NationStates Jolt Archive

Frequently, I've seen the choice issue as part of the gay marriage debate. And then I ask myself:

Why does it matter?

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Really. Does that mean people will want to prevent a groom from wearing a red tie during the ceremony, as opposed to a black one? It's his CHOICE, after all.

The choice debate only furthers the agenda of the anti-gay crowd by leaving the two options as either perversion (choice) or disease (ingrained). It's not germane to the issue at hand, which is EVERYONE should have the right to marry a consenting adult, gender or not, red tie or not. Gender should be as much an issue as the red tie in the ceremony.

if you choose gay sex you are a pervert.

if you are born that way and cant help yourself you are to be pitied rather than censured.

i think

its hard to say what the reason is in this era of sexual permissiveness. but most people have religious grounds for being anti-gay and i assume its because if its a choice you are choosing to sin when you could be perfectly happy with a member of the other sex if you really wanted to.

otherwise, who cares if its a choice or not? if its a choice, its not a bad choice. if its inborn theres nothing wrong with it nor is there anything wrong with choosing to get a bit of sex now and then with the opposite sex. whatever makes you happy, eh?

Frequently, I've seen the choice issue as part of the gay marriage debate. And then I ask myself:

Why does it matter?

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Really. Does that mean people will want to prevent a groom from wearing a red tie during the ceremony, as opposed to a black one? It's his CHOICE, after all.

The choice debate only furthers the agenda of the anti-gay crowd by leaving the two options as either perversion (choice) or disease (ingrained). It's not germane to the issue at hand, which is EVERYONE should have the right to marry a consenting adult, gender or not, red tie or not. Gender should be as much an issue as the red tie in the ceremony.

To use an exaggerated example: someone who successfully pleads insanity generally isn't executed.

Well some religious people feel that if it was a part of nature, than they might have to accept people that aren't heterosexual. But if it's a choice, than they just have to be re-educated.

Yeah, you see, their opinion doesn't count.

Well some religious people feel that if it was a part of nature, than they might have to accept people that aren't heterosexual. But if it's a choice, than they just have to be re-educated.

Frequently, I've seen the choice issue as part of the gay marriage debate. And then I ask myself:

Why does it matter?

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Really. Does that mean people will want to prevent a groom from wearing a red tie during the ceremony, as opposed to a black one? It's his CHOICE, after all.

The choice debate only furthers the agenda of the anti-gay crowd by leaving the two options as either perversion (choice) or disease (ingrained). It's not germane to the issue at hand, which is EVERYONE should have the right to marry a consenting adult, gender or not, red tie or not. Gender should be as much an issue as the red tie in the ceremony.

I agree 100%. I am sick and tired of the "choice vs. nature" debate, I mean who gives a fuck?! What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business, and only their business.

To use an exaggerated example: someone who successfully pleads insanity generally isn't executed.

An example of the way these people think, I hope you mean.

I agree 100%. I am sick and tired of the "choice vs. nature" debate, I mean who gives a fuck?! What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business, and only their business.

Just so. Why should it bother us?

An example of the way these people think, I hope you mean.

Of course.

Legally, I'm not sure why it would matter.

But in general moral terms, I think it would matter because the intent of the moral actor is usually taken into account in making a determination regarding the morality of an act.

It's often considered a greater wrong to intentionally kill someone rather than to accidentally kill someone, for example.

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?


This does concern me: Coca-Cola is much more moral then Pepsi. Okay, maybe not. But you'd have to be sick-in-the-head to prefer Pepsi to Coke..."not that there's anything wrong with that..."

You can't be a sinner unless you actively choose to sin.
Wait...

Legally, I'm not sure why it would matter.

But in general moral terms, I think it would matter because the intent of the moral actor is usually taken into account in making a determination regarding the morality of an act.

It's often considered a greater wrong to intentionally kill someone rather than to accidentally kill someone, for example.

Well, yes, but the law (or logic) doesn't say anything about the morality of homosexuality, neither should it. o_o

This does concern me: Coca-Cola is much more moral then Pepsi. Okay, maybe not. But you'd have to be sick-in-the-head to prefer Pepsi to Coke..."not that there's anything wrong with that..."

Well, actually action wise Pepsi is more moral than Coke.

It shouldn't matter, legally, at all, but I thought knowledge is usually a good thing? It simply interests me to try to figure out where sexuality develops.

Legally, I'm not sure why it would matter.

But in general moral terms, I think it would matter because the intent of the moral actor is usually taken into account in making a determination regarding the morality of an act.

It's often considered a greater wrong to intentionally kill someone rather than to accidentally kill someone, for example.
True, but there is a serious difference between depriving someone of life and simply pursuing a member of the same sex as a mate. Extreme difference, in fact, that I honestly don't see what the problem is. Homosexuals, apart from their sexual preference, are identical to heterosexuals.

Well, yes, but the law (or logic) doesn't say anything about the morality of homosexuality, neither should it. o_o

*shrug*

I was simply offering an explanation. Which is essentially that most people consider the intent of the moral actor to be morally relevant.

Whether the law should say anything about the morality of homosexuality is debatable, because many legal codes have laws regarding different types of sexual activity so there's plenty of precedent for legislating in that area, but some believe as I do that aside from non-consensual acts, there's not much reason for the law to interfere.

Realistically, I think that is a whole 'nother thread topic you're bringing up.

True, but there is a serious difference between depriving someone of life and simply pursuing a member of the same sex as a mate. Extreme difference, in fact, that I honestly don't see what the problem is. Homosexuals, apart from their sexual preference, are identical to heterosexuals.

There's also a serious difference between sexual activity and the choice of color for a man's necktie. I think part of the difficulty is that some assign a higher degree of importance to sex than others, rightly or wrongly.

And by the way, apart from their preference from stealing, thieves are identical to non-thieves. ;)

Well firstly, i don't think sexual orientation is a matter of 'choice' or 'nature' in their purest senses, in fact i dont really think anything is purely choice or purely nature.

For instance, take a look at people's professions. Fred's a big, strong guy who's good at climbing trees and likes the woods. Because of this, he's a lumberjack, and his father was before him. Now Fred did have a choice to become a lumberjack, but if given the choice between it or say being a petrochemist, which one do you think he would've chosen? Petrochemistry clearly isnt in Fred's nature, but lumberjacking is. Is it choice? Is it nature? Or is it a bit of both? Of course if Fred never excercised as a kid, and spent hours studying hard and not out in the woods, he may have chosen petrochemistry instead.

Now bringing this back to homosexuality. A part of it i do think is in nature, but a lot of it is also in the upbringing and experiences in early life. For example, psychologists have found that males brought up by a single mother are more likely to be homosexual, because they seek the male figure they have lacked for much of their lives.

Of course one should never underestimate the power of human will. If someone is brought up with the notion homosexuality is bad, even if by nature they are homosexual, the strong will over a long time can deeply bury any such tendancies.

Of course everything aside, it doesn't matter in my opinion. You can chase whatever kind of tail you like, I don't give a damn. I won't call you an evil sinner, i won't scream about how it's unnatural or any crap like that, i'll leave you to be whatever you like, or are, or whatever.

However, i'm sure that this had something to do with marriage at some point. To look at how homosexuality and marriage go together, perhaps one should look at the roots of marriage.

Marriage is a religious notion; it was invented by religion and intended to be the union of a male and a female with its original conception. The union of a male and female was intended to create a stable world in which to raise children, and as such be something of a basis for society. Now if you're a homosexual and decide you want to get married for whatever reason, that's fine by me i won't chase you with a pitchfork. But if you're not religious, or don't intend to have children, then i personally don't see the point of marriage. In Australia we have 'de facto' relationships, which is essentially intended to be a recognition of love or commitment or whatever without the religious or legal ties or marriage. I don't know if theres a similar system in the states, but if you're not religious, then why get married when there's a perfectly good alternative?

I agree 100%. I am sick and tired of the "choice vs. nature" debate, I mean who gives a fuck?! What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business, and only their business.
I agree. However, if two people want to get married, and they have to change state law to do so, and start such as large debate, it would be kind of annoying if it turned out they could just as happily marry someone of a different sex legally.
It's as if you go eating with a group of people for lunch, and none of you are vegetarians. Then, when you get to the restaurant, someone decides they will become a vegetarian, even though they could just as happily eat meat. It seems like they are being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
I don't think homosexuality is a choice anymore than heterosexuality is, so this isn't even an issue. But if it were only a choice, and people were making such sweeping changes just for the heck of it, I can understand why people would be annoyed.

Damn red ties. They should be banned.

Homosexuality is disgusting and a menace to society, regardless of whether it is a choice or not.

I agree. However, if two people want to get married, and they have to change state law to do so, and start such as large debate, it would be kind of annoying if it turned out they could just as happily marry someone of a different sex legally.
It's as if you go eating with a group of people for lunch, and none of you are vegetarians. Then, when you get to the restaurant, someone decides they will become a vegetarian, even though they could just as happily eat meat. It seems like they are being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
I don't think homosexuality is a choice anymore than heterosexuality is, so this isn't even an issue. But if it were only a choice, and people were making such sweeping changes just for the heck of it, I can understand why people would be annoyed.

I have to agree here. After-all, Greece didn't have any problems concerning Gay-marriage, and well....

If it is a choice then it makes arguments against it a whole lot easier--they're just rebels.

Well, yes, but the law (or logic) doesn't say anything about the morality of homosexuality, neither should it. o_o

It has no place being legislated in a democracy but the multiple theocracies, autocracies around the world would beg to differ.

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?



i know Dr. Pepper is obviously better...;)

in the grand scheme of things i don't think it matters...

Hello. I am religious.
I read and watch nature shows.
Same sex pairings occur in nature. Hell, in some cases critters change gender (most notably in amphibians).

Don't lay all the intolerance and ignorance at religion's door, please -- just on the doorstep of the idiots who actually are intolerant and ignorant.

He did say: "some".

i know Dr. Pepper is obviously better...;)

in the grand scheme of things i don't think it matters...

You're the equivalent to a pedophile!

Frequently, I've seen the choice issue as part of the gay marriage debate. And then I ask myself:

Why does it matter?

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Really. Does that mean people will want to prevent a groom from wearing a red tie during the ceremony, as opposed to a black one? It's his CHOICE, after all.

