General Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

If your child had a ”gay gene”, or a sequence of genes leading to gayness, would you leave it unaltered if there was a way to eliminate, or modify it?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (21974 points ) February 22nd, 2014

disclaimer I have no idea if there is a ”gay gene”, my thoughts is that it originates from another source which I will not disclose as to hopefully keep the discussion on the question at hand.

Science (or whoever), discover there is a gene that causes people to be gay or a sequence of genes thereof. There is a test where this gene can be identified. If you discover as a result of the screening that your yet-to-be born child has it, leading to the propensity for he/she being gay would you leave it intact if you were told that gene therapy could remove it or modify it as to make it dormant, or benign? If you chose to have it dealt with, why would you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

83 Answers

Cruiser's avatar

I am not perfect and neither are my kids and I would not change a thing.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
yankeetooter's avatar

No. Any more than I would alter their genes because they were going to have brown eyes…

SavoirFaire's avatar

I would leave it unaltered. Gene therapy is for things that are harmful.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SavoirFaire If it were determined that the child would be predisposed to being hairless by the time they hit their teens you would not use gene therapy to treat it?

pleiades's avatar

No I wouldn’t change it. I may live in the land of fruits and nuts but at least there isn’t much hate out here unlike other unloving states. California forever!

Darth_Algar's avatar

No, I would not.

flutherother's avatar

No I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t want to design my children in any way.

tups's avatar

No, never. It would be a loss to the world. Diversity is beautiful.

Bluefreedom's avatar

I would leave it alone. I would love my child or children, unconditionally, in any circumstance.

That being said, and I don’t know if the technology is already in place or they are developing it, but there may come a time when people can “order” (for lack of a better word) designer embryo’s manipulated so that the parents get whatever they want in a future child. (Eye color, hair color, etc.)

Honestly, I find it kind of disturbing that this kind of gene manipulation might become reality someday. I feel like it is messing with God’s work and can be potentially harmful and risky.

dxs's avatar

As much as I’d fear what that kid will have to go through in this society, I’d leave it to nature as well.

Seek's avatar

I’d leave it alone.

If I could modify the gene for gallbladder disease, I’d be all over that. We’re at 100% of family members over the age of 21. My brother just has his removed last week.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Alopecia universalis is a medical condition that is associated with, and can lead to, various harms. So yes, I would consider getting it altered. Like I said, gene therapy is for things that are harmful.

eno's avatar

If I can genetically test for gays, I would have an abortion altogether. Why waste time and money fixing it when you can just retry and hope for better results?

But if I had no choice to abort, I would most certainly try to fix it because the purpose of children, at least for me, is to continue my bloodline. A gay son or daughter is a genetic dead end for me, so it would be pointless to invest any time or money into a genetic dead end unless you need a caretaker when you’re old, but you don’t need children for that. You can hire a service.

CWOTUS's avatar

You’re re-asking the Question of the Day for May 31, 2011.

Ask me how I know that.

gailcalled's avatar

^^Nah. I already know the answer.

cazzie's avatar

Genes related to behaviour is a very touchy subject. Genes related to actual disease and illness is something all together different. I would NOT put sexual identification or preference in the basket of things that would ever require ‘curing’.

@eno your answer disgusts me.

LostInParadise's avatar

It would be tempting to do, not because of any feelings on my part, but because of concern that being gay might be an impediment to success. In the end, I think I would let it go. @SavoirFaire brings up an important point about distinguishing between something that is harmful and something that might be seen as beneficial. This gets into a slippery slope argument regarding genetic engineering. I highly recommend Michael Sandel’s article, the The Case Against Perfection

johnpowell's avatar

Can I flip a switch to turn off the homophobic gene in all the people that think being gay is a problem?

DominicX's avatar

I get the argument from people who would because “they would have a hard life blah blah blah”, but the only reason they would have a hard life is because people refuse to change. It’s like sweeping a problem under the rug. It might look good on the surface, but the problem is still there.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m convinced sexuality is genetic. Personally I’d just leave it alone.

ml3269's avatar

NEVER. And I am straight. Never… for what????

Buttonstc's avatar

No I wouldn’t. That’s getting into Eugenics territory.

I have no desire to follow in the footsteps of Mengele and his ilk.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Absolutely not. Why tamper with God’s perfect creation?!

