterested? What is best for all children is to have unnecessary medical treatment just because the parent happens to want it? What is best for children is to be put on medication that they don't actually need?

I pity your children, I really do.

I doubt you could find even a single American doctor that would agree make and 'arbitrary' sex change operation on a child... so why are you using it as point? Those surgeries aren't done 'arbitrarily.'

Nobody does a sex change operation on a child, period. What they do is assign a sex to a child whose genitalia are ambiguous. This choice is arbitrary. In fact, the choice is almost always female because that is the easier surgery.

The androgen receptor malfunction causes a hormone imbalance in the fetus. As I'm sure you know but I'm not sure the other readers would know.

No, it doesn't. The hormones are there. They simply aren't actually being responded to, because the cells are unable to respond to them. You could up the hormones all day long, and the receptors still wouldn't work, and thus the cells still wouldn't respond.

IF homosexuality is caused, let me say it again, IF it is caused by a hormonal imbalance in utero, then this type of condition IS common, 4% or more of all births, but they could theoretically be treated with this kind of hormone treatment.

(a) I was talking about instances of intersex, not homosexuality.

(b) You don't need to "treat" something that isn't a medical problem.

(c) The use of the word "imbalance" assumes that homosexuality is a disorder, rather than simply a possible trait. Do you really want to go there?

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?


Absolutely not. Now if I found out that my lesbian surrogate mother was carrying a hetero baby, I'd have those genes fixed ASAP.

And that, however sarcastic I may or may not be, is what's always missing at the start of debates about 'fixing' gay babies in utero. It *assumes* that just because 'straight' people constitute, say, 80 to 98% of the population (depending on whose numbers you believe) that it's necessarily the default, desireable outcome. Just like there are no books in the parenting section of the bookstore on how to raise a gay child. Frankly, medical evidence of homosexuality being inborn *should* immediately dispose anyone in the medical practice from entertaining the notion of tampering, because if it's a function of natural diversity-- like eye or hair colour-- and not physically harmful (which it isn't) then it shouldn't receive any 'special treatment' masquerading as correction. By the same token, I shouldn't be able to have an unborn child tested with the intention of 'correcting' heterosexuality just because I don't want to be 'burdened' with raising a straight kid.

Conversely, if they do decide to allow theraputic in utero changing of a fetus' orientation, I should have the same power to adjust my child's orientation if I don't want a straight teenager attempting to breed under my roof.

would I spend the money to genetically alter my child to prevent homosexuality?

depends... is that the ONLY genetic... factor they found. no other Genetic conditions?

and only if my wife and I discuss it. We both have to be in agreement.

Gah. Reading that, there are a hundred things to get angry about, but it really all boils down to the question what the hell it is about homosexuality that scares Christian nuts out of their wits.Leveticus.

The bible also says killing and stealing and, hello, adultery is wrong but I have yet to see the fundamentalists get their panties in a wad over either of those. Except of course when the "killing" involves fetuses, then they're right there picketing.Killing and Stealing are already punishable by the law. Adultry is to some extent (and in areas where prostitution is legal, you'll find them protesting there.) now if there were bills and a national movement to Legalize Murder and Theft, you'll see the picketing and the panty wadding...

and now I have an image of Phelps in a Lingerie Store wadding up underware... :headbang:

Bigoted assholes.true, but not all christians fit that mold.

according to him? no. He claims Adam and Eve had perfect DNA and so their kids were able to breed together without problem, however after Noah and the rain the atmosphere changed and we had more radiation on Earth and so the genome began to slowly degrade, which he claims supports why people lived for hundreds of years in the OT but not today.

I never claimed him sane.this sounds familiar... I know I came across this line of thinking somewhere... it wasn't TV... :headbang:

because I am evil? because Szanth doesn't like me? because I am Christian? because I am using someone else's arguments to play devil's advocate (literally)Smunkee's playing Devil's Advocate? Cosplay? *imagines Smunkee in a devil's outfit...*
scuse me... I need a cold shower...

All NationStates does is remind me of how many ignorant and bigoted people are out there... and makes me ashamed of the human race. :(and the only place you can get differing opinions is on NS? what a sheltered life you led... ;) :p

The doesn't equate to altering a child's genes and you know it.

yes, it's worse. it's altering a child's mind. altering their perceptions and brainwashing them to paradegims set by their teachers.

Doesn't that argument depend on the parent doing it for the parent's sake? What if, for example, the parent wishes to change the unborn's sexual orientation simply because life's easier with one particular sexual orientation. Is it still immoral to do it then?

That would depend on the level of harm.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that in extreme circumstances - say, in a country where homosexuality is punishable by death - it's justified to prevent harm in the same way that preventing a serious defect would be.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

No, it's not my place to decide.

That would depend on the level of harm.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that in extreme circumstances - say, in a country where homosexuality is punishable by death - it's justified to prevent harm in the same way that preventing a serious defect would be.So in a nutshell, it's OK when it prevents harm?

But then, what & when is harm?

There's also the problem of what makes a human being, how far rights extent, and what exactly those rights apply to. Does a potential human has the right, for example, to enjoy a certain degree of randomness in it's formation process?

If it does, doesn't this mean it'd be desirable to increase this chance, so parents won't necessarily have offspring very similar to themselves?

When, and just as importantly, why do alterations become immoral?

Don't get me wrong, I have some very definite opinions on this, as as far as I can tell, they're no different than yours & Demp's, but I'm forced to admit my inability to make a logically sound argument for why. And yes, it bothers me a little.

So in a nutshell, it's OK when it prevents harm?

No. It's okay when the person we are obligated to respect (the child) would be rationally expected to approve.

Generally, he or she wouldn't - most of us prefer to develop naturally rather than to be controlled by the whims of others. But if homophobia is extreme enough, we would expect otherwise.

There's also the problem of what makes a human being, how far rights extent, and what exactly those rights apply to. Does a potential human has the right, for example, to enjoy a certain degree of randomness in it's formation process?.

I see it not as a question of "randomness", but naturalness.

No. It's okay when the person we are obligated to respect (the child) would be rationally expected to approve.

Generally, he or she wouldn't - most of us prefer to develop naturally rather than to be controlled by the whims of others. But if homophobia is extreme enough, we would expect otherwise. but harm is relative.

One set of parents may say that those stoned to death for Homosexuality is indeed "harmful" enough to do the procedure... but another set of parents could also say with the same conviction that the problems the Homosexuals face in the US is "harmful" enough to undergo the procedure. Would the second set of parents be wrong?

but harm is relative.

One set of parents may say that those stoned to death for Homosexuality is indeed "harmful" enough to do the procedure... but another set of parents could also say with the same conviction that the problems the Homosexuals face in the US is "harmful" enough to undergo the procedure. Would the second set of parents be wrong?

Who ever said that the implementation of that criterion should be left to the parents? I think it should be banned entirely.

Yes, the second set of parents would be wrong.

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Yes I would, if I could afford it. The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is NOT of God, otherwise He wouldn't have destroyed entire cities for it, nor would He have said in the law, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind". Besides, NOT ALL, if any, gays are "born that way".

(LMAO at the phrase "gay babies")

Who ever said that the implementation of that criterion should be left to the parents? I think it should be banned entirely.

Yes, the second set of parents would be wrong.

You said depending on the level of harm. So who determines the Harm? Politicians? the same people who are putting out the "ZOMG!!! Violent Games/movies, Porn, Homosexuals, are the Ebil!!!"

Government? the same Government that is trying to dictate what one eats? what one thinks?

No. It's okay when the person we are obligated to respect (the child) would be rationally expected to approve.

Generally, he or she wouldn't - most of us prefer to develop naturally rather than to be controlled by the whims of others. But if homophobia is extreme enough, we would expect otherwise.How can you even talk about rationality in that situation? I'm bisexual, and while I prefer to be bisexual, I'm almost certain I'd prefer to be heterosexual if I was heterosexual. I'm also pretty sure reason's got fuck-all to do with it.

On a purely intellectual level, heterosexuality is the pick of the bunch, because people don't throw shit at you on the street when you're holding hands with your hetero lover, and you don't have to find a new job just because your hetero lover picked you up from work.I see it not as a question of "randomness", but naturalness.Tomato, tomato. Same damn difference :p

But it still leaves the question of why? Why is the natural process sacret? If we have the tech, do we not also have the obligation to offer our offspring the best and easiest opportunities in life?

And can it not be argued that failing to do so is every bit as much parental molding, as we end up raising offspring to fight our battles?

Fuck.. I'm no good at this devil's advocate shite. I'm making myself feel like an ass & my girl's threatning to clubber me.

Yes I would, if I could afford it. The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is NOT of God, otherwise He wouldn't have destroyed entire cities for it,

He didn't. He destroyed Sodom for inhospitality.

nor would He have said in the law, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind".

Why do you accept one view of God's word as the final word on morality?

Besides, NOT ALL gays are "born that way".

But sexual orientation is always innate.

Why do you accept one view of God's word as the final word on morality?Because he's insane.

How can you even talk about rationality in that situation? I'm bisexual, and while I prefer to be bisexual, I'm almost certain I'd prefer to be heterosexual if I was heterosexual. I'm also pretty sure reason's got fuck-all to do with it.

You're misinterpreting the choice.

I'm not saying it's more "rational" to be gay or bisexual than straight; I'm saying that most people rationally considering the choice would prefer to develop naturally than to be artificially subject to someone's whims.

On a purely intellectual level, heterosexuality is the pick of the bunch, because people don't throw shit at you on the street when you're holding hands with your hetero lover, and you don't have to find a new job just because your hetero lover picked you up from work.Tomato, tomato. Same damn difference :p

Then the person who is discontent can get the treatment on his or her own later.

But it still leaves the question of why? Why is the natural process sacret? If we have the tech, do we not also have the obligation to offer our offspring the best and easiest opportunities in life?

Because there is no objective standard for what is "best," and we don't always want the "easiest" way through life.

And can it not be argued that failing to do so is every bit as much parental molding, as we end up raising offspring to fight our battles?

Fight our battles? No, only if we deliberately made them gay to combat homophobia.

You said depending on the level of harm. So who determines the Harm? Politicians? the same people who are putting out the "ZOMG!!! Violent Games/movies, Porn, Homosexuals, are the Ebil!!!"

No, politicians don't. There is a correct moral line somewhere (within the framework of my own subjective morality). The law should follow it.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

Hell no.

Is breeding out Homosexuality ethical? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512891)

We discussed this question very extensively on that thread, for those interested.

Because there is no objective standard for what is "best," and we don't always want the "easiest" way through life.

Indeed. In fact, a parent who actually tries for the "easiest" way through life for his children is doing them a great disservice. While you certainly don't want your child to go through traumatic experiences, you don't want to remove all hardship either. Those obstacles in life are a huge part of how we develop and mature.