The choice debate only furthers the agenda of the anti-gay crowd by leaving the two options as either perversion (choice) or disease (ingrained). It's not germane to the issue at hand, which is EVERYONE should have the right to marry a consenting adult, gender or not, red tie or not. Gender should be as much an issue as the red tie in the ceremony.

It is a generally accepted norm that you can only really judge someone for a certain quality or behavior when they have chosen it.

As such, this issue doesn't address the legal issue (that always revolves around nonsensical consequential arguments), rather it addresses the moral issue, specifically the question as to whether it is a sin.

Well some religious people feel that if it was a part of nature, than they might have to accept people that aren't heterosexual. But if it's a choice, than they just have to be re-educated.

Hello. I am religious.
I read and watch nature shows.
Same sex pairings occur in nature. Hell, in some cases critters change gender (most notably in amphibians).

Don't lay all the intolerance and ignorance at religion's door, please -- just on the doorstep of the idiots who actually are intolerant and ignorant.

Homosexuality is disgusting and a menace to society, regardless of whether it is a choice or not.

Care to back up that assertion, or just off to troll in another thread?

Well, yes, but the law (or logic) doesn't say anything about the morality of homosexuality, neither should it. o_o

It depends on what you mean.

The law does not make homosexuality moral or immoral.

But it is going to be very difficult for us to make a law based on anything other than the moral nature of behavior.

Marriage is a religious notion; it was invented by religion and intended to be the union of a male and a female with its original conception. The union of a male and female was intended to create a stable world in which to raise children, and as such be something of a basis for society. Now if you're a homosexual and decide you want to get married for whatever reason, that's fine by me i won't chase you with a pitchfork. But if you're not religious, or don't intend to have children, then i personally don't see the point of marriage. In Australia we have 'de facto' relationships, which is essentially intended to be a recognition of love or commitment or whatever without the religious or legal ties or marriage. I don't know if theres a similar system in the states, but if you're not religious, then why get married when there's a perfectly good alternative?

Marriage is a highly mutable legal/social concept. In tibet a kind of polyandry, one woman with more than one husband, developed among some folks. Polygamy is more widely practiced. In ancient Rome marriage contracts often included the clause stating that the husband will not take a concubine as long as the marriage lasted. Ghost marriage exists on the Indian subcontinent.

Gays want the right to marry for a few reasons. For one their are a number of legal benefits. If one partner dies the other is automatically deemed the next of kin. Also, in case of seperation, ie divorce, divying up the jointly owned property is less messy than if their was no contract. Second, with the name marriage an essential equality between gays and straights is expressed.

Also, some gays do want to raise children. The can adopt, have one partner's gametes combine with the the gametes of someone of the opposite sex, or create a chimera. Chimera's are people who are the result of two or more fused embryos. In the future homosexuals might even be able to have genetically related offspring without the help of someone from the opposite sex. Gotta love science.

It matters because the propogated myth that sexuality is a choice only serves to fuel homophobia. No need to give gays rights, no need to let gays marry. No reasy to give homosexuality any rights what so ever.

It justifies violating the civil liberties of gays because it promulgates the myth that it's "ok" because they can just stop being gay.

Homosexuality is disgusting and a menace to society, regardless of whether it is a choice or not.

Keep saying that to yourself, mate, maybe those urges you know are there and hate yourself for it will go away.

It matters because the propogated myth that sexuality is a choice only serves to fuel homophobia. No need to give gays rights, no need to let gays marry. No reasy to give homosexuality any rights what so ever.

It justifies violating the civil liberties of gays because it promulgates the myth that it's "ok" because they can just stop being gay.

Shh! Don't go around making the point I intended to make with the thread so soon, I want it to LAST! ;)

The "choice" aspect only matters if you're looking for reasons to prohibit various types of consensual sexual activity.

If, for instance, you'd like to prohibit two female adults from having sex together, you can claim that their desire to have sex is entirely their choice, and therefore they could simply "choose" not to want to have sex. This makes it seem like it's no big deal to legally prohibit their sexual activity, since they could just choose to want something else.

On the other hand, if you were forced to admit that sexual desire isn't something that can be flipped on and off at will, then you might also have to admit that those two women can't simply choose not to want each other. You might have to admit that they also won't be able to simply choose to want other people. And then you might be forced to admit that you're being a great big d-bag for denying certain individuals a shot at sexual happiness.

Basically, the "choice" thing is just a cowardly way for some people to minimize the harm that their anti-sex views would cause to other people.

It matters because the propogated myth that sexuality is a choice only serves to fuel homophobia. No need to give gays rights, no need to let gays marry. No reasy to give homosexuality any rights what so ever.

It justifies violating the civil liberties of gays because it promulgates the myth that it's "ok" because they can just stop being gay.

Huh? Are you then saying that for gay people not to have their rights violated we have to go with an untruth?

Huh? Are you then saying that for gay people not to have their rights violated we have to go with an untruth?

Well, not necessarily. What I said was that the "choice or not" debate isn't germane to this other debate. Gays should have the right to marry, period.

The funny thing is...

no one who is NOT gay (at least, no one I have ever met!) ever recalls a time in life when they consciously chose to be heterosexual. I can't speak for everyone, but does anyone recall a time when they were equally attracted to both sexes, and decided "opposite sex for me, please, I don't want to be gay?"

It's been some time now since my youth, but I clearly remember having no say in it at all! It's more like, one day, you wake up in school and say "hey... whoa... look at the GIRLS!"

And it is not merely an option: those of us who were also little boys once upon a time might remember an age when we thought girls were icky, stupid, or some combination. And bear in mind, young boys form very close friendships with their peers; other young boys, and those friendships always go through intense stress when GIRLS enter your life.

So, given a situation in which a little boy must choose between gay and not gay, and assuming he has no pre-existing instinctive preference, the logical solution would seem to be: chose gay! No being forced to choose between your buddies, and "some girl"! But, we don't, do we? We go after the girls, despite all the psychological trauma its going to cause over the next ten... twen.... umm... over the next period in our lives. We never had a say in the matter, did we? Just instinct. Like we're freakin salmon or something.

So, if no one chose being not gay, then it is illogical to suppose that people choose to be gay. Now, I've known gay people who have chosen not to ACT gay, but that is a different thing. They can act all they want, but there is no way they can choose to be aroused by the shape of a girl's posterior, if they are not. So if there is a choice, it is a choice no one ever makes! There can be choice only if there is some example of someone making the other choice in an identical situation, and thus far I know of none.

Since real answers have already been given...

Because if it's a choice then they can rest assured that even though they really just wanted the tender touch of their fellow choir boys in their youth (and now wish Carl wanted to play more than just Squash with him...) they chose not to and that makes them not gay.

But secretly, they want it not to be a choice because then that would explain said urge for their fellow choir boy back in their youth or Carl in their adulthood.

The funny thing is...

no one who is NOT gay (at least, no one I have ever met!) ever recalls a time in life when they consciously chose to be heterosexual. I can't speak for everyone, but does anyone recall a time when they were equally attracted to both sexes, and decided "opposite sex for me, please, I don't want to be gay?"

It's been some time now since my youth, but I clearly remember having no say in it at all! It's more like, one day, you wake up in school and say "hey... whoa... look at the GIRLS!"

And it is not merely an option: those of us who were also little boys once upon a time might remember an age when we thought girls were icky, stupid, or some combination. And bear in mind, young boys form very close friendships with their peers; other young boys, and those friendships always go through intense stress when GIRLS enter your life.

So, given a situation in which a little boy must choose between gay and not gay, and assuming he has no pre-existing instinctive preference, the logical solution would seem to be: chose gay! No being forced to choose between your buddies, and "some girl"! But, we don't, do we? We go after the girls, despite all the psychological trauma its going to cause over the next ten... twen.... umm... over the next period in our lives. We never had a say in the matter, did we? Just instinct. Like we're freakin salmon or something.

So, if no one chose being not gay, then it is illogical to suppose that people choose to be gay. Now, I've known gay people who have chosen not to ACT gay, but that is a different thing. They can act all they want, but there is no way they can choose to be aroused by the shape of a girl's posterior, if they are not. So if there is a choice, it is a choice no one ever makes! There can be choice only if there is some example of someone making the other choice in an identical situation, and thus far I know of none.

AKA, even if it mattered, it's OBVIOUS it's not a choice.

BTW, I seldom ever get to win threads anymore, as opposed to (such as in the case of this poster) simply pointing out that THEY won the thread...

Now bringing this back to homosexuality. A part of it i do think is in nature, but a lot of it is also in the upbringing and experiences in early life. For example, psychologists have found that males brought up by a single mother are more likely to be homosexual, because they seek the male figure they have lacked for much of their lives.

Do you have a source for this? I've never seen any such studies and I'd be interested to see your sources for saying this.

is it a choice?
i dont know.

should it matter?
absolutely not. Whatever way you satisfy your eros is your business.

if any groups of peps think that Gays should get less rights if it is a choice.. they are in the wrong.

Why does it matter?

For the same reason it matters that I be able to choose what clothes I wear, what music I listen to, what philosophy I subscribe to, and so on, without genetic determination coming into the picture. If gays don't "choose" to be gay, they're essentially saying, "I give up. I'm nothing but a product of my genes (and/or environment; an argument that is roughly equivalent but for some reason frowned upon in contrast to the argument from genetic determinism).

I would like to think that my being "straight" is a property I ascribe to myself, and not simply the result of some genetic "fluke" or, as the genetic determinancy argument implies, the result of some genetic "normalcy."

THAT'S why it matters.

:headbang:

For the same reason it matters that I be able to choose what clothes I wear, what music I listen to, what philosophy I subscribe to, and so on, without genetic determination coming into the picture. If gays don't "choose" to be gay, they're essentially saying, "I give up. I'm nothing but a product of my genes (and/or environment; an argument that is roughly equivalent but for some reason frowned upon in contrast to the argument from genetic determinism).

I would like to think that my being "straight" is a property I ascribe to myself, and not simply the result of some genetic "fluke" or, as the genetic determinancy argument implies, the result of some genetic "normalcy."

THAT'S why it matters.

:headbang:
Interesting. So, you consciously choose to be straight? At what age did you first start choosing not to be attracted to people of your own gender?

It's a lot harder for the crazies to get away with denying gay people rights if they didn't choose it. Other than that, I doubt anyone cares much. Well, aside from neurologists and psychologists.

Interesting. So, you consciously choose to be straight? At what age did you first start choosing not to be attracted to people of your own gender?