No gay gene—-
http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb

OpryLeigh's avatar

If it wasn’t a compulsory screening, I wouldn’t have the test in the first place. I don’t feel it is necessary to know whether your child is likely or not to be gay so I would save tax payers money (assuming we are in the UK and using NHS resources!)

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Absolutely not. Why tamper with God’s perfect creation?!
We were, but Eve with Adam say that the perfection did not hold.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

Similarly, Jesus told His disciples on one occasion, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Mt. 19:14). Again, think about what this verse would mean if children inherit sin. The kingdom of heaven would belong to those separated from God. Instead, since children are innocent, the kingdom of heaven belongs to the innocent- those who belong to God.

Scripture teaches us that, at death, “the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). The parents do not give the soul to a child, but God does. If God hates sin (Ps. 45:7), cannot look at sin (Isa. 59:2), and is the giver of the spirit, a newborn baby’s soul cannot be sinful.

http://www.topicalbiblestudies.com/original-sin.php

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL There is no debate, I am just pointing out no one is perfect anymore, heteros, gays, believers or the ungodly, the only way we can be perfect again until we shed these janky tents of flesh is by the Blood of The Lamb. All I am stating; where is the debate in that? ;-)

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central The debate that being gay is a sin if it’s not a choice. I am not convinced that is the truth, as you know.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL I know what you believe on that matter and I am not getting into that. The question was that in this culture today, it might be way different 40 years from now if the planet is still here, that being gay puts certain hurdles in place, knowing that as it is today if one knew their child would be born gay, or had a 80% chance or greater to being gay and they could change it would they? It could as easily be dwarfism or being an albino, if you know of potential difficulty do you allow your child to go through it if you can do something about it? That was the basic question, some of the aforementioned traits are quite obvious, being gay of course would not be unless they were open and notorious about it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Ah, well, I’ll leave that to you parents to debate then, but my gut feeling is that no, I wouldn’t.

Skaggfacemutt's avatar

Well, putting aside that gayness is NOT a genetic condition, yes I would want the doctors/scientists to turn off not only that gene, but all defective genes. I wince at using the word “defective”, but as life forms, our most basic job is to survive and multiply. Anything that would impede these two goals would be a defect.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Skaggfacemutt Well, putting aside that gayness is NOT a genetic condition, yes I would want the doctors/scientists to turn off not only that gene, but all defective genes.
Turning off a cleft pallet gene or an albino gene is easy because they are seen as out of the norm, however, could you elucidate on ”Well, putting aside that gayness is NOT a genetic condition….”? For as long as I can remember, in this camp, at least, many believe that it is just how you are, it was as much a part of the person as what eye color they were going to have, the texture of their hair, how tall they would grow, hence, an innate part of them, which if not through genetics, where does it come from? A environmental contaminate? I am in agreement that anything that impedes the furthering of the species if it becomes the dominate enough to not sustain the species I would day has to be de facto defective to that species.

dxs's avatar

@Skaggfacemutt Then maybe homosexuality is a natural form of population control in the grand scheme of life.

augustlan's avatar

@Skaggfacemutt & @Hypocrisy_Central So what then, do you do with infertile people? Or people who simply choose not to have children?

To answer the question, no, I would not interfere.

Seaofclouds's avatar

Jumping in late, but I would not alter my child genetically for being gay if that were even possible. As far as the concern about reproduction and passing along our genes, gay people can reproduce (if they want and don’t have other fertility issues), so that really is a moot point.Not that it is a concern for me anyway.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Something can be biological without being genetic. Since you may have missed it, @KNOWITALL previously shared this article regarding the epigenetic explanation.

LostInParadise's avatar

For the purposes of this question, I do not see any difference between homosexuality being genetic or epigenetic. The article says that the effects of epi-marks act during early fetal development. In either case, the implication is that homosexuality has a physical basis and is in principle capable of being detected.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@LostInParadise I never said it made any difference for the purposes of this question. If you’ve been following the discussion, however, you will have seen that a side-conversation has developed in parallel to the main conversation. I was responding to @Hypocrisy_Central‘s question here regarding how someone could hold both the view that being gay is part of who one is (i.e., not a choice) and the view that being gay is not genetic. The epigenetic explanation is reconciles those two views.