No, politicians don't. There is a correct moral line somewhere (within the framework of my own subjective morality). The law should follow it.but if it's not religion as per your respond to the Biblical answer...
Why do you accept one view of God's word as the final word on morality?

then what would you base it off of? Morality is another level that is defined on a per person basis. and the law should follow it. the law which is defined by those same lawmakers I spoke of and which laws are constantly being redefined by lawyers and judges?

the second set of parents are perfectly within their rights to say that the difficulties Homosexuals face in the world now is threat enough to justify the change. The Government cannot dictate their morality, only what is Legal.

Are the individuals in Brave New World free in any meaningful sense?

Indeed. In fact, a parent who actually tries for the "easiest" way through life for his children is doing them a great disservice. While you certainly don't want your child to go through traumatic experiences, you don't want to remove all hardship either. Those obstacles in life are a huge part of how we develop and mature.
unfortunatly, parents won't see it that way. they want to give their children the BEST chance in life. Best being the parents definition.

unfortunatly, parents won't see it that way. they want to give their children the BEST chance in life. Best being the parents definition.

If the parents' definition of "best" is actually harmful, then the parents shouldn't be parents.

Meanwhile, I object to the characterization of most parents as wanting to shelter their children that much. Most parents recognize that hardships are a part of maturation - and that their children won't be children forever.

then what would you base it off of?

The fundamental dignity of human beings that entitles them to be treated as persons in their own right and not persons subordinate to the artificial manipulation of the wills of others, be they the parents or society as a whole.

Morality is another level that is defined on a per person basis. and the law should follow it. the law which is defined by those same lawmakers I spoke of and which laws are constantly being redefined by lawyers and judges?

What's your point?

the second set of parents are perfectly within their rights to say that the difficulties Homosexuals face in the world now is threat enough to justify the change.

To say, yes. To do, no.

Nuke the Gay Baby Whales for Jesus!

If the parents' definition of "best" is actually harmful, then the parents shouldn't be parents.so you're for the Government dictating how one needs to live. since Parents should not parent their children. "Best" also being a relative terminology.

Meanwhile, I object to the characterization of most parents as wanting to shelter their children that much. Most parents recognize that hardships are a part of maturation - and that their children won't be children forever.I also object to the assumption that people will bow to one persons definition as to "best" and "Ideal". And I also object to the idea that Parents will make life hard for their children with the puropse of teaching them maturity.

The fundamental dignity of human beings that entitles them to be treated as persons in their own right and not persons subordinate to the artificial manipulation of the wills of others, be they the parents or society as a whole.
Point 1) Person - when is a fetus determined to be a person. Some will argue at the point of conception, others at various stages of development, and still others when the baby is completly out of the mother's womb.

Point 2) Artificial Manipulation also includes schooling. Schools help mold a child's way of thinking. that also includes regular schooling and not just Religious based schools.

Point 3) children are the responsiblity of the parents. thus it is the parents right to make choices for their children untill the child is legally an adult. A child breaks the law, it's not the child who is held responsible for their actions but the parents. thus the child is NOT treated as a person in their own right but as a subordinate to their parents. Children are also not protected in the same manner as adults. they are given more legal protection than adults. thus again, not as person in their own rights but as persons to be protected at a level they did not agree to.

What's your point?that the level the Government decides upon can be "life will be too hard on Little Johnson, so we will remove the 'Homosexual' gene from his body." is a perfectly acceptable reasoning to allow the procedure. dispite your opinion otherwise. Morailty is a relative thing. and the money spent setting that bar will be dwarfed by the money spent altering that bar.

To say, yes. To do, no.however, if left up to the morality of others to decide, you could end up being wrong on that point. Infact, it could be decided that the Gene removes the child's ability to choose their sexual preference thus the Gene has to be removed then the child can make an unclouded choice as to being homosexual or not when they reach adult age.

silly? yes. Possible? yes.

Point 1) Person - when is a fetus determined to be a person.

Why does it matter?

Point 2) Artificial Manipulation also includes schooling. Schools help mold a child's way of thinking.

Coercive education is an abomination.

The argument could be made that it is justified by the benefits, though - as making someone straight is not.

thus the child is NOT treated as a person in their own right but as a subordinate to their parents.

And, as I've been saying, this is wrong.

A child is a person.

that the level the Government decides upon can be "life will be too hard on Little Johnson, so we will remove the 'Homosexual' gene from his body." is a perfectly acceptable reasoning to allow the procedure. dispite your opinion otherwise. Morailty is a relative thing.

By this line of reasoning, isn't ANYTHING a legitimate reason for ANYTHING?

however, if left up to the morality of others to decide, you could end up being wrong on that point.

If morality is relative, then the opinions of others cannot make me wrong.

Why does it matter?if it's not considered a "person" then manipulation is ok until it becomes a "person" then manipulation becomes illegal.



Coercive education is an abomination.

The argument could be made that it is justified by the benefits, though - as making someone straight is not.but as you said, if the government views Homosexuality as a crime punishable by death... ;)

and benefits are also relative. what one person considers a benefit, others may not.

And, as I've been saying, this is wrong.

A child is a person.then there shouldn't be any difference between Minor and Adult. A minor should be charged for their crimes as an adult. the responsibility never touches the parents. that includes any contracts minors sign.

By this line of reasoning, isn't ANYTHING a legitimate reason for ANYTHING?yes it is. especially when loose terms like "harm" and "benefits" are used as benchmarks. either the procedure is open to all who can pay, or regulated by the Government, or completly banned.

If morality is relative, then the opinions of others cannot make me wrong. and on the same point, your opinions cannot make others wrong. especially the second couple.

in a free society, you can choose not to have the procedure, or you can choose to have the procedure. but you cannot force someone to have or not have it done... no matter their reasoning.

so you're for the Government dictating how one needs to live.

Um....no. Where did I say anything even remotely like that? You and PW are both jumping to some pretty wild conclusions about what I have to say.

since Parents should not parent their children.

Actually, I'm saying that parents should parent their children.

"Best" also being a relative terminology.

Indeed. But there are some things that are pretty clearly the opposite of "best".

I also object to the assumption that people will bow to one persons definition as to "best" and "Ideal".

That's nice. What does it have to do with the price of eggs in China?

And I also object to the idea that Parents will make life hard for their children with the puropse of teaching them maturity.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the price of eggs in China?

There's a difference between actively making life hard and realizing that some hardships are necessary, allowing the child to experience them.

Um....no. Where did I say anything even remotely like that? You and PW are both jumping to some pretty wild conclusions about what I have to say.
If the parents' definition of "best" is actually harmful, then the parents shouldn't be parents.
and who's to define "harmful"? the only entity that has the power to remove children from parental care is the Government. so the Government has to set guidelines to determine "best" and "harmful". and since children are also influenced by their parent's lifestyle... you have Government telling parents how to live. not that far a stretch in logic.

Actually, I'm saying that parents should parent their children. then who determines what is best or what is harmful if not the Government?

do you honestly see most parents saying they are harming their children?

Indeed. But there are some things that are pretty clearly the opposite of "best".Some, but there is an Order of Magnitude of things that are not so clear. how do you know this treatment falls under "harm"?

That's nice. What does it have to do with the price of eggs in China?

That's nice. What does it have to do with the price of eggs in China?it has the same value as your objection... infact, given some news items of late... more value.

There's a difference between actively making life hard and realizing that some hardships are necessary, allowing the child to experience them.lol... and some parents can decide that sparing their child this one form of hardship would be better than letting them experience it. That doesn't make them wrong, nor bad parents. It just makes them parents.

if it's not considered a "person" then manipulation is ok until it becomes a "person" then manipulation becomes illegal.

That doesn't follow. Manipulation will always AFFECT the person. That is enough.

but as you said, if the government views Homosexuality as a crime punishable by death... ;)

Right. Not here, not now.

and benefits are also relative. what one person considers a benefit, others may not.

So we have to go by rational expectations.

then there shouldn't be any difference between Minor and Adult. A minor should be charged for their crimes as an adult. the responsibility never touches the parents. that includes any contracts minors sign.

That doesn't follow. We make exceptions for persons lacking, temporarily or permanently, full cognitive capabilities all the time. It doesn't follow that we need to subordinate them to anyone.

yes it is.

Then why should I listen to you?

After all, I have a reason for banning it, so why not go with it?

in a free society, you can choose not to have the procedure, or you can choose to have the procedure.

In a free society, we consider EVERYONE'S freedom. Not just that of the mother.

Enough of this. I argued this far beyond my heart's content last time.

That doesn't follow. Manipulation will always AFFECT the person. That is enough.but you just said some manipulation is ok...

Right. Not here, not now. actually, not here but now. wasn't there some kids killed in the mid east for being homosexual a couple of years ago?

So we have to go by rational expectations. :headbang: and please tell me who defines rational expectations? the same people who banned the game 'Tag'?

That doesn't follow. We make exceptions for persons lacking, temporarily or permanently, full cognitive capabilities all the time. It doesn't follow that we need to subordinate them to anyone.... people with permanent lack of mental and cognitive capabilites are institutinalized... that makes them subordinate to the doctors/family members. Temporary loss of cognitive capabilites has the person remanded to a hospital facility... where they are subordinate until they regain cognitive capabilites that is determined by society.

Then why should I listen to you?the same reason why I should listen to you. differeing opinions are important. you can immerse yourself with nothing but yes men, but I think you've seen the problems when that happens.

After all, I have a reason for banning it, so why not go with it? and YOU can ban it personally. but you cannot dictate that desire/decision to anyone else.

In a free society, we consider EVERYONE'S freedom. Not just that of the mother.nope. Parents don't have the same consideration for their freedoms. they are restricted by the care they have to provide to their children. same with those who are responsible for others. they don't have that same freedom. but they do have the responsibilty for their offspring and they can choose to have this procedure done if it's available.

else, Abortion would be illegal since that is willful killing of a person (who by your earlier statement is defined a person at the moment of conception.)

Enough of this. I argued this far beyond my heart's content last time.ok. :cool:

Homosexuals are not infertile.

No, but they do have a significantly lower chance of settling down with a member of the opposite sex and having a family. Because I also would hope the best for my grandkids, I'd like them to grow up in a normal family.

(a) Your children will have to endure being made fun of for something. That is part of growing up. A parent who tries to prevent all of it is a bad parent.

(b) The way to stop this sort of thing is not to be a part of it, which is what you are advocating.

Sure, it's harmful and impossible to prevent all hardships, but I minimizing them as much as reasonably possible is a good thing. No parent would deliberately let their children have a harder life than necessary.

Let's not forget that the fetus doesn't have a consciousness, and therefore the treatment isn't "altering" anything, but rather setting the direction in which the kid's sexuality will eventually develop. The child would have no memories of ever having been gay, and I don't see how something being "natural" makes it important to leave as it is.

Besides, I really don't think all kids are severely teased about some random things. That is reserved only to those, who stand out of the crowd in some obvious way and are, therefore, freaks. This definition includes all traits that are clearly in the minority, and that's why I don't believe school kids will ever accept homosexuality as something that's not worth teasing about.