Around puberty, where I found that the female body (in general, mind you) simply appealed to me more than did the male body, which I found too utilitarian. There have been instances, however, where I found certain "effeminate" men to be quite attractive, though I never pursued it (I hardly ever pursue heterosexual relationships, either).

Around puberty, where I found that the female body (in general, mind you) simply appealed to me more than did the male body, which I found too utilitarian.

So you did not make a conscious choice. Instead, you recognized that you had a preference already.


There have been instances, however, where I found certain "effeminate" men to be quite attractive, though I never pursued it (I hardly ever pursue heterosexual relationships, either).
Again, it sounds like you have a personal preference that existed first, and you THEN make conscious choices about how you act on your feelings of attraction. Doesn't sound like you are "choosing" to be primarily heterosexual. It sounds like you are attracted to "feminine" individuals, and you make your dating/mating choices accordingly.

Put it another way: can you consciously choose to be attracted to masculine individuals?

Around puberty, where I found that the female body (in general, mind you) simply appealed to me more than did the male body, which I found too utilitarian. There have been instances, however, where I found certain "effeminate" men to be quite attractive, though I never pursued it (I hardly ever pursue heterosexual relationships, either).

That's not choosing to be straight. Choosing to be straight would be choosing to find females attractive. You realised that you found females attractive. And effeminate males, apparently.

So you did not make a conscious choice. Instead, you recognized that you had a preference already.


Again, it sounds like you have a personal preference that existed first, and you THEN make conscious choices about how you act on your feelings of attraction. Doesn't sound like you are "choosing" to be primarily heterosexual. It sounds like you are attracted to "feminine" individuals, and you make your dating/mating choices accordingly.

Put it another way: can you consciously choose to be attracted to masculine individuals?

None of you seem to be capable of comprehending the point I'm trying to make, which is simply that it DOES MATTER whether or not you choose your sexuality.

If you're going to debate with me, debate with me on the point I made, and not some imaginary point that appeals to your prejudices.

None of you seem to be capable of comprehending the point I'm trying to make, which is simply that it DOES MATTER whether or not you choose your sexuality.

I'm discussing what you've said about choosing your sexual orientation.


If you're going to debate with me, debate with me on the point I made, and not some imaginary point that appeals to your prejudices.
I'm debating the point you brought up. If you didn't want to talk about your ability to choose your sexual preference, then you probably shouldn't have made your initial post revolve around your ability to choose your sexual preference.

Here, let me show you:

You said, "I would like to think that my being "straight" is a property I ascribe to myself, and not simply the result of some genetic "fluke" or, as the genetic determinancy argument implies, the result of some genetic "normalcy."

THAT'S why it matters."

In other words, it matters because you don't want to believe that you have innate sexual orientation. You wish to believe that you consciously choose your sexual orientation, rather than that genetics or environment giving rise to your sexual orientation.

I am pointing out that while you may WANT to believe that you are choosing your own sexual orientation, your own admissions contradict this theory.

I'm discussing what you've said about choosing your sexual orientation.


Yes, and that's the problem.


In other words, it matters because you don't want to believe that you have innate sexual orientation. You wish to believe that you consciously choose your sexual orientation, rather than that genetics or environment giving rise to your sexual orientation.

I am pointing out that while you may WANT to believe that you are choosing your own sexual orientation, your own admissions contradict this theory.

Okay, well it appears that you are content to live your life as a genetically determined human being. Kudos on that. I just don't want to see myself as being 'unfree,' nor do I want to see homosexuality labeled a 'disease' because it's 'not a choice.'

Yes, and that's the problem.

You find it problematic when people discuss the topics you have brought up?


Okay, well it appears that you are content to live your life as a genetically determined human being. Kudos on that. I just don't want to see myself as being 'unfree,' nor do I want to see homosexuality labeled a 'disease' because it's 'not a choice.'
You are constructing a false dichotomy.

You are unable to fly by flapping your arms up and down. This is because there are certain limitations and realities of your biological form. You are not able to freely choose whether or not you will fly by flapping your arms up and down. Sorry, such is life.

Similarly, there are many features of your brain which are not up to you to control. Your brain structure and function are shaped both by your "innate" genetic/physiological make up, and also by your environment and experiences as you mature. This is simply reality. It would be as stupid to deny this as it would be to insist that if you flap your arms hard enough you will fly.

We must all live within the limitations of our form. However, those limitations still allow us remarkable freedom.

When it comes to your sexual orientation, you have some innate drives. In your case, you are attracted to women and to feminine men. You are not attracted to masculine males. Since you dodged my question on this subject, I assume you know that you are not able to consciously force yourself to be attracted to individuals that you find unappealing.

However, this certainly does not mean that you are unable to control your sexuality at all. You can choose to pursue anybody you wish. You could choose to pursue an individual to whom you are not attracted. You could choose not to pursue an individual to whom you are attracted. You can use any of a million other factors to determine whether you will or will not act on the sexual attractions you feel.

You are attempting to reduce a very complex subject into ludicrous black-and-white terms. Don't bother.

I would say the same thing about those people who regard sexuality as a product of the genes.

If somebody argues that sexual orientation is determined exclusively by genetics, then yes...that would be stupid.

And two wrongs don't make a right. Don't make their mistake in the opposite direction. :D

You are attempting to reduce a very complex subject into ludicrous black-and-white terms. Don't bother.

I would say the same thing about those people who regard sexuality as a product of the genes.

But I've no more time for this. I have to get to my Kant class.

Such topics always make me smile.

Indeed, if it is free choice or not, who cares?

If you want butt sex, so be it. I’m not interested.
I’m not forced to have butt sex as well, nor am I forced to marry a man.

I don’t think you have a free choice to be heterosexual or gay. But I am rather sure you have a choice not to be heterosexual or gay.

A heterosexual that pretends to be gay is rather rare. (Vice versa it is not, ‘cause the social & family pressure, but still, a gay has the choice to behave gay or not)

And I don’t think people should learn how to behave by the Christians or whatever member of any other sect.

Christians are not superior or aren’t übermenschen, many of them have less morality than me, the agnostic.

The same goes for abortion. If you think it is killing then don’t do it. If you think you need one and you just see a 3 month old foetus as a bunch of cells then do it.
Nobody is forcing Christians (or whatever member of any sect) to be forced to have abortions.

So is euthanasia. Lots of religious people consider it worse as hell. They forget that many people don’t believe in an invisible dude that created *everything*.

If you think it’s bad, don’t do it. If you think you need it, then do it.

But again, Christians (or whatever member of any sect) aren't forced to have euthanasia.

What’s bothering me a lot is, that atheist and agnostic people have a laiser faire attitude, most of them think: do what you think it is the best. While Christians (or whatever member of any sect) try to force their opinion to the rest of the world.

I don’t think you have a free choice to be heterosexual or gay. But I am rather sure you have a choice not to be heterosexual or gay.

que?

It's a lot harder for the crazies to get away with denying gay people rights if they didn't choose it. Other than that, I doubt anyone cares much. Well, aside from neurologists and psychologists.

It shouldn't be, because nobody ought to be giving them an easier time being homophobic bigots on the pretence that sexual orientation is a choice.

Choice or not is completely irrelevant. Those people choose their stupid religion (because yes, any religion that promotes bigotry and hatred is a stupid religion, while there are non-stupid religions who don't promote those things people can choose to adhere to) and nobody can come and remove their freedoms because of it. Likewise, even if sexual orientation was a choice (which it isn't, but for the sake of argument I'm going to disregard it) there is nothing that can be used as a justification to remove rights from someone based on such a choice.

Such topics always make me smile.

Indeed, if it is free choice or not, who cares?

If you want butt sex, so be it. I’m not interested.
I’m not forced to have butt sex as well, nor am I forced to marry a man.

I don’t think you have a free choice to be heterosexual or gay. But I am rather sure you have a choice not to be heterosexual or gay.

A heterosexual that pretends to be gay is rather rare. (Vice versa it is not, ‘cause the social & family pressure, but still, a gay has the choice to behave gay or not)

And I don’t think people should learn how to behave by the Christians or whatever member of any other sect.

Christians are not superior or aren’t übermenschen, many of them have less morality than me, the agnostic.

The same goes for abortion. If you think it is killing then don’t do it. If you think you need one and you just see a 3 month old foetus as a bunch of cells then do it.
Nobody is forcing Christians (or whatever member of any sect) to be forced to have abortions.

So is euthanasia. Lots of religious people consider it worse as hell. They forget that many people don’t believe in an invisible dude that created *everything*.

If you think it’s bad, don’t do it. If you think you need it, then do it.

But again, Christians (or whatever member of any sect) aren't forced to have euthanasia.

What’s bothering me a lot is, that atheist and agnostic people have a laissez faire attitude, most of them think: do what you think it is the best. While Christians (or whatever member of any sect) try to force their opinion to the rest of the world.

Sounds reasonable to me, except the fourth (bolded) paragraph. If you have no choice in being gay, how is it possible to choose not to be gay? Are you referring to choosing not to act on homosexual predilections? 'Cause that IS a choice, but that choice is due to external factors, not your innate sexuality.

Okay, well it appears that you are content to live your life as a genetically determined human being. Kudos on that. I just don't want to see myself as being 'unfree,' nor do I want to see homosexuality labeled a 'disease' because it's 'not a choice.'

Hah. Allow me to interject. Do you live "unfree" because you didn't choose the color of your hair, or eyes? Do you live unfree because you didn't determine your height yourself?

Of course not. Those criteria were determined by your genes, without you making any conscious choice about it. Yet, does this really make you a slave to your gene? No, it only makes you... you. It's part of who you are, a natural part of you you never had to question, a part of you you accepted wholesomely and naturally because, when you look at yourself in the mirror, what you see is YOU.

Sexual orientation is alike. Who you are attracted to, you don't choose consciously. But it's in you, it is you, and if it were not for leftovers of olden times where homophobia and hatred were the norm, those of us who are not heterosexuals would accept it without question just in the same way. It doesn't remove anything from a person, doesn't cheat us of any freedom. The gender of the persons we are attracted to still leaves us free to decide who we want to pursue relationships with; still leaves us the freedom to choose how to act in front of our desires, still lets us determine the form we want our partnerships (or lack thereof) take.

I did not choose to have brown hair and hazel eyes. I did not choose to be right handed, or to be 5'8" in height. None of those I have any influence on, yet I don't feel imprisoned by my own body for it. And I did not choose to be attracted to males, but it's as much a natural part of me as the rest, and I don't feel any less free as a result.