Skaggfacemutt's avatar

To make my answer more clear – homosexuals do not have a faulty gene. It is not a genetic condition. Period. Not my opinion, but a biological fact. Second, IF it were a genetic condition, and therefore able to be genetically manipulated, I would choose it to be altered so that my children would not be gay. Maybe not a popular answer, but the truth.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SavoirFaire Since you may have missed it, @KNOWITALL previously shared this article regarding the epigenetic explanation.
I did miss that, and I read it, and read it with an open mind as to what I may learn from it. Aside the hereditary stuff, of which I have to say honestly, the jury is still out, there was a curious passage; ”Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed.” Based off this info which is presented by the authors of the piece, the gene is correct but the switch is defective. If you know the switch is defective and you can repair it, why not? If you had a switch in your vehicle that is suppose to activate the headlamps but instead it activates the wipers, one would say the switch is not doing what the switch is designed to do and take it to the shop and repair it. Genes aside if a person’s detected their soon-to-be-born son or daughter had defective switches they should ignore them?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central To say that “the gene is correct, but the switch is defective” is to add more to the article than is there. There is nothing wrong with being gay; therefore, there are no grounds for calling the switch defective. Remember, genes aren’t designed to do anything (except perhaps in some attenuated, naturalistic sense). They simply do certain things, and we choose to approve or disapprove of the effects. Not too long ago, the color of my hair and the color of your skin were considered “defects” (complete with both religious and non-religious arguments to support these claims). Yet now we realize that neither of these traits are defects, and thus we recognize that there is no reason to change them even if we become able to do so.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SavoirFaire To say that “the gene is correct, but the switch is defective” is to add more to the article than is there.
Until they write it better I am not going to clean up what they put there. If these epi-marks are simple switches that tell a gene what to do and how to do it, to have it not do what it is supposed to is to say the function that it is to control is an option. Again, if I have a switch designed to activate the headlamps but it activates the wipers or power windows, it was either designed that way to have those options or it is an action not intended for the switch to do that I am going to accept, and believe is an optional action the switch is capable of doing. That would be no different than my keypad; I hit certain keys which in turn are supposed to send certain impulses to the program via the hardware. If I hit a key that is set to scroll, for example, and nothing happens, or the volume goes up, if the program is not defective it has to be the keypad because having the volume rise is not an action that key was designed to have. Maybe malfunctioning should be a better word to describe it then.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Anamolies occur in nature, but that doesn’t mean they’re defective. Defective puts a negative connotation on someone who is ‘different’, does that make sense?

Hermaphrodites have been around since ancient Greece, before Jesus even.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Your mistake is in thinking that genes are supposed to do certain things. Rather, the fact is that they just do certain things, and what they do is at least partially affected by the womb environment. It only makes sense to call homosexuality a malfunction if you have already decided that it is bad (which is to commit the petitio principii fallacy). This has nothing to do with the wording of the article, but only with the way you are reading it.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SavoirFaire Your mistake is in thinking that genes are supposed to do certain things. Rather, the fact is that they just do certain things, and what they do is at least partially affected by the womb environment.
How can they do certain things they are not intended to do? When I was being knitted together in my mother’s womb the cells that formed my brain, heart, skin, etc. had no instruction? DNA has no credence? If DNA has no sway why has DNA passed down through the families have made some susceptible to certain diseases, or dwarfism, etc.? Sickle Cell anemia, Gaucher Disease, etc. are indicative of certain nationalities because they just happen to be an not because of DNA or chromosomes?

Skaggfacemutt's avatar

@KNOWITALL Hermaphrodites have been around since ancient Greece, before Jesus even.

So has spinal bifida.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Skaggfacemutt So your point is that because one is bad, the other has to be as well?

Perhaps anyone who is different just wants to be accepted for who and what they are, why do we as a society need to change them to make them ‘good’ or ‘acceptable’?

I’m not perfect, and I don’t know anyone who is, do you?

Buttonstc's avatar

The overwhelming majority of the entire population of the earth is right handed.

So does that mean that left handedness is a defect just because its “abnormal”?

In the past it was considered so and linked with the demonic and all other sorts of nonsense. And, truth be told, its a right handed world and left handlers suffer all sorts of inconveniences in countless ways the rest of us don’t notice.