....except that you then become the reason that homosexuals go through those feelings by making it clear that, to you, they have no place in human society.

It's a minor contribution to it, but I think that the people, who are actively preaching hate towards gay people, are infinitely more damaging. Why should the change begin with me and my child?

Besides, the younger the generation, the less problem people tend to have with people of other sexualities. By the time we have children, it probably won't be much of an issue at all.

Perhaps, but it depends largely on where we live. I'd guess that young people in Alabama are not as tolerant as young people in San Fransisco, for example.

Would you perform plastic surgery on a fetus? Shouldn't plastic surgery be something that a person decides for themselves, unless they are correcting a deformity that affects quality of life?

I wouldn't perform plastic surgery on anyone, who is still growing, because that could cause who knows what deformities. My point was just that I don't consider health risks to be the only acceptable reason for medical procedures. Like I said, I believe that homosexuality affects the quality of life.

Because that is a contradiction to the first statement. If sexuality matters to you, then it factors into how you feel about your children. If it doesn't, then you have no reason to alter it, as you'll be able to parent your child no matter what their sexual orientation (or sex, or hair color, or any other trait) turns out to be.

Not really. Someone else seemed to point out already that parents have the right to raise their children, and determining their sexuality could be considered part of that. Otherwise, I shouldn't even be able to punish my children, because I should love them regardless of how they behave.

No, but they do have a significantly lower chance of settling down with a member of the opposite sex and having a family. Because I also would hope the best for my grandkids, I'd like them to grow up in a normal family.

How boring.

Sure, it's harmful and impossible to prevent all hardships, but I minimizing them as much as reasonably possible is a good thing. No parent would deliberately let their children have a harder life than necessary.

Meh, you will suffer the kind of hardships homosexuals face, somehow. It doesn't even have to be rational.

Besides, I really don't think all kids are severely teased about some random things.

Oh yes, they most certainly are. That is, unless they are either doing the teasing themselves or a majority manage to oppose it. It's rather rare for a majority of children to oppose teasing, but it does happen.

That is reserved only to those, who stand out of the crowd in some obvious way and are, therefore, freaks. This definition includes all traits that are clearly in the minority, and that's why I don't believe school kids will ever accept homosexuality as something that's not worth teasing about.

No, not necessarily. Freaks are as we define them. In your case, homosexuals are freaks. By treating them as such, you yourself are furthering the teasing of homosexuals.

Be very proud.

Oh, and... what's wrong with being in a minority? If everybody was in the majority, what a boring world it'd be. Yes, I've used that word twice now :o

It's a minor contribution to it, but I think that the people, who are actively preaching hate towards gay people, are infinitely more damaging. Why should the change begin with me and my child?

Eh... you're the one advocating changing the sex of your child, aren't you? So... you're just furthering the problem by making it general, rather than excluded to a minority case of extreme idiots.

I wouldn't perform plastic surgery on anyone, who is still growing, because that could cause who knows what deformities. My point was just that I don't consider health risks to be the only acceptable reason for medical procedures. Like I said, I believe that homosexuality affects the quality of life.

Yes...

...it might improve it :o

Not really. Someone else seemed to point out already that parents have the right to raise their children, and determining their sexuality could be considered part of that. Otherwise, I shouldn't even be able to punish my children, because I should love them regardless of how they behave.

You shouldn't be allowed to physically punish them, certainly.

I mean, heck, not even the military does that around here anymore (fines are plenty enough punishment).

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I hope they make a stunning scientific mix-up and accidentally create Generation Gay. :)

Oh yes, they most certainly are. That is, unless they are either doing the teasing themselves or a majority manage to oppose it. It's rather rare for a majority of children to oppose teasing, but it does happen.

I'm not talking about some jokes on another kid's expense, or random enforcement of the bully's ego by being rude to others. I mean long-lasting and systematic torture of a single individual, that often results in psychological traumas. No, I don't believe most kids get their share of that, even if too many do.

If you disagree, I feel sorry the children, who live where you come from.

No, not necessarily. Freaks are as we define them. In your case, homosexuals are freaks. By treating them as such, you yourself are furthering the teasing of homosexuals.

Be very proud.

Oh, and... what's wrong with being in a minority? If everybody was in the majority, what a boring world it'd be. Yes, I've used that word twice now :o

You missed my point. It's the kids doing the teasing, who define freaks. They tend to define freakdom as anything, that separates the freaks from the majority.

I most certainly wouldn't like to live in a world where everyone is the same. That doesn't, however, mean that I would specifically want my child to be in a minority, that would cause my poor old mother to have a heart attack.

Eh... you're the one advocating changing the sex of your child, aren't you? So... you're just furthering the problem by making it general, rather than excluded to a minority case of extreme idiots.

I've never said anything about the child's sex. We're talking about the child's sexual preference. Anyway, whatever I'm doing to the problem, it's not my child's problem, and I most definitely don't want it to be.

You shouldn't be allowed to physically punish them, certainly.

I mean, heck, not even the military does that around here anymore (fines are plenty enough punishment).

I strongly support spanking as a method of punishment, and I've never heard any good reasons why I shouldn't. In any case, I wasn't talking about physical punishment, but all punishment in general.

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

No. It's part of who your baby is. To me, it would be the same as changing a personality trait, in the womb.

Maybe I want to have grandkids, for starters.

Then there's the whole thing about gays being discriminated against. Maybe not officially in these days, but there is a good chance he'd get his ass kicked all the way through school. What kind of a parent would I be, if I didn't prevent that even if I had a chance?

Overall, gays generally (or so I've heard) often suffer from a wide range of psychological problems due to feelings of not fitting in, or stuff like that. By making the change, I can save the kid a lot of trouble in life, and there is no reason whatsoever to not make the change.

Oh yes, I'm also a bigot, who would rather have straight kids. That's the answer you wanted, right? Taking those previous points into account, though, that shouldn't matter.


Right, cause gays never have kids, right? :rolleyes:

You can't shield your child from everything. Would you change its genetic makeup to make sure it won't come out ginger? Would you correct its eyesight in the womb to make sure nobody ever calls it four-eyes? Would you tack its stomach the moment it's out of the womb to make sure it never gets obese?

Yes, homosexuals still face an inexcusable amount of discrimination and prejudice. But turning all gays straight is the wrong side to fix. That would be like turning all blacks white to end discrimination.

Right, cause gays never have kids, right? :rolleyes:

Not in a stable relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Or, if they do, they most likely won't stay happy that way for very long.

I support traditional family values.

You can't shield your child from everything. Would you change its genetic makeup to make sure it won't come out ginger? Would you correct its eyesight in the womb to make sure nobody ever calls it four-eyes? Would you tack its stomach the moment it's out of the womb to make sure it never gets obese?

I saw the South Park episode, but in real life, I've never heard of a kid being teased for being ginger. Bad eyesight I would correct; not because of fears for the kid being teased, but to make his life otherwise easier. Why the hell would I want my kid to have bad eyes, and then correct his vision with glasses anyway? Tacking the kid's stomach (if I understood correctly what that procedure is) is a bit extreme, but if the kid had some kind of an obesity gene, I'd have it removed for health reasons, if possible.

I can't and shouldn't shield the kid from everything, but I don't think I should expose him to everything unnecessarily, either.

Yes, homosexuals still face an inexcusable amount of discrimination and prejudice. But turning all gays straight is the wrong side to fix. That would be like turning all blacks white to end discrimination.

I'm not advocating turning gays into anything. All this procedure would do is make kids be straight to begin with. I'm not even proposing that such a procedure should be mandatory. It's just what I would do given the opportunity. For what purpose should the society have a certain percentage of gay people? Diversity for diversity's sake?

I understand your point, but keeping my kid gay just because the other people are the ones who should change, seems a bit too obstinate. Especially since those 'other people' include most of my friends and relatives.

I support traditional family values.

:D

I'm sorry. It's just that I'm always amazed at how often we hear that from politicians and evangelists right before they're caught cheating on their wife with a male prostitute. :p

:D

I'm sorry. It's just that I'm always amazed at how often we hear that from politicians and evangelists right before they're caught cheating on their wife with a male prostitute. :p

Heh, I know. Luckily I'm neither. I'm also not a racist, but.

Not in a stable relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Or, if they do, they most likely won't stay happy that way for very long.

I support traditional family values.

Which are what, excatly?
Families that only consist of mother, father and children came about in the 50s, I think it's a bit rich to call that traditional already.



I saw the South Park episode, but in real life, I've never heard of a kid being teased for being ginger. Bad eyesight I would correct; not because of fears for the kid being teased, but to make his life otherwise easier. Why the hell would I want my kid to have bad eyes, and then correct his vision with glasses anyway? Tacking the kid's stomach (if I understood correctly what that procedure is) is a bit extreme, but if the kid had some kind of an obesity gene, I'd have it removed for health reasons, if possible.

I can't and shouldn't shield the kid from everything, but I don't think I should expose him to everything unnecessarily, either.

Designer baby it is for you, then.


I'm not advocating turning gays into anything. All this procedure would do is make kids be straight to begin with. I'm not even proposing that such a procedure should be mandatory. It's just what I would do given the opportunity. For what purpose should the society have a certain percentage of gay people? Diversity for diversity's sake?

I understand your point, but keeping my kid gay just because the other people are the ones who should change, seems a bit too obstinate. Especially since those 'other people' include most of my friends and relatives.

I don't see a reason for changing my kid, just because society has a problem with it. I don't, and I'll do all I can to teach my kid that it's not him/her who's got a problem, it's stupid, insecure low-lifes who just needs something to hate, be that gays or ginger kids.

That's an interesting claim. What were families like before the 50s, then?

Families traditionally included what we now refer to as "extended" family. Grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc, would all live with you and be considered your family, not just your extended family. The model of husband, wife, 2.3 children basically just became the norm after the second World War.

Interestingly, "nuclear families" only make up about 1/3 of the households in the US. Even thirty years ago, nuclear families only made up about 40% of the households, so even then the majority of families did not match the supposedly-traditional pattern.

Which are what, excatly?
Families that only consist of mother, father and children came about in the 50s, I think it's a bit rich to call that traditional already.

That's an interesting claim. What were families like before the 50s, then?

I don't see a reason for changing my kid, just because society has a problem with it. I don't, and I'll do all I can to teach my kid that it's not him/her who's got a problem, it's stupid, insecure low-lifes who just needs something to hate, be that gays or ginger kids.

Sure. I just don't see this as changing the kid at all. The fetus has no consciousness, and thus no idea of being gay. He will be what he will grow to be, whether he grows to be gay on his own, or to be straight with some outside influence.

It makes no difference to the kid, because he will construct his self-image long after the treatment. If anything, he'll thank me if it turns out that he would have suffered from gayness. I know I would be grateful, if my parents had had the chance to fix some annoying genetic flaws in me.

i wouldn't do that to a kid

Families traditionally included what we now refer to as "extended" family. Grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc, would all live with you and be considered your family, not just your extended family. The model of husband, wife, 2.3 children basically just became the norm after the second World War.