For the same reason it matters that I be able to choose what clothes I wear, what music I listen to

You can always choose what clothes to wear and what music to listen to, just as you can choose who to sleep with. However chosing your sexual partners is radically different than chosing your sexuality.

You can choose the clothes you wear, but you can not choose whether or not you like the color.

You can choose what music you listen to, but you can't change whether or not you like the song.

You can choose to wear a shirt you find horribly ugly. You can choose to have sex with someone you have no sexual attraction to. But you can't suddenly decide you find that shirt attractive, and you can't suddenly choose to find someone attractive when you don't.

que?

Sounds reasonable to me, except the fourth (bolded) paragraph. If you have no choice in being gay, how is it possible to choose not to be gay? Are you referring to choosing not to act on homosexual predilections? 'Cause that IS a choice, but that choice is due to external factors, not your innate sexuality.

As a heterosexual male you don’t wake up one morning thinking ‘mmm, let’s have some sex with my male colleague’. In general, you will not even think about it.

As a heterosexual male you will in general refuse sex with another man. Even if he’s pretty and the sex is for free. Most heterosexuals will say ‘no way’.

And the same is working for gay people, with the restriction that many gays marry women due social, cultural or family issues. But that doesn’t make them hetero, they are still gay.

As a heterosexual male you don’t wake up one morning thinking ‘mmm, let’s have some sex with my male colleague’. In general, you will not even think about it.

As a heterosexual male you will in general refuse sex with another man. Even if he’s pretty and the sex is for free. Most heterosexuals will say ‘no way’.

And the same is working for gay people, with the restriction that many gays marry women due social, cultural or family issues. But that doesn’t make them hetero, they are still gay.

and again I feel the need to point out that who you choose to have sex with is not the same thing as your sexuality

It is actually a stronger statement about a "free" society if it were a lifestyle choice. The "born that way" platform is an attempt to do many different things to gain acceptance, such as you must accept it since it is natural and therefore god's will. Another important aspect is relating homosexuality to the civil rights movement. Problem is that while the underlying philosophical message is the same (people are born a certain way and the individual factors have no deterministic value to that person intelligence, ethical nature, etc.), but the suface dynamics are quite different. For instance, there is no partical way to change skin color, but you can easily pretend not to be gay so antigayers point to this as proof that is is not genetic.

Frequently, I've seen the choice issue as part of the gay marriage debate. And then I ask myself:

Why does it matter?

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Really. Does that mean people will want to prevent a groom from wearing a red tie during the ceremony, as opposed to a black one? It's his CHOICE, after all.

The choice debate only furthers the agenda of the anti-gay crowd by leaving the two options as either perversion (choice) or disease (ingrained). It's not germane to the issue at hand, which is EVERYONE should have the right to marry a consenting adult, gender or not, red tie or not. Gender should be as much an issue as the red tie in the ceremony.

Because homophobes use the idea that it is a choice as the justification for hating them.

Any time anyone tells you "I believe X because of Y," and you know that Y is not true, then your first response is going to be to tell them that Y is not true.

Or
If and only if Y, then X.
Not Y, therefore, not X.

Where X = justified homophobia and Y equals choice of sexual orientation.

Yes, one could also argue that the given statement "if and only if Y then X" is faulty. It is. But it a lot harder to make that argument. It's pretty obvious that homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it's the more popular argument.

Of course, once the homophones admit it's not a choice they will simply say that it doesn't matter if it's a choice, it's still wrong.

and again I feel the need to point out that who you choose to have sex with is not the same thing as your sexuality

Thank you for saying that before I did.

What he said.

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Pepsi over Coke is no choice.

I'm still trying to figure out how liking coke over Pepsi or vice versa is a choice. You can choose which one to drink, but I'm not sure how one would go about choosing which one to like better. I haven't chosen to like, say, root beer more than cherry coke. I never sat down and decided to like it better. It just tastes better to me.

If homosexuality isn't a choice, then it is either genetically or biologically caused.

If there is a "gay" gene (and I am not aware of any evidence that there is) or set of genes, we will eventually discover it or them.

Once the cause is discovered, then you will see parents engaging in selective abortions to eliminate the chance of having a gay baby.

After that, the next step will be a genetic or biological treatment that will allow parents to turn off the gay gene or counter the biological cause of homosexulity.

So, if homosexuality is caused by genetics or biology, someone will eventually find a "cure" for homosexuality, and the number of homosexuals in the population will shrink.

Frequently, I've seen the choice issue as part of the gay marriage debate. And then I ask myself:

Why does it matter?

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Really. Does that mean people will want to prevent a groom from wearing a red tie during the ceremony, as opposed to a black one? It's his CHOICE, after all.

The choice debate only furthers the agenda of the anti-gay crowd by leaving the two options as either perversion (choice) or disease (ingrained). It's not germane to the issue at hand, which is EVERYONE should have the right to marry a consenting adult, gender or not, red tie or not. Gender should be as much an issue as the red tie in the ceremony.

Before when this question came up I would argue that we have to counter stupid arguments like this because the ones making the stupid arguments are in the majority and help make the laws.

But after having been set straight on the issue by Fass and I forget whom else; I've since come around and reached the view that you are indeed correct and when confronted with the argument, we should ask them what it matters.

If homosexuality isn't a choice, then it is either genetically or biologically caused.

Any trait is biological to some degree. There are also environmental factors.

Take, for instance, skin color. There are at least five different genes that directly affect skin color. On top of that, it is affected by environmental factors like diet, exposure to sun, etc. And this is a purely physical trait, rather than a more behavioral one.

Sexuality pretty clearly isn't a choice. You won't find anyone who will honestly tell you they sat down and decided that they would be attracted to either men or women, just as you won't find someone who will tell you they sat down and decided to be attracted to large-busted women or to muscular men. These are just preferences that, for whatever reason, we have.

Now, the exact controls of sexuality are not well understood, and it will be a long time before they are. There is evidence for genetic factors, influence of birth order (a man with older brothers is more likely to be homosexual), early childhood development, etc. By the time we figure it all out (if we figure it all out), it is highly unlikely that it will be much of a social issue anymore.

If there is a "gay" gene (and I am not aware of any evidence that there is) or set of genes, we will eventually discover it or them.

There isn't evidence for a single gene that causes any sexuality, and you wouldn't expect there to be. There is quite a bit of evidence that sexuality is at least partially genetically controlled.

Once the cause is discovered, then you will see parents engaging in selective abortions to eliminate the chance of having a gay baby.

Some, yes. Just like you have parents engaging in selective abortions to make sure they don't have female babies. But I doubt this behavior would be widespread.


But after having been set straight on the issue by Fass and I forget whom else; I've since come around and reached the view that you are indeed correct and when confronted with the argument, we should ask them what it matters.

Just as long as you don't take Fass's "ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN THIS QUESTION AT ALL IS A EVIL AND HETERONORMATIVE!!!!!!!" stance, too. That shit gets annoying.

Just as long as you don't take Fass's "ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN THIS QUESTION AT ALL IS A EVIL AND HETERONORMATIVE!!!!!!!" stance, too. That shit gets annoying.


Of course. That's the reason I originally fought him on the issue. He was completely unreasonable and therefore I wouldn't even consider his points. I think it was CTOAN ( or someone else with the level head) that really was able to change my mind.

Some, yes. Just like you have parents engaging in selective abortions to make sure they don't have female babies. But I doubt this behavior would be widespread.

I wonder. In those parts of the world where parents are willing to abort female fetuses, I think they'd be even more willing to abort fetuses that are likely to turn out gay.

Even in the US, I think many, if not most, parents would seriously consider aborting a potentially gay fetus. If abortion wasn't necessary and a genetic or biological cure was available, I think an overwhelming percentage would quietly obtain it.

I wonder. In those parts of the world where parents are willing to abort female fetuses, I think they'd be even more willing to abort fetuses that are likely to turn out gay.

Even in the US, I think many, if not most, parents would seriously consider aborting a potentially gay fetus. If abortion wasn't necessary and a genetic or biological cure was available, I think an overwhelming percentage would quietly obtain it.

I don't. Most of the population currently entering childbearing years don't make a big deal out of sexuality. The younger a person is, the more likely they are to accept homosexuality in much the same way they accept heterosexuality. And by the time early testing or a "cure" would be available, pretty much everyone in their childbearing years will have been brought up in that accepting culture. I'm sure there will always be some hold-outs, just as we still have racist assholes out there who would have a white woman abort if she was carrying the child of a black man. But they will be few and far between.

It certainly could be a problem in some countries that are behind on the acceptance curve, but then again, who is going to develop the "cure" if no one cares about it in 1st world countries?

It matters to the gay-haters because if we "choose" to be gay then they say we're culpible for some "immoral choice" and that our "behaviour" can be "fixed." If it's biological and not a choice, then they figure they can try to come up with a "cure" for whatever's biologically "wrong" with us. The whole argument is a heterosexist (as in the belief that everyone really is-- or at least should be-- hetero) exercise in trying to pathologise anything that isn't hetero; instead of accepting that it's as normal for gay people to be gay as it is for straight people to be straight-- a function of natural diversity-- they try to figure out how or why it's 'wrong' so they can look forward to it being 'repaired.' Unfortunately a lot of gay people have themselves been suckered into participating in the debate, validating it by trying to 'explain ourselves' when we don't need explaining.

If homosexuality isn't a choice, then it is either genetically or biologically caused.

If there is a "gay" gene (and I am not aware of any evidence that there is) or set of genes, we will eventually discover it or them.

Once the cause is discovered, then you will see parents engaging in selective abortions to eliminate the chance of having a gay baby.

After that, the next step will be a genetic or biological treatment that will allow parents to turn off the gay gene or counter the biological cause of homosexulity.

So, if homosexuality is caused by genetics or biology, someone will eventually find a "cure" for homosexuality, and the number of homosexuals in the population will shrink.
First, let me say that I'd far rather go to a party with a bunch of homosexuals than to go to an equivalent affair with a bunch of Baptists.

But why wouldn't a parent want to have a child without the disadvantages of being a homosexual? Same for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and a host of other genetic problems.

Seems like controlling the outcome of a pregnancy for sexual orientation isn't any different that deciding to have the child at all. I think we could use the same arguments for controlling the sexual orientation as we do for giving a mother the choice to abort the child.