I suppose that has a lot to do with location. In rural areas that's possible, but it's hard to imagine the same in an urban environment. But anyway, where I come from, the "extended" family stays closely in touch, even though not living together, so I suppose my family values are slightly more "traditional" than average nuclear family type.

Interestingly, "nuclear families" only make up about 1/3 of the households in the US. Even thirty years ago, nuclear families only made up about 40% of the households, so even then the majority of families did not match the supposedly-traditional pattern.

Does that number also count the families, where the members have been divorced/widowed and remarried? They're not usually counted as nuclear families; unfortunately I don't know the English word for them.

Besides, "household" is a lot looser term than "family". I live in a student apartment with three cells; therefore my apartment contains three one-person households. I wouldn't consider myself a family, nor the three of us together.

That's an interesting claim. What were families like before the 50s, then?

Well, before the 50s, my mother's family consisted of her mother, her father, her father's unmarried sister, that sister's "good friend" who had nowhere else to go, her grandmother, her brother, her uncle's children (3), who were orphaned in the war, and two farm hands.
Their neighbour was a single mom with 5 children, as her husband didn't return from Russia. It later turned out he was held up in Austria, where he married another woman. As far as I know he had kids with her, too, but I've no idea how many.

Mother, father and children are not the norm, no matter where you look, and they never have been. The "traditional family" is a nostalgic invention.



Sure. I just don't see this as changing the kid at all. The fetus has no consciousness, and thus no idea of being gay. He will be what he will grow to be, whether he grows to be gay on his own, or to be straight with some outside influence.

It makes no difference to the kid, because he will construct his self-image long after the treatment. If anything, he'll thank me if it turns out that he would have suffered from gayness. I know I would be grateful, if my parents had had the chance to fix some annoying genetic flaws in me.

Suffer from gayness? Oh-kay....
And believe me, if I was that kid, I'd hate you for not being able to accept me the way I am, but having to change something so fundamental, without me getting any say whatsoever in the matter. Let's hope your children will turn out a bit dimmer and more docile.

I suppose that has a lot to do with location. In rural areas that's possible, but it's hard to imagine the same in an urban environment. But anyway, where I come from, the "extended" family stays closely in touch, even though not living together, so I suppose my family values are slightly more "traditional" than average nuclear family type.


Urban environment would sport smaller families, but more single parents than rural areas. Generally speaking.

So, basically, you're saying you want everybody to move into urban areas and live up to that artifical idea you have of "family"?

I suppose that has a lot to do with location. In rural areas that's possible, but it's hard to imagine the same in an urban environment. But anyway, where I come from, the "extended" family stays closely in touch, even though not living together, so I suppose my family values are slightly more "traditional" than average nuclear family type.

Not really. You still adhere to the relatively recent model of the "nuclear family."

Of course, these days "traditional values" is a code word for a specific subset of values, many of which are not remotely traditional, and some of which might more appropriately be named "outdated and uninformed prejudices."

Suffer from gayness? Oh-kay....

You know what I'm talking about. You said yourself: "Yes, homosexuals still face an inexcusable amount of discrimination and prejudice." I'd call that suffering.

And believe me, if I was that kid, I'd hate you for not being able to accept me the way I am, but having to change something so fundamental, without me getting any say whatsoever in the matter. Let's hope your children will turn out a bit dimmer and more docile.

That's an interesting thought pattern. If your parents changed you, you'd think "I wasn't good enough, and needed to be improved". I'd think "I am now better than I was originally". No, I wouldn't mind if my parents had improved my genes; on the contrary. If by dim and docile, you meant rational and respectful, I hope so too.

Urban environment would sport smaller families, but more single parents than rural areas. Generally speaking.

So, basically, you're saying you want everybody to move into urban areas and live up to that artifical idea you have of "family"?

What? How did you reach that conclusion? I'm not in favor of smaller families, and I definitely don't support single parenting. The rural/urban thing was nothing but an observation, and I said that I've grown in an environment, where all relatives are closely in touch.

Whether everybody follows my idea of a family, I don't care. Their lives don't concern me. I would, however, wish my children to do so.

That's an interesting thought pattern. If your parents changed you, you'd think "I wasn't good enough, and needed to be improved". I'd think "I am now better than I was originally". No, I wouldn't mind if my parents had improved my genes; on the contrary. If by dim and docile, you meant rational and respectful, I hope so too.

Mine left my genes alone, basically because they couldn't do much about them. But they did their utmost to try and change just about everything else. It took decades for me to develope a sense of self-esteem and pride after having constantly been made to feel I'm not sufficient.
Which, incidentally, is what you'd be indirectly telling your child by changing its identity so fundamentally.

If that's a form of respect in your eyes you may want to get yourself a dictionary.


What? How did you reach that conclusion? I'm not in favor of smaller families, and I definitely don't support single parenting. The rural/urban thing was nothing but an observation, and I said that I've grown in an environment, where all relatives are closely in touch.

Whether everybody follows my idea of a family, I don't care. Their lives don't concern me. I would, however, wish my children to do so.

Considering that your gay kids have just as good a chance of living in a happy, healthy relationship than any hetero child (in fact even slightly better, as the chances of abuse are lower), I don't see why you would have problems with them living happily and raising children?

Considering that your gay kids have just as good a chance of living in a happy, healthy relationship than any hetero child (in fact even slightly better, as the chances of abuse are lower), I don't see why you would have problems with them living happily and raising children?
If somebody is really concerned about ensuring that their child has the best chance at a loving, abuse-free relationship, then they should be trying to have lesbian daughters. Preliminary research is also suggesting that lesbian couples are more likely to rear children who are emotionally secure, and are the least likely to rear children who go on to be convicted of crimes.

Of course, personally I think we shouldn't let the shittiest elements of our society dictate our family structures. Instead of trying to force our children to conform so they are less likely to be picked on, I support teaching our kids to be strong, informed, and brave enough to tell bigots and jackasses exactly where they can shove it. Why let the jackasses choose your family for you? Why would you want to "fix" your kids to conform to what jackasses want?

Which are what, excatly?
Families that only consist of mother, father and children came about in the 50s, I think it's a bit rich to call that traditional already.
...

I think it’s rich that since the name was invented in the 50’s you think the object of that name didn’t exist before the name was given to it… (see below for more)

Families traditionally included what we now refer to as "extended" family. Grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc, would all live with you and be considered your family, not just your extended family. The model of husband, wife, 2.3 children basically just became the norm after the second World War.


Although the name, “nuclear family” was invented in the fifties, the family formation it describes is far older than the name.

This report shows how the ‘nuclear family’ is a product of the late middle ages.
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006/0106_0800_1104.pdf

And this essay addresses the different types and aspects of families from the specifically American experience …

By the end of the eighteenth century, the white American family had begun developing a family structure that we now recognize as modern: one that was essentially nuclear, openly affectionate, child-centered, relatively egalitarian, and, at the same time, also individualistic. Such families appeared first among the gentry. Little by little, they became a model for other groups, and eventually the pattern for the modern American family, or, paradoxically, what we again often refer to as the "traditional" family.
http://www.history.org/Almanack/life/family/essay.cfm

Interestingly, "nuclear families" only make up about 1/3 of the households in the US. Even thirty years ago, nuclear families only made up about 40% of the households, so even then the majority of families did not match the supposedly-traditional pattern.

Interestingly, you are talking about all household’s and comparing them against ‘families.’ Your numbers are close enough but your application of those numbers are misleading. Families with children would be the proper comparison. Nuclear families makes up more than 70% of households with children…If nuclear family means parents with their children. However, ‘traditional’ family is frequently not counted IF the mother and father both work. IF nuclear family means, 1 father who works and 1 mother who stays home with children, then the nuclear ‘family is only 7% of the total.

Since we are talking about one man and one woman with children and comparing them to every other possible family organization, then who works and who does not work should be irrelevant to the discussion. Children being raised in America today are still more than 50% of the time living with both of their parents.

If somebody is really concerned about ensuring that their child has the best chance at a loving, abuse-free relationship, then they should be trying to have lesbian daughters. Preliminary research is also suggesting that lesbian couples are more likely to rear children who are emotionally secure, and are the least likely to rear children who go on to be convicted of crimes.


Preliminary research in the scandinavian countries also shows that lesbian couples break-up two and a half times more often than heterosexual couples and even significantly more oftern than homosexual male couples. The odds are, most lesbian couples won't stay together long enough to raise a child from infant to adult...

It's OK; half of all straight couples get divorced, too, often bitterly, and too many of the couples who stay together are abusive situations.

Also, does anyone else find it disconcerting that this topic is approaching 200 replies when it's essentially a non-issue? Conservatives who would rejoice at stamping out homosexuality would revile at the concept of altering a baby's genes or aborting a baby, whereas those who would be inclined to perform such tasks are likelier to be the ones who wouldn't give a damn if their kid grew up to be a homosexual-American.

You know, I've got a feeling that if it turns out that homosexuality is entirely genetic, and can be confirmed while the foetus is still in the womb, and turns out to be unalterable, you's find a lot more conservatives going "Abortion's wrong, except when the mother was raped or the child is diagnosed as gay, m'kay?"

Preliminary research in the scandinavian countries also shows that lesbian couples break-up two and a half times more often than heterosexual couples and even significantly more oftern than homosexual male couples. The odds are, most lesbian couples won't stay together long enough to raise a child from infant to adult...

It's OK; half of all straight couples get divorced, too, often bitterly, and too many of the couples who stay together are abusive situations.

Also, does anyone else find it disconcerting that this topic is approaching 200 replies when it's essentially a non-issue? Conservatives who would rejoice at stamping out homosexuality would revile at the concept of altering a baby's genes or aborting a baby, whereas those who would be inclined to perform such tasks are likelier to be the ones who wouldn't give a damn if their kid grew up to be a homosexual-American.

It's OK; half of all straight couples get divorced, too, often bitterly, and too many of the couples who stay together are abusive situations.

Also, does anyone else find it disconcerting that this topic is approaching 200 replies when it's essentially a non-issue? Conservatives who would rejoice at stamping out homosexuality would revile at the concept of altering a baby's genes or aborting a baby, whereas those who would be inclined to perform such tasks are likelier to be the ones who wouldn't give a damn if their kid grew up to be a homosexual-American.

There is apparently a treatment with a simple drug that works for sheep to keep them from bearing homosexual rams.

It is extremely likely that this would work in humans.

You don't need to modify anyone's genes here - just a minor alteration of bloody chemistry during fetal development.

I would see that some people would refuse to do this, others would run out and buy it and use it.

What's ironic here is that the people who usually argue that "there are no fetal rights" (i.e., people who are for abortion) are in a bind here - if it's truly the woman's right to ingest whatever she feels like, she just has to take the drug that prevents the fetus from coming out gay.