First, let me say that I'd far rather go to a party with a bunch of homosexuals than to go to an equivalent affair with a bunch of Baptists.

But why wouldn't a parent want to have a child without the disadvantages of being a homosexual? Same for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and a host of other genetic problems.

Seems like controlling the outcome of a pregnancy for sexual orientation isn't any different that deciding to have the child at all. I think we could use the same arguments for controlling the sexual orientation as we do for giving a mother the choice to abort the child.

I read an article about the selective abortions being performed in India, where parents are sometimes choosing to abort simply because the fetus is female. One doctor who performs abortions said that the reason he can sleep at night is because he knows that if he didn't perform the abortion, the parents would just abandon the baby at birth or sell it to a child broker (meaning they would be selling the child into sex slavery).

It's an extreme example, but there's a point to be found in there.

Let's say you have a set of parents who are so rabidly homophobic that they would be prepared to abort their fetus if it turned out to have a "gay gene" or whatever.

Do we really think it would be BETTER for them to have a gay baby, and for that child to have to grow up in that family?

If homosexuality isn't a choice, then it is either genetically or biologically caused.

If there is a "gay" gene (and I am not aware of any evidence that there is) or set of genes, we will eventually discover it or them.

Once the cause is discovered, then you will see parents engaging in selective abortions to eliminate the chance of having a gay baby.

After that, the next step will be a genetic or biological treatment that will allow parents to turn off the gay gene or counter the biological cause of homosexulity.

So, if homosexuality is caused by genetics or biology, someone will eventually find a "cure" for homosexuality, and the number of homosexuals in the population will shrink.

But just because it's genetic doesn't mean there's a single gene to control it. Most traits in genetics are based on multiple genes.

e.g. There's a single gene that makes almonds poisonous, so there's a fairly common mutation in that one gene that makes them edible. That's domestic almonds.

There are about 60 known genes that make acorns poisonous, so despite the fact that people have been using acorns as food for thousand of years, we have never been able to develop a non-toxic acorn. There's too many variables to control.

I read an article about the selective abortions being performed in India, where parents are sometimes choosing to abort simply because the fetus is female. One doctor who performs abortions said that the reason he can sleep at night is because he knows that if he didn't perform the abortion, the parents would just abandon the baby at birth or sell it to a child broker (meaning they would be selling the child into sex slavery).

It's an extreme example, but there's a point to be found in there.

Let's say you have a set of parents who are so rabidly homophobic that they would be prepared to abort their fetus if it turned out to have a "gay gene" or whatever.

Do we really think it would be BETTER for them to have a gay baby, and for that child to have to grow up in that family?
I guess one of us needs to be explicit. I'm trying to say that in supporting choice in abortion, one of the basic arguments is that the woman has control of her body. I contend that since a woman does have control of her body, she has every right to decide whether or not a fetus should have a genetic disorder corrected, be it sexual orientation or Downs syndrome. And yes, she should be able to decide whether or not to abort the fetus, too.

Since real answers have already been given...

Because if it's a choice then they can rest assured that even though they really just wanted the tender touch of their fellow choir boys in their youth (and now wish Carl wanted to play more than just Squash with him...) they chose not to and that makes them not gay.

But secretly, they want it not to be a choice because then that would explain said urge for their fellow choir boy back in their youth or Carl in their adulthood.

some PhD somewhere could write an entire book using this explanation and not do it any better than you just did.

too bad its not a "real" answer. it seems to me to be very correct.

I guess one of us needs to be explicit. I'm trying to say that in supporting choice in abortion, one of the basic arguments is that the woman has control of her body. I contend that since a woman does have control of her body, she has every right to decide whether or not a fetus should have a genetic disorder corrected, be it sexual orientation or Downs syndrome. And yes, she should be able to decide whether or not to abort the fetus, too.

It is not as simple as that.

1. I don't think it is right to refer to one's sexual orientation as a genetic disorder. It may or not be genetically based, but it isn't a disorder.

2. In the early part of a woman's pregnancy, you are correct that legally a woman has a right to abortion that cannot be denied because one does not like why she is having an abortion. The woman has the right to control her body and the unborn has little or no contravening rights.

3. Because a woman has the right to an abortion early in pregnancy, it follows that she probably has rights to have other procedures performed during that time. The legal calculus is slightly different, however, both because (a) if the intent is to carry the unborn to birth one is now talking about a putative child and (b) because we are not directly talking about possession of the woman's body by the unborn anymore. Nonetheless, I think your point is sound as it regards early in a pregnancy. Note: this refers only to the legality of what she does, not necessarily to the morality of it.

4. Later in the pregnancy, a woman's right to abortion can be curtailed based on state interests, including rights of the unborn. Arguably, therefore, a woman might be limited in what else she can do to the unborn.

It is not as simple as that.

1. I don't think it is right to refer to one's sexual orientation as a genetic disorder. It may or not be genetically based, but it isn't a disorder.

2. In the early part of a woman's pregnancy, you are correct that legally a woman has a right to abortion that cannot be denied because one does not like why she is having an abortion. The woman has the right to control her body and the unborn has little or no contravening rights.

3. Because a woman has the right to an abortion early in pregnancy, it follows that she probably has rights to have other procedures performed during that time. The legal calculus is slightly different, however, both because (a) if the intent is to carry the unborn to birth one is now talking about a putative child and (b) because we are not directly talking about possession of the woman's body by the unborn anymore. Nonetheless, I think your point is sound as it regards early in a pregnancy. Note: this refers only to the legality of what she does, not necessarily to the morality of it.

4. Later in the pregnancy, a woman's right to abortion can be curtailed based on state interests, including rights of the unborn. Arguably, therefore, a woman might be limited in what else she can do to the unborn.

What about the premise of genetic alterations of characteristics, rather then "disorders"?

For instance, if the technology existed to dictate eye color, height, or even the genetic proclivity for certain behaviours that would not be considered disorders, can a woman do so arbitrarily?

Sexuality seems to be so fundamental (and in some models, governing) aspect of our selves, even if being gay isn't a disorder (I don't believe it is), could a case be made for a woman to change an embro's sexuality (whether to or from gay) even if no orientation is considered maladaptive?

Seems very "Brave New World" to me...

It is not as simple as that.

1. I don't think it is right to refer to one's sexual orientation as a genetic disorder. It may or not be genetically based, but it isn't a disorder.

Evolution is a powerful force. You either submit or you become extinct. Assuming that sexual orientation is genetically based for a moment, the condition would not promote propagating the species and that's not a tendency that's desirable for the long term. That's why I would call it a disorder -- it doesn't support nature's plan. And it's not nice to fool Mother Nature...

2. In the early part of a woman's pregnancy, you are correct that legally a woman has a right to abortion that cannot be denied because one does not like why she is having an abortion. The woman has the right to control her body and the unborn has little or no contravening rights.

3. Because a woman has the right to an abortion early in pregnancy, it follows that she probably has rights to have other procedures performed during that time. The legal calculus is slightly different, however, both because (a) if the intent is to carry the unborn to birth one is now talking about a putative child and (b) because we are not directly talking about possession of the woman's body by the unborn anymore. Nonetheless, I think your point is sound as it regards early in a pregnancy. Note: this refers only to the legality of what she does, not necessarily to the morality of it.

4. Later in the pregnancy, a woman's right to abortion can be curtailed based on state interests, including rights of the unborn. Arguably, therefore, a woman might be limited in what else she can do to the unborn.
I didn't really want to get into the fine print on a technology and a condition that are both speculative. Again, assuming that homosexuality is a genetically based condition, and assuming that it could be changed, there is probably a window of opportunity that gives the highest chance of success. And that window probably doesn't line up with any of the current regulations on abortion.

My point was simple and intended to be. You saw it for what it was. The morality aspect is a lot more difficult. Let's say that the condition of homosexuality can be changed -- are there other genetic factors that shouldn't be passed to the next generation? In other words, nature is pretty smart; is homosexuality a very clever device to prevent serious damage to the species?

That's my biggest concern about 'fixing' things in an unborn. It has all the potential to cause other and more serious problems as we evolve. A binary decision on abortion 3 months into the pregnancy is much cleaner.

Evolution is a powerful force. You either submit or you become extinct. Assuming that sexual orientation is genetically based for a moment, the condition would not promote propagating the species and that's not a tendency that's desirable for the long term. That's why I would call it a disorder -- it doesn't support nature's plan. That's presuming an understanding of "nature's plan" that you, we, very well may not have. It is shortsighted to say some amount of homosexuality in a species doesn't promote propagating the species, just because they don't form reproductive pairs. Worker bees also don't reproduce, but they are vital to propagating the bee species (which should not be taken as an analogy for the role homosexuality may play; I'm not saying they are worker bees.)

Because homophobes use the idea that it is a choice as the justification for hating them.Dont be silly, the homophobes will hate them no matter what.

(homophobes) they are sick.

But why wouldn't a parent want to have a child without the disadvantages of being a homosexual? Same for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and a host of other genetic problems.

Seems like controlling the outcome of a pregnancy for sexual orientation isn't any different that deciding to have the child at all. I think we could use the same arguments for controlling the sexual orientation as we do for giving a mother the choice to abort the child.

It's my point exactly. Though we have become more tolerant as a society of homosexuality, it's fairly abstract for most people. Homosexuals are about 2-5% of the population, so most people don't have a gay family member.

I would be welling to bet good money that a large majority of even the most accepting parents of gay children would, if given the choice to wave a magic wand, turn their gay kids straight.

I'm more or less apathetic about homosexuals- I don't care what people do sexually behind closed doors. But if a genetic test determined that one of our unborn kids would be gay, and there was an easy way to prevent this through some sort of medical procedure, I know my wife and I would "cure" our gay kid.

People like to talk about tolerance, but let's be honest about it- almost nobody wants to have a gay kid, if other options exist. I don't see this changing in the future.

Dont be silly, the homophobes will hate them no matter what.

(homophobes) they are sick.

I think I said as much at the end of my post. It's just the way the current argument is framed. But conservatives are great at pretending that an argument is about one thing, then when you prove that they're wrong on that basis, they'll pretend it was about something else.