What's ironic here is that the people who usually argue that "there are no fetal rights" (i.e., people who are for abortion) are in a bind here - if it's truly the woman's right to ingest whatever she feels like, she just has to take the drug that prevents the fetus from coming out gay.

Well, to clarify one thing : I wouldn't want that drug outlawed. If people feel they need to do this to their kids, fair enough. It's probably better for the poor little buggers than growing up as a homosexual with homophobe parents.

I do, however, question the parenting abilities of those people who'd actually take the drug. I think it's clear indicator that they don't want a child, an individuum, but rather a picture-book story and a little copy of the ideal image they have of themselves. In short, I think they're so far up their own asses, they brush their teeth from the inside.

What's ironic here is that the people who usually argue that "there are no fetal rights" (i.e., people who are for abortion) are in a bind here - if it's truly the woman's right to ingest whatever she feels like, she just has to take the drug that prevents the fetus from coming out gay.
How so?

I think it's a lousy idea to try to deliberately alter the sexual orientation of your offspring. I also think it's a lousy idea to have more than 2 children. I also think it's a lousy idea to have an abortion simply because your family won't be able to handle that the baby's father is black. I also think it's a lousy idea to have a baby because you want to have something to love you.

Yet I don't believe we should have laws prohibiting any of these. I believe a great many lousy choices are still that: CHOICES. I can discuss the various reasons why they are lousy without having to advocate legal measures against them.

Oh, I think most parents want their kids to come out as some idealized image they have in their head.

Otherwise, they would send the kid off to an unknown location to be raised by whoever happened to pass by.

Ever wonder why people fret over school curricula? Fret over what's on TV?

Why do certain racial groups fret over how their child will see themselves in mass media?

Why some parents are concerned over their daughter's self-image as seen on TV?

Why movies have ratings?

It's only a matter of degree - but it's like saying "how far up your ass is your head now?"

Only the forehead, or all the way up to your neck?

*lol
You got me there... my ideal would be that my children will grow up to be independent, informed individuals who think for themselves rather than do what's expected of them. Yes, it's an ideal, it's just the opposite end of the spectrum ;)

Well, to clarify one thing : I wouldn't want that drug outlawed. If people feel they need to do this to their kids, fair enough. It's probably better for the poor little buggers than growing up as a homosexual with homophobe parents.

I do, however, question the parenting abilities of those people who'd actually take the drug. I think it's clear indicator that they don't want a child, an individuum, but rather a picture-book story and a little copy of the ideal image they have of themselves. In short, I think they're so far up their own asses, they brush their teeth from the inside.

Oh, I think most parents want their kids to come out as some idealized image they have in their head.

Otherwise, they would send the kid off to an unknown location to be raised by whoever happened to pass by.

Ever wonder why people fret over school curricula? Fret over what's on TV?

Why do certain racial groups fret over how their child will see themselves in mass media?

Why some parents are concerned over their daughter's self-image as seen on TV?

Why movies have ratings?

It's only a matter of degree - but it's like saying "how far up your ass is your head now?"

Only the forehead, or all the way up to your neck?

Mine left my genes alone, basically because they couldn't do much about them. But they did their utmost to try and change just about everything else. It took decades for me to develope a sense of self-esteem and pride after having constantly been made to feel I'm not sufficient.

I'm sorry to hear that. I had to deal with the same thing.

Which, incidentally, is what you'd be indirectly telling your child by changing its identity so fundamentally.

No. Like I said in an earlier post, the child wouldn't have an identity to be changed at the time of the operation. The identity would form long after it, and the child wouldn't know the difference. Hell, the parents most likely would never even mention the whole thing, and the kid would never know.

Anyway, I'm still not convinced that changing the kid would be telling him "you're insufficient", but more like "you're sufficient now". Of course, it depends entirely on the child how he would view it.

Considering that your gay kids have just as good a chance of living in a happy, healthy relationship than any hetero child (in fact even slightly better, as the chances of abuse are lower), I don't see why you would have problems with them living happily and raising children?

Because I'm suspicious of gay couples' abilities to raise children the way I'd want my grandchildren to be raised. That is, according to the much disputed "traditional" values.

Although my child's happiness would be one of the top priorities, it wouldn't be the only one.

Because I'm suspicious of gay couples' abilities to raise children the way I'd want my grandchildren to be raised. That is, according to the much disputed "traditional" values.

Although my child's happiness would be one of the top priorities, it wouldn't be the only one.

Ok, all other things aside, why?

Personally, I grew up with an abusive father and a overly-traditional mother. I would not say that they did a very good job raising me, and I think I turned out the way I did despite their every effort to drive me to suicide (ok, and partly due to my own dumbness, had I known that you have to cut along the arms and not across them, they would have succeeded).
Given my personal experience, I find it very hard to imagine that a same-sex couple would have done any worse.
I would like to think (although I can't back that up) that since it is somewhat more difficult for them to have a child, they will go about it with more consideration and not simply have one because "that's what you do. You marry and then you have kids" (as my mom once told me). As a result, they might be more likely to have the child's best interests at heart and not view it as a necessary evil...

Stop messing with nature... geez...

Ok, all other things aside, why?

I always want to know this, too.

Exactly what functions, as parents, will two gay individuals be unable to perform? Specifically, now. I don't want to hear, "they just can't be a Mommy and a Daddy" or any of that general BS. I want specific examples of functions that cannot be performed by a gay parent, and I want reasons why hetero parents are guaranteed to be able to perform those functions.

and who's to define "harmful"?

Considering that it is my opinion I am expressing, that would be me.

lol... and some parents can decide that sparing their child this one form of hardship would be better than letting them experience it. That doesn't make them wrong, nor bad parents. It just makes them parents.

They could decide that. And it makes them wrong. It makes them part of the bigotry that plagues homosexuals. And it demonstrates that they don't want a child. They want a robot who will live up to whatever expectations society has for them, no matter what they have to do to ensure that.

Ok, all other things aside, why?

Personally, I grew up with an abusive father and a overly-traditional mother. I would not say that they did a very good job raising me, and I think I turned out the way I did despite their every effort to drive me to suicide (ok, and partly due to my own dumbness, had I known that you have to cut along the arms and not across them, they would have succeeded).
Given my personal experience, I find it very hard to imagine that a same-sex couple would have done any worse.

Like I said, I'm sorry to hear that, but I hope you don't assume that kind of thing to be common. Whenever there's a debate about whether gays should be allowed to adopt kids, someone says that kids are better off with gentle and loving gays than with abusive and uncaring heteros, which is probably true, but retarded as an argument.

I'm certain that abusive straight parents are a very small minority, although it depends on the definition of abusive. After all, some people classify a simple spanking as "abuse". When I was a kid, everyone was spanked, but nobody was abused.

I would like to think (although I can't back that up) that since it is somewhat more difficult for them to have a child, they will go about it with more consideration and not simply have one because "that's what you do. You marry and then you have kids" (as my mom once told me). As a result, they might be more likely to have the child's best interests at heart and not view it as a necessary evil...

Yes, I'm sure gays are every bit as capable of providing a caring and happy environment as are straight couples. But how are they as role models? I wouldn't call myself conservative, but I am a bit old-fashioned, and I believe that it's good for a child to have both feminine and masculine models for growing up. Maybe the "bitch" and "butch" of gay couples can fit the roles of women and men respectively, but I'm not sure what happens when a boy tries to imitate both, or a girl has to figure the stuff out by herself. (Or the opposite in case of lesbian parents.)

Before you say it, no, I don't think single parenting is good for either the child or the parent.

What I mean is that the current trend of equalizing sexes in every aspect annoys me to no end. Men should be manly and women should be feminine, and I'm not sure if gay couples can achieve such results with children as well as straight couples. Of course, this is all just a matter of my personal preference and opinion, with no data whatsoever to back them up, so feel free to ignore.

Yes, I'm sure gays are every bit as capable of providing a caring and happy environment as are straight couples. But how are they as role models? I wouldn't call myself conservative, but I am a bit old-fashioned, and I believe that it's good for a child to have both feminine and masculine models for growing up. Maybe the "bitch" and "butch" of gay couples can fit the roles of women and men respectively, but I'm not sure what happens when a boy tries to imitate both, or a girl has to figure the stuff out by herself. (Or the opposite in case of lesbian parents.)

Yeah, I shoulda figured. It's always about enforcing traditional gender roles.

Here's a wild thought: maybe your kids should be allowed to have their own personality. Maybe it's a GOOD thing if a kid doesn't worry about being "masculine" or "feminine," and just is the kind of person they want to be. Maybe it's a good thing if we don't force girls to be one way and boys to be another simply because we want to artificially impose a narrow set of gender roles upon them.

Seriously, please tell me: exactly what benefit is there to forcing these roles on people? Besides, you know, reinforcing conformity for the sake of conformity?


Before you say it, no, I don't think single parenting is good for either the child or the parent.

That's a whole other topic, though, isn't it? I mean, having only one adult around to provide care is different than having two adults around to provide care. Ask anybody who's had to hold a job while having a new baby in the house...having a sleep rotation can be the only thing that keeps you sane!


What I mean is that the current trend of equalizing sexes in every aspect annoys me to no end. Men should be manly and women should be feminine,

Why? Specifically, what benefits are there to this system? Why is it better for men to be masculine, as opposed to women? What qualities of "femininity" benefit women, but would not benefit men?

Remember, "conformity" is not an answer.


and I'm not sure if gay couples can achieve such results with children as well as straight couples. Of course, this is all just a matter of my personal preference and opinion, with no data whatsoever to back them up, so feel free to ignore.
I don't think it's safe to ignore ideas like yours. I think they are very problematic, and even dangerous. The fact that you have no data to back them up only makes them more problematic, not less so. That's why I want to discuss them!

No, but they do have a significantly lower chance of settling down with a member of the opposite sex and having a family. Because I also would hope the best for my grandkids, I'd like them to grow up in a normal family.

One doesn't have to settle down with a member of the opposite sex to have a healthy family. If you want what is best for your grandkids, if you ever have them, that would be a loving family. It doesn't really matter what sex the members of it happen to be.

Let's not forget that the fetus doesn't have a consciousness, and therefore the treatment isn't "altering" anything, but rather setting the direction in which the kid's sexuality will eventually develop. The child would have no memories of ever having been gay, and I don't see how something being "natural" makes it important to leave as it is.

The fetus won't have any memories. But the fact that such a treatment was taken will be a matter of permanent record. The child will likely, at some point, find out. How would it make you feel if your parents had changed something about your development that had nothing to do with health, just because they would prefer you to be different? What kind of feelings of confusion might it kick up in a person to know that they probably would have been very different if their parents hadn't decided to exert this level of control?

Besides, I really don't think all kids are severely teased about some random things.

???? Have you ever been around children? Ever??

That is reserved only to those, who stand out of the crowd in some obvious way and are, therefore, freaks. This definition includes all traits that are clearly in the minority, and that's why I don't believe school kids will ever accept homosexuality as something that's not worth teasing about.