Like Iraq.
Chicken Hawk: We're going in because Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction.
Dove: No he doesn't.
Chicken Hawk: So What? He's evil, we have to get rid of him.
Dove: There's lots of worse governments out there, shouldn't we start with them.
Chicken Hawk: But they don't have weapons of mass destruction.
Dove: Neither does Saddam.
Chicken Hawk: That doesn't mean that the world wouldn't be safer without him.
Dove: How would the world be any safer?
Chicken Hawk: Because we'll have taken away his WMD's.
Dove: But he doesn't have any!
Chicken Hawk: But we will be bringing Democracy to the Middle East.
Dove: Iran had Democracy until we over threw their government. Pakistan had it, and is well on its way to setting Democracy up again. Once Saddam gets tired a Democracy is sure to set itself up in his wake. The Middle East will have democracy without our intervention.
Chicken Hawk: But they'll have Saddam's WMD's.
Dove: HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY!
Chicken Hawk: You liberals are so angry and hate-filled. It's no wonder no one listens to you.
Dove: he really doesn't have any wmd's.
Chicken Hawk: Well why didn't you say something before I invaded?
Dove: I did. You were too busy watching Walker Texas Ranger reruns.
Chicken Hawk: Yeah, that's a great show. Did you see the one where he kicked that guy and he went *whump! smack! boom!*
Dove: No, I only saw the one with the cheesy dialogue. I give up.
Chicken Hawk: You liberals, always cutting and running. That's why you lost WWII.

Assuming that sexual orientation is genetically based for a moment, the condition would not promote propagating the species and that's not a tendency that's desirable for the long term.

Actually, in social animals, having non-reproducing members can help the species as a whole.


I'm more or less apathetic about homosexuals- I don't care what people do sexually behind closed doors. But if a genetic test determined that one of our unborn kids would be gay, and there was an easy way to prevent this through some sort of medical procedure, I know my wife and I would "cure" our gay kid.

Then you obviously aren't apathetic about it. If you were, you wouldn't care about the sexuality of a future child.

People like to talk about tolerance, but let's be honest about it- almost nobody wants to have a gay kid, if other options exist. I don't see this changing in the future.

Actually, in my experience, almost nobody (in my generation, anyways) cares if they have a child who is gay. We want to raise healthy children who go on to lead happy lives. We don't care what their sexuality will be any more than we care what sex or gender they will be. We don't care about any of that any more than we care what color eyes they will have or how they will wear their hair.

I know my wife and I would "cure" our gay kid.

That's disgusting. Other people aren't yours to control.

People like to talk about tolerance, but let's be honest about it- almost nobody wants to have a gay kid

Bullshit.

Genuinely non-homophobic parents have no problem with having gay kids.

Frequently, I've seen the choice issue as part of the gay marriage debate. And then I ask myself:

Why does it matter?

Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

Really. Does that mean people will want to prevent a groom from wearing a red tie during the ceremony, as opposed to a black one? It's his CHOICE, after all.

The choice debate only furthers the agenda of the anti-gay crowd by leaving the two options as either perversion (choice) or disease (ingrained). It's not germane to the issue at hand, which is EVERYONE should have the right to marry a consenting adult, gender or not, red tie or not. Gender should be as much an issue as the red tie in the ceremony.

I think the debate circles around whether or not it can be considered a sin legitmately. People think that you can't legitimately call it a sin if you are created that way.

Actually, in social animals, having non-reproducing members can help the species as a whole.

Explain how. Remember, we aren't honey bees...

Actually, in my experience, almost nobody (in my generation, anyways) cares if they have a child who is gay. We want to raise healthy children who go on to lead happy lives. We don't care what their sexuality will be any more than we care what sex or gender they will be. We don't care about any of that any more than we care what color eyes they will have or how they will wear their hair.
But the choice doesn't exist. It's a lot easier to be tolerant of a condition that you have no expectation of changing. Especially when it's not especially harmful.

I guess one of us needs to be explicit. I'm trying to say that in supporting choice in abortion, one of the basic arguments is that the woman has control of her body. I contend that since a woman does have control of her body, she has every right to decide whether or not a fetus should have a genetic disorder corrected, be it sexual orientation or Downs syndrome. And yes, she should be able to decide whether or not to abort the fetus, too..

True, but you seem to be equating homosexuality with a disorder like downs syndrome rather than say gender or hair color for which a

Evolution is a powerful force. You either submit or you become extinct. Assuming that sexual orientation is genetically based for a moment, the condition would not promote propagating the species and that's not a tendency that's desirable for the long term. That's why I would call it a disorder -- it doesn't support nature's plan. And it's not nice to fool Mother Nature...

Evolution is blind. It has no plans. Humans haven't proved themselves to be evolutionarily fit in the long run. Of course, that impossible because long run can always be longer.

Anyway, homosexuals can reproduce. They can have relations with the opposite sex. Fusing two zygotes together to make one person who has two genetic codes making a being related to both parents, if having it combined with a 3rd party of the opposite sex. In the future it may be possible with volunteered gametes to suck the original genetic code out of it and put in a new one. Then combine the altered gamete with the gamete of the other partner and one has a baby genetically related to both same sex partners.

Explain how. Remember, we aren't honey bees...

Gays can produce goods and services for others, duh. Alan Turing was instrulmental in creating the first computer. Computers have been beneficial to millions.

Then you obviously aren't apathetic about it. If you were, you wouldn't care about the sexuality of a future child.

I may personally have no strong feelings towards homosexuality. I don't consider it immoral. However, homosexuals still face discrimination in our society. As a parent, if I had the choice of making my child less likely to be discriminated against, I would take it. Most people would, too, despite what they might say to the contrary.

Actually, in my experience, almost nobody (in my generation, anyways) cares if they have a child who is gay. We want to raise healthy children who go on to lead happy lives. We don't care what their sexuality will be any more than we care what sex or gender they will be. We don't care about any of that any more than we care what color eyes they will have or how they will wear their hair.

I'm 31, so I doubt I'm much older than you. I think you're being a little optimistic here. Sure, younger people don't have the same issue with homosexuality as our parents or grandparents. But I guarantee if given the choice between having a straight kid and a gay kid, 95%+ of people would choose the former option, if for no other reason than they want their kids to have the best shot in life. It's just human nature.

The whole discussion is academic at this point, of course. We don't really know what causes homosexuality and we don't have the ability to choose our kids' sexuality.

But will human nature change so much that someday, in the future, parents will freely choose to have gay kids if there is an easy ability not to? I doubt it.

[your sexual preference] only makes you... you. It's part of who you are, a natural part of you you never had to question, a part of you you accepted wholesomely and naturally because, when you look at yourself in the mirror, what you see is YOU.


Soooo....big fan o' Leibniz, are we?

That's disgusting. Other people aren't yours to control.

Are you opposed to abortion, then? It seems that if you're comfortable with a woman having the right to abort a fetus, then you should have no problem with her engaging in some minor genetic changes to said fetus.

Right to choose, right?

Genuinely non-homophobic parents have no problem with having gay kids.

Parents want to give their kids the best shot in life. Homosexuals, though generally tolerated in many parts of this country, are discriminated against in others. In some parts of the world, homosexuality is still a crime.

A parent can be genuinely non-homophobic, but still want the best for their kids, which means preferring that they not be gay.

You can always choose what clothes to wear and what music to listen to, just as you can choose who to sleep with. However chosing your sexual partners is radically different than chosing your sexuality.

You can choose the clothes you wear, but you can not choose whether or not you like the color.

You can choose what music you listen to, but you can't change whether or not you like the song.

You can choose to wear a shirt you find horribly ugly. You can choose to have sex with someone you have no sexual attraction to. But you can't suddenly decide you find that shirt attractive, and you can't suddenly choose to find someone attractive when you don't.

THANK YOU! A voice of reason!

Even though we don't agree, you're taking the point I made into consideration, rather than arguing against something you THINK I said. You made my day. Really.

Gays can produce goods and services for others, duh. Alan Turing was instrulmental in creating the first computer. Computers have been beneficial to millions.
That has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Give me a better example.

Explain how. Remember, we aren't honey bees...

No, but we're hardly the only social animals with non-reproducing members. You can find various biological restrictions on reproduction throughout the animal kingdom - from fish schools with only a single male/female member to social structures which restrict breeding to alphas or betas to societies in which some members simply do not breed.

Throughout the animal kingdom, we see examples of various reproduction strategies. In some species, the strategy is to have as many offspring as possible. Most of those offspring die, but some survive because of the sheer numbers. In others, a given individual will have few offspring, but those few will have a much higher chance of survival.

Within a social structure, it can be advantageous to have fewer offspring overall. This means that more of the adults can contribute to the care of the young, further increasing the survival chances of those young. On the other hand, if every member is breeding and paying attention to their own young, mortality rates among the young will be higher. Resources will be thinner.

In nature, non-breeding members of primate social groups, for instance, often help raise the young of their siblings. Although breeding in wolf packs is generally restricted to alphas and possibly betas, much of the pack assists in caring for the young. This increases the chances of survival of those young and, thus, increases the chances that they will, in turn, reproduce. There are examples like this throughout the animal kingdom.

But the choice doesn't exist. It's a lot easier to be tolerant of a condition that you have no expectation of changing. Especially when it's not especially harmful.

I don't think those of us who could care less about sexuality are suddenly going to care if someone says we can change it. Perhaps those who already have a problem with homosexuality would feel more empowered, but those of us who truly don't care would still....*gasp*.....not care.


I may personally have no strong feelings towards homosexuality. I don't consider it immoral. However, homosexuals still face discrimination in our society. As a parent, if I had the choice of making my child less likely to be discriminated against, I would take it. Most people would, too, despite what they might say to the contrary.

I see. So you would increase discrimination against homosexuals because there is discrimination against homosexuals. How very enlightened of you.

I'm 31, so I doubt I'm much older than you. I think you're being a little optimistic here.

I don't.

Sure, younger people don't have the same issue with homosexuality as our parents or grandparents. But I guarantee if given the choice between having a straight kid and a gay kid, 95%+ of people would choose the former option, if for no other reason than they want their kids to have the best shot in life. It's just human nature.

I don't think my kids will have less of a shot at life if they happen to be homosexual. By the time my kids are old enough to express their sexuality, it is very likely that discrimination against homosexuals will be seen in much the same light that racism is now. In my mother's day, racism was the norm. Today, we look down on the bigots who express it. Given the current trend, I see no reason to believe that my children and their peers won't see homophobia in much the same way.

The whole discussion is academic at this point, of course. We don't really know what causes homosexuality and we don't have the ability to choose our kids' sexuality.

But will human nature change so much that someday, in the future, parents will freely choose to have gay kids if there is an easy ability not to? I doubt it.

It isn't a matter of human nature. It isn't human nature to have a problem with homosexuality - it is an expression of societal conditioning. What has to change is society - and that is already happening.

Personally, I don't even want to know what sex a child will be until it is born. Why would I want to know what its sexuality would be?

Are you opposed to abortion, then? It seems that if you're comfortable with a woman having the right to abort a fetus, then you should have no problem with her engaging in some minor genetic changes to said fetus.

Right to choose, right?

She has the right to choose whether or not to be pregnant. That doesn't automatically equate to a right to make direct alterations to her future child. The woman has the right to end her pregnancy, but, should she choose not to do so, she can't sell her future child into slavery, for instance.

Parents want to give their kids the best shot in life. Homosexuals, though generally tolerated in many parts of this country, are discriminated against in others. In some parts of the world, homosexuality is still a crime.

A parent can be genuinely non-homophobic, but still want the best for their kids, which means preferring that they not be gay.

Or, alternatively, preferring that they live in a society where being gay doesn't matter, and working to achieve such a society.

Seriously, it doesn't matter what traits your child has, they are going to be discriminated against for it somewhere. It's better to raise your child so that they know who they are and what they can accomplish, and that people who hate them for stupid reasons aren't worth their time.

That has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Give me a better example.

It had to do with a nonreproducing member of the species being beneficial to it as a whole. What's the problem

Are you opposed to abortion, then? It seems that if you're comfortable with a woman having the right to abort a fetus, then you should have no problem with her engaging in some minor genetic changes to said fetus.

Wrong.

Abortion destroys the fetus. The result is no person.

Fetal modification modifies the fetus. The result is a modified person.

I don't support forcibly modifying people.

Parents want to give their kids the best shot in life.

That does not include willfully modifying them to make them most suited for social approval.

What's wrong with that?

People are not objects. They are not property. They are not required to conform to your whims; they are not an appendage of yours.

We send our kids to good schools, get braces for their teeth, get their noses fixed, make sure they have a vacation in Europe...Some of us even buy them cars, so that they fit in with their friends.

First, at least some of those are likely to be consensual.

Second, none of them even come close to the violation of artificially modifying someone's sexual orientation.

That does not include willfully modifying them to make them most suited for social approval.
What's wrong with that? We send our kids to good schools, get braces for their teeth, get their noses fixed, make sure they have a vacation in Europe...Some of us even buy them cars, so that they fit in with their friends.

I fail to see why a little genetic tinkering for the purposes of social approval is any different than cosmetic surgery.

No, but we're hardly the only social animals with non-reproducing members. You can find various biological restrictions on reproduction throughout the animal kingdom - from fish schools with only a single male/female member to social structures which restrict breeding to alphas or betas to societies in which some members simply do not breed.

Throughout the animal kingdom, we see examples of various reproduction strategies. In some species, the strategy is to have as many offspring as possible. Most of those offspring die, but some survive because of the sheer numbers. In others, a given individual will have few offspring, but those few will have a much higher chance of survival.

Within a social structure, it can be advantageous to have fewer offspring overall. This means that more of the adults can contribute to the care of the young, further increasing the survival chances of those young. On the other hand, if every member is breeding and paying attention to their own young, mortality rates among the young will be higher. Resources will be thinner.

In nature, non-breeding members of primate social groups, for instance, often help raise the young of their siblings. Although breeding in wolf packs is generally restricted to alphas and possibly betas, much of the pack assists in caring for the young. This increases the chances of survival of those young and, thus, increases the chances that they will, in turn, reproduce. There are examples like this throughout the animal kingdom.


Again with the animal kingdom examples...What's next, a Mutual of Omaha commercial? Which of those are actually practiced by human beings? And I don't mean examples of people that contribute to society that also happen to be homosexual, a la Turing, but of homosexuals that contribute something to our society in a form that actually requires or rewards homosexuality.

Homosexuality is disgusting and a menace to society, regardless of whether it is a choice or not.


Yea the fact that I like boobs and really dislike penises is certainly a menace to society. While I drink my juice in the hood no less. Watch out for us lesbians we might......ah.......steal your..........wives.........or something.

As for "gay kids" my friend is funny. She is one of the only parents I know who is hoping her all her daughters turn out to be lesbians. No coming home with AIDS and no coming home knocked up at 16.

Again with the animal kingdom examples...What's next, a Mutual of Omaha commercial? Which of those are actually practiced by human beings? And I don't mean examples of people that contribute to society that also happen to be homosexual, a la Turing, but of homosexuals that contribute something to our society in a form that actually requires or rewards homosexuality.

With reliable birth control, abortions, and the ability to to fertilize eggs in vitro how is heterosexuality required in modern society?

With reliable birth control, abortions, and the ability to to fertilize eggs in vitro how is heterosexuality required in modern society?
That question ignores eons of evolution. The better question would be "After eons of evolution, why is homosexuality still a sporadic condition?".

My answer is that it doesn't serve the species, thus nature welcomes homosexuality about as much as it welcomes Parkinson' or Downs Syndrome. Fortunately, homosexuality is much less harmful.

That question ignores eons of evolution. The better question would be "After eons of evolution, why is homosexuality still a sporadic condition?".

A trait that is advantageous in one point in time may be a hindrance in a later point in time. It matters not how long a trait "proved" its fitness, only that it continues to do so.

The last question could be met with the question if homosexuality is such a detrimental trait why does it still exist after eons of evolution

My answer is that it doesn't serve the species, thus nature welcomes homosexuality about as much as it welcomes Parkinson' or Downs Syndrome. Fortunately, homosexuality is much less harmful.

I don't see how homosexuality is such a detrimental trait.

A trait that is advantageous in one point in time may be a hindrance in a later point in time. It matters not how long a trait "proved" its fitness, only that it continues to do so.

I see we're done here. A trait that has persisted over eons of history isn't going to disappear after a few generations. Evolution doesn't work that way.

F
Even if it IS a choice, like, saying, liking coca-cola over Pepsi, why should it matter?

I object to it being compared to Pepsi vs. Coke. Homosexuality is not a choice, and therefore cannot be considered good or bad. The soft drink one imbibes, however, is very much a choice, and there is a definite right (Coke) and a definite wrong (Pepsi). To even attempt to find parallels is ludicrous.

It doesn't matter, but any way you look at it, it will be twisted into something political.
If it's choice, then it's not natural and a perversion. If it's genetic, then it's a disease that can be cured through genetic engineering. The opposite is also true.

Here's an interesting anthropological fact. Sexuality is thought to be both or none. I think Kinsey was on the right track having a scale. No one is straight, gay, or exactly in the middle. It's a range.
In a few cultures, even some contemporary ones, homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality is taboo(i.e. outside of procreation). There are two different tribes in Papua New Guinea. In both, the men have male lovers and only have sex with women to make babies. Hetero sex with ladies is a taboo. It gets better. One tribe talks shit about the other because they frown on oral sex. They say those guys are dirty and gross. The other looks down on the first tribe because they think anal sex is pure nastiness.
This kind of puts a different perspective on our own beliefs on sexuality. It's a big possibility that your sexuality(yes you) is largely influenced by your culture and that you are a a big homo inside and don't know it or are a little straight if you think you're gay.
You're all a little or a lot gay

I see we're done here. A trait that has persisted over eons of history isn't going to disappear after a few generations. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Apparently. With sex, and thus sexuality, no longer tied to reproduction both heterosexuality and homosexuality are rendered irrelevant to nature.

ééand there is a definite right (Coke) and a definite wrong (Pepsi). To even attempt to find parallels is ludicrous.forward thinking >> siding with >> the choice of a new generation. ;)

Again with the animal kingdom examples...What's next, a Mutual of Omaha commercial?

We are, after all, part of the animal kingdom. You asked me how non-breeding members could be an advantage in a social animal. I responded.

Which of those are actually practiced by human beings?

Aunts and uncles or even family friends quite often help parents raise their children. If that person has no children of his own, he is even more likely to take an active role in doing so.

And I don't mean examples of people that contribute to society that also happen to be homosexual, a la Turing, but of homosexuals that contribute something to our society in a form that actually requires or rewards homosexuality.

Shifting the goalposts, are we? You stated that homosexuality wouldn't help propagate the species. I pointed out that non-breeding members can be an advantage to propagation in social animals. You asked how. I explained.

If you would like to start a new topic of conversation, by all means do so. But don't try to pretend that it was the conversation all along.

I may personally have no strong feelings towards homosexuality. I don't consider it immoral. However, homosexuals still face discrimination in our society. As a parent, if I had the choice of making my child less likely to be discriminated against, I would take it. Most people would, too, despite what they might say to the contrary.

Thus you would also choose not to have a female child, right?

Wrong.

Abortion destroys the fetus. The result is no person.

Fetal modification modifies the fetus. The result is a modified person.

I don't support forcibly modifying people.

Your position is logically inconsistent. You are okay with a mother destroying a fetus, but not okay with the mother taking steps to, in that mother's opinion, improve the future life of the fetus. That really makes no sense- you are basically saying that a fetus is better off dead than genetically modified.

What if the fetus had a genetic disorder such as Down's Syndrome or Sickle Cell Anemia that could be cured through genetic treatment? Are you opposed to the mother being allowed to cure those conditions?

Similarly, what right do you have to tell a mother that she can't change a genetic predisposition in her fetus that she considers to be a negative for that fetus?


That does not include willfully modifying them to make them most suited for social approval.

Parents do that all the time with their kids, and have always done so. Parents raise their kids to be well-behaved, educated, socially-polished etc. You're just objecting to it in this case because you don't like the end-result.

Thus you would also choose not to have a female child, right?

I think I see where you're going with this- you're going to claim that women are disadvantaged in society and whatnot. It's a debatable claim, of course. Any level of discrimination is certainly lower than what is directed towards homosexuals, however. Gender discrimination is illegal everywhere in the US, as well as most of the rest of the West.

So, no, there isn't really a reason to choose not to have a female child. The only situation I would consider picking the gender of a child (if that option were available) would be if all my other children were of one gender and I wanted to have at least one boy or girl.

I think I see where you're going with this- you're going to claim that women are disadvantaged in society and whatnot. It's a debatable claim, of course.

No, it's really not. It is simply factual that female human beings are discriminated against. The only people who debate this are people who are profoundly ignorant or who have a vested interest in not seeing sexism.