Wow, you were a bully as a kid, eh? Being in a minority does not make you a freak. And sexuality doesn't really matter to very young children anyways. It's too early to know if someone is gay or not.

It's a minor contribution to it, but I think that the people, who are actively preaching hate towards gay people, are infinitely more damaging. Why should the change begin with me and my child?

The change should begin with everyone who can make a change. If those who know it is wrong don't try to change it, no one will.

Perhaps, but it depends largely on where we live. I'd guess that young people in Alabama are not as tolerant as young people in San Fransisco, for example.

You might be surprised. Old people in Alabama are probably less tolerant than those in San Fransisco, but the trends for young people are pretty much universal.

I wouldn't perform plastic surgery on anyone, who is still growing, because that could cause who knows what deformities. My point was just that I don't consider health risks to be the only acceptable reason for medical procedures.

It should be the only acceptable reason for performing medical procedures on an patient who cannot or has not consented to that procedure.

Like I said, I believe that homosexuality affects the quality of life.

Only because of people who would do exactly the sort of thing you are advocating.

Not really. Someone else seemed to point out already that parents have the right to raise their children, and determining their sexuality could be considered part of that. Otherwise, I shouldn't even be able to punish my children, because I should love them regardless of how they behave.

If "determining their sexuality" is a part of raising children, then choosing all biological traits are a part of raising children. hoosing the eye color, height, weight, taste buds, and talents of your child would be "raising" them. Of course, they aren't. These things have nothing to do with raising a child. Someone who feels the need to choose all of these things doesn't want to raise a child. They want a little doll.

Choosing biological traits would be building children - like little robots. When you raise a child, you work with the child you have, not arbitrarily alter them to suit your tastes.

Not in a stable relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Or, if they do, they most likely won't stay happy that way for very long.

I support traditional family values.

True traditional family values would mean you have a large extended family living in the same house or at least on the same property. You should have parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, etc. all helping raise your children.

The so-called "traditional family values" you are most likely talking about have been "traditional" for, what? Maybe 50 years?

I understand your point, but keeping my kid gay just because the other people are the ones who should change, seems a bit too obstinate. Especially since those 'other people' include most of my friends and relatives.

Maybe you should choose better friends and parent the child you have, instead of trying to have them custom fit to you and your family.

Of course, personally I think we shouldn't let the shittiest elements of our society dictate our family structures. Instead of trying to force our children to conform so they are less likely to be picked on, I support teaching our kids to be strong, informed, and brave enough to tell bigots and jackasses exactly where they can shove it. Why let the jackasses choose your family for you? Why would you want to "fix" your kids to conform to what jackasses want?

But....wait....you mean parents should do this thing we call parenting?

What a novel idea!


Anyway, I'm still not convinced that changing the kid would be telling him "you're insufficient", but more like "you're sufficient now". Of course, it depends entirely on the child how he would view it.

Oh, "you're sufficient now." In other words, "I would have loved you less if I hadn't made changes so that you would suite my tastes..."

Yes, I'm sure gays are every bit as capable of providing a caring and happy environment as are straight couples. But how are they as role models? I wouldn't call myself conservative, but I am a bit old-fashioned, and I believe that it's good for a child to have both feminine and masculine models for growing up. Maybe the "bitch" and "butch" of gay couples can fit the roles of women and men respectively, but I'm not sure what happens when a boy tries to imitate both, or a girl has to figure the stuff out by herself. (Or the opposite in case of lesbian parents.)

"Masculine" and "feminine" are largely arbitrary terms associated with ideal "men" and "women" that don't actually exist. Besides, since when are the parents the only role models in a child's life? My father was a shitty male role model. Luckily he wasn't the only one I had. I had uncles, family friends, my grandfather, etc, etc.

I think it is important for children to have a range of role models. And the parents need to make sure the children interact with them.


What I mean is that the current trend of equalizing sexes in every aspect annoys me to no end. Men should be manly and women should be feminine, and I'm not sure if gay couples can achieve such results with children as well as straight couples. Of course, this is all just a matter of my personal preference and opinion, with no data whatsoever to back them up, so feel free to ignore.

You really do want a little robot that fits some ideal you have in your head, rather than a real person as a child, don't you?

What if a man doesn't want to fit your version of the word "manly" or a woman doesn't want to do the things you consider "feminine"? What if those molds you want so badly to force them into simply don't fit?

I always want to know this, too.

Exactly what functions, as parents, will two gay individuals be unable to perform? Specifically, now. I don't want to hear, "they just can't be a Mommy and a Daddy" or any of that general BS. I want specific examples of functions that cannot be performed by a gay parent, and I want reasons why hetero parents are guaranteed to be able to perform those functions.

I suppose I could make the "they can't be a Mommy and a Daddy" argument. However, I won't. Gay couples have a much harder time of passing their genetic material on, and that's a big deal to a lot of people who believe that their genetic code must be carried on. That's the conservative system of values, and anyone who doesn't agree with it is weird.

Simply put, lesbian couples (or single moms, I suppose) can get in vitro fertilization. Any couple can adopt, at least in theory...frankly, in theory, single people can adopt, a dorm full of college students can adopt, even a semi-sentient robot can adopt...and if the Homestar Runner cartoons are to be believed, cups of coffee can adopt. In theory. However, a lot of people seem to believe that adoption is a second resort or even a third and that the most preferable situation is for people to have their own kids. The only way to do that naturally is with a heterosexual couple. That's not bigotry saying that; it's biology.

Therefore, the ideal is created - since heterosexual couples create babies, that is how nature/God/deity-of-your-choice intended, and that's what all must do. After all, no one WILLINGLY disobeys God/nature/DOYC, and anyone who does is a sinner/unnatural/a heretic/a person who must be killed. Or at the very least, they are weird and worthy of stigma. This is why the argument is made that only heterosexual couples can be parents.

No, but they do have a significantly lower chance of settling down with a member of the opposite sex and having a family. Because I also would hope the best for my grandkids, I'd like them to grow up in a normal family.

He could always settle down with his boyfriend (his husband even if we eliminate this bigoted notion that marriage is between a man an a woman only) and have a child through a surogate (damn can't spell that) mother. As for a "normal" family, who are you to decide what "normal" is?

Gay couples have a much harder time of passing their genetic material on,

No harder than the many, many heterosexual couples with fertility issues.

In fact, if a gay person wanted to, that person could conceive quite naturally with a member of the opposite sex, with some sort of agreement as to who would raise the child.

Simply put, lesbian couples (or single moms, I suppose) can get in vitro fertilization.

And, with the rise in surrogate motherhood, so can gay couples (or single men, I suppose). At least one company in LA, The Fertility Institutes, has a program designed specifically for gay men wishing to have biological children. The Institute finds a surrogate mother, does all the legal wrangling, does the in vitro procedure.

Personally, I take issue with the amount of time and money that goes into these procedures when that time and money could be spent giving an already born child a good home, but it is there.

That's an interesting thought pattern. If your parents changed you, you'd think "I wasn't good enough, and needed to be improved". I'd think "I am now better than I was originally".

So, straights in your view are "better" than gays, but you're NOT a bigot.

Kinda like the MST3K line "And then I'm going to ram my ovipositer down your throat and lay my eggs . . . but I'm NOT an alien . . ."

Yeah, I shoulda figured. It's always about enforcing traditional gender roles.

Here's a wild thought: maybe your kids should be allowed to have their own personality. Maybe it's a GOOD thing if a kid doesn't worry about being "masculine" or "feminine," and just is the kind of person they want to be. Maybe it's a good thing if we don't force girls to be one way and boys to be another simply because we want to artificially impose a narrow set of gender roles upon them.

No, it's not good for kids, or anyone, to worry about this stuff.

Seriously, please tell me: exactly what benefit is there to forcing these roles on people? Besides, you know, reinforcing conformity for the sake of conformity?

Have you ever heard of women complaining that men today are too girly? I hear it all the time. Have you heard men complaining that women are too much like guys in behavior? This pisses me off personally like nothing else. These people are not some remnants from more ignorant times; they're young women and men of these days, raised according to such methods you're advocating. Whether you qualify it as a benefit or not, I, and the Republican party, are not the only ones, who miss traditional roles.

I also believe that it increases discipline on an individual level and on a larger scale, when kids are expected to adhere to a certain behaviour pattern. Or does that fall under the category of conformity? Your turn: what benefit is in letting kids grow freely?

That's a whole other topic, though, isn't it? I mean, having only one adult around to provide care is different than having two adults around to provide care. Ask anybody who's had to hold a job while having a new baby in the house...having a sleep rotation can be the only thing that keeps you sane!

Yep, let's not go there. The only reason I mentioned it was that I expected a rebuttal to the effect of "but look at all those single parents, they're managing ok without the other parent. besides, there's so many of them, that it wouldn't hurt to let gays have kids too."

Why? Specifically, what benefits are there to this system? Why is it better for men to be masculine, as opposed to women? What qualities of "femininity" benefit women, but would not benefit men?

Remember, "conformity" is not an answer.

Like I said earlier, most women prefer masculine men, whereas most men prefer feminine women. Simple biology. There is probably some very important and relevant evolutionary reason behind it, or not. I don't really care. I could go on about men being physically stronger and therefore more fit for masculine tasks, women being naturally more inclined to feminine tasks, or masculine women being really annoying, but I won't. Biology should be enough.

Ever wonder why people fret over school curricula? Fret over what's on TV?


People fret over what's on TV because they can't find the remote and can't be arsed to walk a few steps to turn it off. What other reason could there be?

So, straights in your view are "better" than gays, but you're NOT a bigot.

Kinda like the MST3K line "And then I'm going to ram my ovipositer down your throat and lay my eggs . . . but I'm NOT an alien . . ."

With that sort of logic, you could say,

"Well, Eve, I know you're a heterosexual male, but since you prefer sex with heterosexual women, and will only have sex with heterosexual women, you are a homophobic bigot."

Have you ever heard of women complaining that men today are too girly? I hear it all the time. Have you heard men complaining that women are too much like guys in behavior?

No I haven't. I wouldn't even know what the complainer means.

This pisses me off personally like nothing else. These people are not some remnants from more ignorant times; they're young women and men of these days, raised according to such methods you're advocating.

Like it or not yes these ideas ARE ignorant and outdated.

With that sort of logic, you could say,

"Well, Eve, I know you're a heterosexual male, but since you prefer sex with heterosexual women, and will only have sex with heterosexual women, you are a homophobic bigot."

Well, I would be in Deep Kimchi if I said anything like that . . . after all preferring to have sex only with your preferred gender is in no way similar to thinking that a straight person is "better" than a gay person. Nice straw man, burns well.

Well, I would be in Deep Kimchi if I said anything like that . . . after all preferring to have sex only with your preferred gender is in no way similar to thinking that a straight person is "better" than a gay person. Nice straw man, burns well.

Sure it's the same thing.

You're saying it's better to have sex with your preferred gender, and that sex is better sex because of it. That makes you a bigot.