Any level of discrimination is certainly lower than what is directed towards homosexuals, however. Gender discrimination is illegal everywhere in the US, as well as most of the rest of the West.

Which, shockingly enough, has not stopped it from occurring. It's illegal to beat a gay man to death in the US, yet for some reason gay bashing still happens. Odd, that.


So, no, there isn't really a reason to choose not to have a female child.
There are plenty of reasons to choose not to have a female child. For instance, if you want to have a child that is the least likely to face discrimination, you should not choose to have a female child.

Your position is logically inconsistent. You are okay with a mother destroying a fetus, but not okay with the mother taking steps to, in that mother's opinion, improve the future life of the fetus. That really makes no sense- you are basically saying that a fetus is better off dead than genetically modified.

No, he isn't. He pointed out that his position on abortion is related to the right of a woman to control her own body and thus end her pregnancy. Destroying a fetus is the end-result of such an action, but is not the purpose of the procedure.

What if the fetus had a genetic disorder such as Down's Syndrome or Sickle Cell Anemia that could be cured through genetic treatment? Are you opposed to the mother being allowed to cure those conditions?

I don't know about him, but I'm not. Both are diseases. There is quite a difference between curing a disease and trying to mold a human being to your personal liking.

Gender discrimination is illegal everywhere in the US, as well as most of the rest of the West.

Wrong. Discrimination on the basis of sex, so long as you meet socially acceptable gender roles, is generally illegal. Discrimination on the basis of gender is still alive, well, and legal. Legislators are now saying that they can most likely get the votes to make discrimination based on sexuality illegal in this country over a presidential veto. But when transgendered persons are added to the bill, they say they simply don't have enough votes.

No, it's really not. It is simply factual that female human beings are discriminated against. The only people who debate this are people who are profoundly ignorant or who have a vested interest in not seeing sexism.

You're engaging in a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" here.

There are plenty of reasons to choose not to have a female child. For instance, if you want to have a child that is the least likely to face discrimination, you should not choose to have a female child.

And I have no problems with a parent choosing the sex, hair color, height or any other characteristic of their child, including sexual orientation.

You're engaging in a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well" here.

*shrug* Whatev.

If you don't believe that female human beings face ongoing discrimination, then I really don't think logic is going to be an effective means of communication.

Your position is logically inconsistent. You are okay with a mother destroying a fetus, but not okay with the mother taking steps to, in that mother's opinion, improve the future life of the fetus. That really makes no sense- you are basically saying that a fetus is better off dead than genetically modified.

Yes, it is absurd. Or rather, it would be, if my concern were for the welfare of the fetus. Of course, I already stated that I wasn't--it's for the person the fetus might become.

What if the fetus had a genetic disorder such as Down's Syndrome or Sickle Cell Anemia that could be cured through genetic treatment? Are you opposed to the mother being allowed to cure those conditions?

I think those conditions reach a level of harm that intervention is probably justified.

Similarly, what right do you have to tell a mother that she can't change a genetic predisposition in her fetus that she considers to be a negative for that fetus?

Children are not property. Parental control over them is not a matter of "right."

The better question is, what right does the parent have to artificially modify her child without that child's consent?

Sometimes, that question might be answered credibly... such as in cases when the condition is such that a person will be severely impaired. But homosexuality is not a disease; whatever problems are associated with it are not necessary ones, but ones that society creates with its bigotry.

Parents do that all the time with their kids, and have always done so. Parents raise their kids to be well-behaved, educated, socially-polished etc.

Maybe, but none of that indoctrination reaches the level of artificially altering their basic desires. (And it IS indoctrination... on a basic level, the child is still who he or she always was. His or her nature is not changed the way genetic alterations would change it.)

Now, if the parents, say, genetically altered their child so that he or she had more "conventional" interests in spheres other than sexual orientation--to choose a relatively innocuous example, they made a potential nerd an avid sports fan--I would object to that as well.

You're just objecting to it in this case because you don't like the end-result.

While it is true that I would have major problems with a world without gays, and that has something to do with my emotional disgust at the proposal, my position that it is wrong is sufficiently founded independent of those conditions.

I would, for what it's worth, be equally opposed to parents artificially altering the sexual orientation of their straight children.

I think those conditions reach a level of harm that intervention is probably justified.

Sometimes, that question might be answered credibly... such as in cases when the condition is such that a person will be severely impaired. But homosexuality is not a disease; whatever problems are associated with it are not necessary ones, but ones that society creates with its bigotry.

Now, if the parents, say, genetically altered their child so that he or she had more "conventional" interests in spheres other than sexual orientation--to choose a relatively innocuous example, they made a potential nerd an avid sports fan--I would object to that as well.

In other words, there is medicine, and then there's eugenics.

[...]Evolution is blind. It has no plans. Humans haven't proved themselves to be evolutionarily fit in the long run. Of course, that impossible because long run can always be longer.

Anyway, homosexuals can reproduce. They can have relations with the opposite sex. Fusing two zygotes together to make one person who has two genetic codes making a being related to both parents, if having it combined with a 3rd party of the opposite sex. In the future it may be possible with volunteered gametes to suck the original genetic code out of it and put in a new one. Then combine the altered gamete with the gamete of the other partner and one has a baby genetically related to both same sex partners.


I think it also bears mentioning, whenever people start carping on about how "if homosexuality were biological, evolution would weed it out"-- notwithstanding the fact that it demonstrates a poor understanding of evolution and biology (recessive genes, for example)-- the conception they seem to have of evolution as some 'aware' process doing its best to 'eliminate' every last trait that doesn't propel every specimin to crank out litter after litter could easily be turned around. If Evolution exerts itself with any kind of 'metaconsciousness' like they imply, then Evolution could easily have decided that it's advantageous to the species as a whole if a certain percentage of the population-- instead of occupying its material resources and labour with rearing their own offspring-- remained available to help the rest of the population. "It takes a village to raise a child," and if any appreciable percentage of the village is child-free, then that percentage can contribute to the well-being of the larger group by hunting or cooking or basket-weaving while the parents tend their young.

That's all (erroneously) assuming, of course, that Evolution 'acts' on some level to determine a desired outcome, but it's still a fun counterpoint when the pseudo-biology gay-bashers start spouting their gibberish.

It shouldn't be, because nobody ought to be giving them an easier time being homophobic bigots on the pretence that sexual orientation is a choice.

Choice or not is completely irrelevant. Those people choose their stupid religion (because yes, any religion that promotes bigotry and hatred is a stupid religion, while there are non-stupid religions who don't promote those things people can choose to adhere to) and nobody can come and remove their freedoms because of it. Likewise, even if sexual orientation was a choice (which it isn't, but for the sake of argument I'm going to disregard it) there is nothing that can be used as a justification to remove rights from someone based on such a choice.
Precisely.

It does not matter at all whether sexual preference is choice, genetically determined, a bit of both, or neither.

The reason it does not matter is that my sex life does not impact society in any way at all. (Sounds kinda sad, doesn't it, but anyway...) There is nothing that I do -- no matter who I might do it with -- that will bring either harm or benefit to society. And there is no evidence whatsoever, that any sexual orientation is more or less associated with reckless, anti-social, or abusive behavior than any other sexual orientation (suggesting that being an abusive, disease-spreading moron is not related to sexuality).

So, to the extent that it is no one else's fucking goddamned business, there is no legitimate grounds upon which to deny me any rights because of it -- choice or non-choice notwithstanding. Period. Done.

So, the bigots' argument that if it's a choice, it's okay to punish people for it, is totally absurd on its face, and can be easily countered without even addressing the premise. If my choices don't hurt them, they have no stake in my choices, so the assertion that sexuality is a choice does not justify their claim that they can then punish it. They have to prove that the choice causes harm to them. Since they can't, their argument is dead aborning.

What's wrong with that? We send our kids to good schools, get braces for their teeth, get their noses fixed, make sure they have a vacation in Europe...Some of us even buy them cars, so that they fit in with their friends.
You do all that while they're still embryos? That's called spoiling the kids.

Actually, a lot of people don't do any of those things unless they are certain their kids want them. If you were to force those things on your child when your child didn't want them, that would be emotionally and psychologically harmful. If you forced the nose job on them, that would be physical abuse.

I fail to see why a little genetic tinkering for the purposes of social approval is any different than cosmetic surgery.
Well, obviously, you don't respect people and don't see any reason why anyone should respect anyone else. Otherwise, you wouldn't think you had the right to "tinker" with other people's genes to make them be what you think is nice or pleasant, according to your tastes. Surely, if all the people besides yourself are just dolls, why shouldn't you replace their heads and other parts with better looking ones and rig them to say different things when you pull the string in their backs, than the factory set them up to say?

But of course, they're not dolls. And they're not your property. And you don't get to make them over to suit yourself.

Again with the animal kingdom examples...
What's wrong? Upset that your argument is getting shot down by facts?

What's next, a Mutual of Omaha commercial?
It would be the coup de grace for your ridiculous assertions.

Which of those are actually practiced by human beings?
Um...the non-reproducing parts?

And I don't mean examples of people that contribute to society that also happen to be homosexual, a la Turing, but of homosexuals that contribute something to our society in a form that actually requires or rewards homosexuality.
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

There's an example of non-reproducing members of society directly benefitting the ability of the species to reproduce itself. None of the lazy, worthless, sweaty lumps of fat, hair and grease who go on that show would ever get a woman to bang them, if not for those 5 gay heroes.

(Oh, and for the record, let me reiterate that gays can reproduce.)

Do you have a source for this? I've never seen any such studies and I'd be interested to see your sources for saying this.

Unfortunately for every one idiot who claims there is a link between solo parents and gay child - there are hundreds of thousands of gays who were born into picture perfect family with mum, dad, brother, sister, dog and cat.

I am just such a person; perfect family - and yet, I turned out gay. Nothing tragic in my child hood, reached puberty and had no desire/interest in wanting to get with a girl. Infact the idea of getting together with a girl revolted me.

None of you seem to be capable of comprehending the point I'm trying to make, which is simply that it DOES MATTER whether or not you choose your sexuality.

If you're going to debate with me, debate with me on the point I made, and not some imaginary point that appeals to your prejudices.

No, *YOU* said that *YOU* chose to be attracted to females - and when we asked whether you could choose to be masculine males, you go into defence mode. Just answer the damn question - or would answering it admit that your preference for females was not a conscious decision?