So, straights in your view are "better" than gays, but you're NOT a bigot.

Kinda like the MST3K line "And then I'm going to ram my ovipositer down your throat and lay my eggs . . . but I'm NOT an alien . . ."

Props for the MST3K reference...made me chuckle at work for a bit. :)

Sure it's the same thing.

You're saying it's better to have sex with your preferred gender, and that sex is better sex because of it. That makes you a bigot.

Which is obviously the exact same thing as saying a straight person is a better person than a homosexual. :rolleyes:

No, it's not good for kids, or anyone, to worry about this stuff.

Then why do you advocate forcing them to worry about it by trying to ram them into molds that they may or may not fit?

Have you ever heard of women complaining that men today are too girly?

No, and I am a woman. I'm getting married in a month to a man who isn't "too girly." He is exactly who he is, and I love him for exactly who he is.

I hear it all the time. Have you heard men complaining that women are too much like guys in behavior? This pisses me off personally like nothing else.

Oh noes! Women don't act exactly like you want them to! It's almost as if....they are their own person, with no need to answer to you! How dare they!?!?!?!

These people are not some remnants from more ignorant times; they're young women and men of these days, raised according to such methods you're advocating. Whether you qualify it as a benefit or not, I, and the Republican party, are not the only ones, who miss traditional roles.

Some of us don't miss being forced to be (or pretend to be) something just because someone else says so.

I also believe that it increases discipline on an individual level and on a larger scale, when kids are expected to adhere to a certain behaviour pattern. Or does that fall under the category of conformity? Your turn: what benefit is in letting kids grow freely?

The fact that they actually get to grow.

Like I said earlier, most women prefer masculine men, whereas most men prefer feminine women.

What is your definition of "masculine"? What is your definition of "feminine"? Where is the survey you have conducted to determine that most men and women not only agree with your definition, but prefer it in the opposite sex?

Simple biology. There is probably some very important and relevant evolutionary reason behind it, or not. I don't really care. I could go on about men being physically stronger and therefore more fit for masculine tasks, women being naturally more inclined to feminine tasks, or masculine women being really annoying, but I won't. Biology should be enough.

Yes, if the arbitrary gender roles you want to enforce on others are truly a matter of biology, biology should be enough. You shouldn't have to enforce them at all, because men and women would naturally fall into your little molds.

If they don't.....oh noes.....that suggests that you are WRONG in assuming that they are biological traits! *gasp*


With that sort of logic, you could say,

"Well, Eve, I know you're a heterosexual male, but since you prefer sex with heterosexual women, and will only have sex with heterosexual women, you are a homophobic bigot."

No, you couldn't. The homophobic bigot thinks that being a heterosexual male makes him better than a homosexual male. Luckily, most heterosexual males aren't bigots, and don't think they are better than gay men simply because they happen to be attracted to women. They are different, and don't compete with one another. That's about it. Neither is inherently "better".

So, straights in your view are "better" than gays, but you're NOT a bigot.

Kinda like the MST3K line "And then I'm going to ram my ovipositer down your throat and lay my eggs . . . but I'm NOT an alien . . ."

:rolleyes:
That was referring to the question of any kind of manipulation of genes, not just those concerning sexuality. Also, I think it was Cabra who first used the concept of 'good enough' in this debate, not me.

Where exactly did I say I'm not a bigot, anyway?

Like it or not yes these ideas ARE ignorant and outdated.

:rolleyes:
No, they are simply opinions. No more, no less. Men have the right to prefer a certain type of woman, as women have the right to prefer the certain type of man. I don't see how any preference would be any more "ignorant" than any other.

It always amuses me when people use the word "outdated" in these debates. As if unfair treatment of minorities would have been a better thing in the past than it is now.

:rolleyes:
No, they are simply opinions. No more, no less. Men have the right to prefer a certain type of woman, as women have the right to prefer the certain type of man. I don't see how any preference would be any more "ignorant" than any other.

Preferences aren't. Some notion that your personal preferences should dictate the behavior of others is. You can have your preferences all you want. And if you find a person who meets them, goody goody gumdrops for you.

It always amuses me when people use the word "outdated" in these debates. As if unfair treatment of minorities would have been a better thing in the past than it is now.

It wasn't. But we've grown out of that as a society. Thus, even holding such ideas is "outdated."

Have you ever heard of women complaining that men today are too girly? I hear it all the time. Have you heard men complaining that women are too much like guys in behavior? This pisses me off personally like nothing else. These people are not some remnants from more ignorant times; they're young women and men of these days, raised according to such methods you're advocating. Whether you qualify it as a benefit or not, I, and the Republican party, are not the only ones, who miss traditional roles.

No, I can't say I have. And wouldn't the fact that you claim they feel that women behave like men and men behave like women mean that they have very clear perception of how men and women should behave? Sounds like the people you hear complaining were brought up with very clear ideas of gender roles and expect the rest of the world to conform with them...



Like I said earlier, most women prefer masculine men, whereas most men prefer feminine women. Simple biology. There is probably some very important and relevant evolutionary reason behind it, or not. I don't really care. I could go on about men being physically stronger and therefore more fit for masculine tasks, women being naturally more inclined to feminine tasks, or masculine women being really annoying, but I won't. Biology should be enough.

That has to be one of the silliest statements I've read on here, ever, and that does mean something after the discussions I had with Ny Nordland, KP and Jesussaves.

As a female, I can assure you that "masculine men" are the last thing intelligent women want. Ask Ashmoria, WYTYG, Bottle, Neeskia, Smunkee... hell, find a woman who'll talk to you and ask her.

Then why do you advocate forcing them to worry about it by trying to ram them into molds that they may or may not fit?

So that they'd grow up the way I want? Hey, if they simply cannot fit the mold, that's okay too. But I see no harm in trying.

No, and I am a woman. I'm getting married in a month to a man who isn't "too girly." He is exactly who he is, and I love him for exactly who he is.

Congratulations. That's not saying anything about whether your man is girly compared to other men on average or not, though.

Oh noes! Women don't act exactly like you want them to! It's almost as if....they are their own person, with no need to answer to you! How dare they!?!?!?!

What, now I'm not allowed to like certain kinds of women? I should just shut up like a good little boy and gladly take whatever female creature deigns to approve of me as her love slave, is that it?

The fact that they actually get to grow.

And how is that prevented by giving them guidelines to help along the way?

What is your definition of "masculine"? What is your definition of "feminine"? Where is the survey you have conducted to determine that most men and women not only agree with your definition, but prefer it in the opposite sex?

I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I might come up to define them, so I'll just say that a masculine man has little or no personality traits, behaviour patterns and bodily features that are usually associated with those of the traditional idea of woman, and vice versa to the feminine woman.

Do you not find attractive a man, who has rather large and well-defined muscles? How about a man, who is very self-confident? Or a man, who has a well-paying job with lots of power and responsibility? These are traits that are commonly considered masculine. And don't say anything about the personality being more important. That's not what I asked.

Yes, if the arbitrary gender roles you want to enforce on others are truly a matter of biology, biology should be enough. You shouldn't have to enforce them at all, because men and women would naturally fall into your little molds.

If they don't.....oh noes.....that suggests that you are WRONG in assuming that they are biological traits! *gasp*

You would think so, and normally that probably would be right. However, life in the modern society has become estranged from the old ways so, that the world and simple survival no longer does the molding.

I wouldn't say that biology puts people into the molds. Rather, biology favors people who fit them. Or it did. Whether it does now, it can be debated, and depends on many things. Whether biology will continue to favor them in the future, that is impossible to tell.

No, I can't say I have. And wouldn't the fact that you claim they feel that women behave like men and men behave like women mean that they have very clear perception of how men and women should behave? Sounds like the people you hear complaining were brought up with very clear ideas of gender roles and expect the rest of the world to conform with them...

It is possible.

That has to be one of the silliest statements I've read on here, ever, and that does mean something after the discussions I had with Ny Nordland, KP and Jesussaves.

As a female, I can assure you that "masculine men" are the last thing intelligent women want. Ask Ashmoria, WYTYG, Bottle, Neeskia, Smunkee... hell, find a woman who'll talk to you and ask her.

Why are you assuming that most women are intelligent? Never mind, it might be true that I do have a differing opinion of masculinity than you, if that truly is the case. Just remember, what women consciously want in a man is not necessarily the same as what they're attracted to. Feel free to answer the three questions I asked Demp about this in my previous post.

Do you not find attractive a man, who has rather large and well-defined muscles? How about a man, who is very self-confident? Or a man, who has a well-paying job with lots of power and responsibility?
no, yes, and no.

These are traits that are commonly considered masculine.
no they aren't.

It is possible.
It's highly likely.


Why are you assuming that most women are intelligent? Never mind, it might be true that I do have a differing opinion of masculinity than you, if that truly is the case. Just remember, what women consciously want in a man is not necessarily the same as what they're attracted to. Feel free to answer the three questions I asked Demp about this in my previous post.

I'm not assuming that most women are, I was just giving you enough credit not to assume you wanted them to be stupid. I might have been wrong in that assumption.
Personally, I know what I'm attrackted to, and it's definitely not what you would define as masculine men (I love my boyfriend for volunteering to do the ironing :)).
No, I'm not saying that we get to determine who you're attrackted to. However, if adherance to imaginary roles is one key factor for you, I can promise you a lot of disappointment in your future.

Do you not find attractive a man, who has rather large and well-defined muscles? How about a man, who is very self-confident? Or a man, who has a well-paying job with lots of power and responsibility? These are traits that are commonly considered masculine. And don't say anything about the personality being more important. That's not what I asked.


No, I personally find muscles particularly unattractive. I like my men a bit chubby, not muscly.
Yes. I admire justified and honest self-confidence highly attractive in both men and women.
I couldn't care less about what he does for a job.

I'm attracted by men who are honest, with a lot of sense of humour, who are openly affectionate, unprejudiced about anything, communicative, and able to share responsibilities evenly.

I'm not assuming that most women are, I was just giving you enough credit not to assume you wanted them to be stupid. I might have been wrong in that assumption.

Oh, I most certainly don't want any women to be stupid. Unfortunately, experience has shown that many are, and I'm sure I can give you enough credit to not assume that you disagree.

(Many men are stupid too, I admit. It's not like I'm sexist or anything.:p)

Personally, I know what I'm attrackted to, and it's definitely not what you would define as masculine men (I love my boyfriend for volunteering to do the ironing :)).

Good for you for finding such a man, though. I might volunteer for ironing too, but no intelligent woman would ever let me do it.

Besides, ironing is a household activity suitable for the masculine man. The iron is hot, and thus danger is involved.

No, I'm not saying that we get to determine who you're attrackted to. However, if adherance to imaginary roles is one key factor for you, I can promise you a lot of disappointment in your future.

Relationships include a lot of disappointment in any case. That's life. Also, dropping too many of my criteria in the fear of being left alone could in itself lead to disappointment, if I end up with a woman, in whom I'm not genuinely interested.

So that they'd grow up the way I want?

Proof positive that you don't want an actual child. You want a doll you can build.

Hey, if they simply cannot fit the mold, that's okay too. But I see no harm in trying.

Then I hope and pray that you are completely infertile and can't adopt. If you don't understand the psychological harm you can cause by trying to force a child to fit expectations that she does not fit, then you are completely and utterly unfit to even consider being a parent.

Congratulations. That's not saying anything about whether your man is girly compared to other men on average or not, though.

It doesn't matter if he is "girly" (whatever that means) compared to other men on average or not. His own personality matters - not how he compares to others.

What, now I'm not allowed to like certain kinds of women?

Of course you are. If you find a good little submissive woman who acts just the way you want, good for you. But you cannot expect women to act a certain way just because you want them to. You don't own them, and they are *gasp* individuals!

And how is that prevented by giving them guidelines to help along the way?

You aren't talking about guidelines. You're talking about rules. "You're a girl, so you can't like this." "You're a boy, so you have to like this." And so on....

If you are truly raising a child - helping a child grow - it doesn't matter what 99% of boys like, if your little boy doesn't like it. It doesn't matter if most little girls want to wear skirts. If your little girl is a tomboy, then you foster her interests as such.

I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I might come up to define them, so I'll just say that a masculine man has little or no personality traits, behaviour patterns and bodily features that are usually associated with those of the traditional idea of woman, and vice versa to the feminine woman.


If there is a "traditional", then surely you can define it for us?

Do you not find attractive a man, who has rather large and well-defined muscles?

Not really. I generally don't find body-builder types attractive at all, physically. I find a nice build attractive, but that doesn't necessitate large muscles.

How about a man, who is very self-confident?

Indeed. I also find women who are very self-confident more attractive. That's just a personality trait that is good in general - male or female. (Of course, if that self-confidence goes to the level of arrogance, it becomes an unattractive trait).

Or a man, who has a well-paying job with lots of power and responsibility?

What the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? What kind of shallow bitch would choose a significant other based on that?

Now, ambition can be attractive, as it speaks to the motivation of the person in question. But I hardly think they need a powerful, well-paying job to be attractive. In fact, a lot of guys in such jobs tend to be assholes.

These are traits that are commonly considered masculine. And don't say anything about the personality being more important. That's not what I asked.

You are asking what I find attractive in a man. Personality is up there pretty high on the list. If we are talking about pure physical attractiveness, you still haven't even come close to describing what I most often find attractive.

You would think so, and normally that probably would be right. However, life in the modern society has become estranged from the old ways so, that the world and simple survival no longer does the molding.

Then the molding is unnecessary.

I wouldn't say that biology puts people into the molds. Rather, biology favors people who fit them. Or it did.

When?

Good for you for finding such a man, though. I might volunteer for ironing too, but no intelligent woman would ever let me do it.
and why wouldn't she?

Besides, ironing is a household activity suitable for the masculine man. The iron is hot, and thus danger is involved.
:rolleyes:

Oh, I most certainly don't want any women to be stupid. Unfortunately, experience has shown that many are, and I'm sure I can give you enough credit to not assume that you disagree.

(Many men are stupid too, I admit. It's not like I'm sexist or anything.:p)

A lot of people are stupid, men women and everything in between. Clever ones don't fall for artificial gender roles ;)



Good for you for finding such a man, though. I might volunteer for ironing too, but no intelligent woman would ever let me do it.

Besides, ironing is a household activity suitable for the masculine man. The iron is hot, and thus danger is involved.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

Ok, I'm starting to suspect you're a troll... I'm wondering who's puppet you are.

Then I hope and pray that you are completely infertile and can't adopt. If you don't understand the psychological harm you can cause by trying to force a child to fit expectations that she does not fit, then you are completely and utterly unfit to even consider being a parent.

Nah. That depends completely on the level of coercion used. I am capable of staying in reasonable limits when necessary.

It doesn't matter if he is "girly" (whatever that means) compared to other men on average or not. His own personality matters - not how he compares to others.

Of course, but saying that you like him just the way he is, doesn't say anything about whether he could be considered masculine or not.


You aren't talking about guidelines. You're talking about rules. "You're a girl, so you can't like this." "You're a boy, so you have to like this." And so on....

Again, level of coercion.

If there is a "traditional", then surely you can define it for us?

Not really, but Maddox can help. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=real_men) ;)

Not really. I generally don't find body-builder types attractive at all, physically. I find a nice build attractive, but that doesn't necessitate large muscles.

Oh, I wasn't talking about bodybuilders. Just those athletic types, who may work out a lot, but don't look like freakshow attractions.

It's funny that none of the women so far have admitted to liking muscles, but I've noticed a very clear increase in positive attention from women after I started working out. Oh well, maybe it's something completely unrelated.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? What kind of shallow bitch would choose a significant other based on that?

I don't know, but it's known to happen.

You are asking what I find attractive in a man. Personality is up there pretty high on the list. If we are talking about pure physical attractiveness, you still haven't even come close to describing what I most often find attractive.

Sure, and of course, masculinity has a lot to do with personality too. The reason I said that was because I expected people to say that nothing else matters, as long as the personality is right. Which, of course, I consider a white PC lie.

When?

When people had to fight to stay alive. Prehistoric times definitely, and to some extent ever since. Even today, the world is highly competitive, and some survival mechanisms are still handy.

and why wouldn't she?

Because I'm bad at it, and I might cause serious damage to her clothes.

Ok, I'm starting to suspect you're a troll... I'm wondering who's puppet you are.

Housework generally becomes acceptable for men, if danger and/or pain is involved. Haven't you ever noticed men's unwillingness to cook, unless it's barbecuing? I also enjoy frying bacon without my shirt on.

I'm glad I could be of amusement. Friends again?:)

Anyways, I'm out for tonight. Good night, all you lovely ladies.

Because I'm bad at it, and I might cause serious damage to her clothes.
how can someone be bad at ironing? :confused:



Housework generally becomes acceptable for men, if danger and/or pain is involved. Haven't you ever noticed men's unwillingness to cook, unless it's barbecuing?
no, I haven't noticed that. My husband is pretty good at doing what needs to be done because he is a responsible partner. He doesn't seem to shy away from anything based on the "danger" involved.

and why wouldn't she?
Because I'm bad at it, and I might cause serious damage to her clothes.how can someone be bad at ironing? :confused:
very easily smunkee... the first time I tried ironing...
http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif
let's just say... I found out the hard way that there are some materials that you do not put to hot metal...
:eek: :rolleyes: :p :D

we laugh about it now... but back then... ok, my mom and sis had hysterics back then...

Housework generally becomes acceptable for men, if danger and/or pain is involved. Haven't you ever noticed men's unwillingness to cook, unless it's barbecuing? I love to cook. I just hate cooking something someone can't eat... :(

Why are you assuming that most women are intelligent?

<Sniff, Sniff> Ah, I love the smell of troll in the early evening. Who brought the fire and acid so it doesn't regenerate?

how can someone be bad at ironing? :confused:

One of my room mates in college had a burn scar on his chest from accidentally hitting the steam button while ironing a shirt while he was wearing it.

<Sniff, Sniff> Ah, I love the smell of troll in the early evening. Who brought the fire and acid so it doesn't regenerate?

I honestly wish I didn't get that reference.

I honestly wish I didn't get that reference.I wonder how many people do get the reference.

Nah. That depends completely on the level of coercion used. I am capable of staying in reasonable limits when necessary.

Reasonable limits wouldn't include trying to force arbitrary gender roles onto a child.

Of course, but saying that you like him just the way he is, doesn't say anything about whether he could be considered masculine or not.

That's because it is irrelevant, especially when the term "masculine" is such a nebulous term that you have been largely unable to define.

Again, level of coercion.

No coercion whatsoever should be used.

Oh, I wasn't talking about bodybuilders. Just those athletic types, who may work out a lot, but don't look like freakshow attractions.

Then they don't really have "big, well-defined muscles."

It's funny that none of the women so far have admitted to liking muscles, but I've noticed a very clear increase in positive attention from women after I started working out. Oh well, maybe it's something completely unrelated.

It could be all sorts of things. It could be that you don't have gigantinormous muscles but do look more fit. It could be that you feel better about yourself, and you thus give off more of a self-confident attitude. It could be that you are healthier and thus more friendly. And so on....

Sure, and of course, masculinity has a lot to do with personality too. The reason I said that was because I expected people to say that nothing else matters, as long as the personality is right. Which, of course, I consider a white PC lie.

Why? Most people wouldn't consider my fiance particularly physically attractive. It's his personality that I love. When he and I are both old and grey and ugly, he'll still have that.

When people had to fight to stay alive. Prehistoric times definitely, and to some extent ever since. Even today, the world is highly competitive, and some survival mechanisms are still handy.

Actually, it appears that "when people had to fight to stay alive," there was actually often less gender role application. Those in the tribe who were best suited for a given function performed that function. Most of the gender roles that society currently tries to enforce were developed during historic times - many in the Victorian era - and were often restricted to the upper classes in society. Those who were actually struggling couldn't afford to worry about whether or not a girl got her hands dirty.

I wonder how many people do get the reference.

Teehee

The fact of the matter is, being a gay person is something they cant control. Its not nessecarly genetic or whatever this stupid priest said. And it is not evil or bad. Its just a different outlook on their own lives. And to any one person that wishes to change their childs life and thoughts because of this stupid, primative fear...needs their head checked.

Dr. Mohler responds to all the hoopla here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=901

Dr. Mohler responds to all the hoopla here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=901

He digs himself in deeper.

Interesting quote from the response:

My purpose in writing my previous article was, in the main, to draw attention to a very real threat to human dignity that lurks as a possibility on our horizon -- a possibility explicitly described in the Radar magazine article. This is the possibility that, if a biological marker (real or not) is ever claimed to mark homosexuality in prenatal testing, widespread abortion of such babies might well follow. As the author of the magazine article I cited explained, the liberal commitment to unrestricted abortion rights might well run into direct conflict with liberal commitment to the normalization of homosexuality. In that event, hypothetical in the present time, it will be biblical Christians, opposed to all elective abortions, who will stand for the full human dignity of all human beings, born and unborn.

So, a Southern Baptist minister finally concedes that there could be a biological basis for homosexuality. Then proceeds to support "correcting" it in utero.

If you knew, before birth, that your child would be gay and there was a medical way to change that, would you?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

No. I'd hope that by the time I have kids, it wouldn't matter. And at least I wouldn't have to worry about becoming a grandfather sooner than I'd like (for obvious reasons, as homosexual sex doesn't result in pregnancy, gay couples have to resort to other methods to have children, and I can't think of how one would do this accidentily). If my child was gay, at least he/she'd grow up in one of the more accepting areas of the country.

Interesting quote from the response:

Yes, however, a significant percentage of those who would be horrified to have gay children would be hypocrites to abort them (since anti abortion types are often also homophobes and vice versa, not always, but often).