That’s why, even as late as the 18–19 hundreds, teachers and parents often went to ridiculous lengths to force a child to use their right hand for writing and forbade use of the left.

They mistakenly thought that they were “helping” the child because it is admittedly easier to write with the right hand rather than the left; especially in the olden days when fountain pens or quills were the principal writing instruments (writing left handed produces more smudging because of how the hand travels when writing).

But nowadays we know better because research has proven that kids forced to change their naturally dominant handedness end up with a significantly higher incidence of severe speech problems.

Nobody in their right mind tries to force a lefty to write with their other hand anymore because it has the potential for more harm than good.

So there are certain INNATE tendencies like this for which a child grows up far healthier and happier if its just left well enough alone without well intentioned meddling.

I see same sex attraction as being quite similar. Some people have compared it to eye or skin color which is not strictly accurate. There’s absolutely nothing one can do to change either of those since they’re physical rather than behavorial.

Dominant handedness and sexual attraction are more behaviorally related and this leads well meaning meddlers to conclude that they can be changed.

At best, it can be suppressed. But that’s not really changing the INNATE tendency. Its merely changing the behavioral pattern. And is usually at significant eventual harm to the person upon which the change is being forced. Why do you think there have been such a high percentage of gay teen suicides?

Since neither of these innate qualities is doing any harm in and of themselves, why is there any need for going to extraordinary measures to change them.

(And gene manipulation is extraordinary by any measure.)

Meddling with genes could have consequences yet unknown and possibly not manifesting until far in the future.

If it were being used to eradicate fatal diseases like Huntingdons or to correct the BRACA gene responsible for so so many early deaths of women from cancer, then the reward would be greater than whatever the degree of risk.

But to change leftys or gay people just to make them fit in with the majority population?

Just let them live their lives in peace and happiness.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Only conscious beings can intend something. Genes are not conscious beings, and they were not designed by conscious beings. Thus they cannot intend to express themselves in a particular way, and they were not intended to express themselves in a particular way. This is not the same thing as saying that the cells in your brain, heart, and skin had no instruction, however. DNA can be understood as an instruction manual of sorts, but that is a metaphor. It would be more accurate to say that DNA has certain properties that cause cells to form in certain ways depending on what conditions they are found in and what resources are available for cell construction. The fact that certain conditions and certain constructions are more common, however, does not entail that they are better. Normal is a statistical concept that has no moral force.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@SavoirFaire “they (genes) were not designed by conscious beings”

FYI I’m not religious but I don’t think we can be too sure about that.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me We can if we accept the basic facts of evolutionary theory.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SavoirFaire It would be more accurate to say that DNA has certain properties that cause cells to form in certain ways depending on what conditions they are found in and what resources are available for cell construction. The fact that certain conditions and certain constructions are more common, however, does not entail that they are better
So if the DNA produced a heart with a hole in it, or an irregular rhythm, or hands that came out more like flippers with no fingers, it was just an variation one should expect time to time, no need to take any corrective measure. Heck, let’s not even call it a birth defect, because it falls within regular actions one can expect DNA to do spontaneously.

Unless you are saying the medical community is wrong for calling them birth defects?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central The sentences that you have quoted in the response immediately above were about why it is mistaken to assign intentions to genes or to suggest that certain genes are supposed to do certain things. What is more accurate is to say that we often want and expect them to do certain things. It makes perfect sense to call those abnormalities that cause harm “defects” because harms are bad. But it is both mistaken and question begging to call the biological factors that lead to homosexuality a defect.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SavoirFaire Fine, I take back defect and leave it as a malfunction.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central But as I have already noted, “malfunction” has precisely the same problem. It only makes sense to call homosexuality a malfunction if you have already decided that it is bad.

Buttonstc's avatar

Yeah, it’s pretty obvious that’s what he’s decided. But its possible that because he’s intelligent enough to realize that, regardless of whether its a gene or not, it’s become increasingly evident that it’s far more innate than it is a choice that it now presents an insoluble conundrum. Now who do we blame for this? What a dilemma~~

I think there are a growing number of those with religious objections who are rather at a loss as to how to deal with that since gay people really can’t logically be condemned for choosing something which is as innate as which hand you wrote with.

For years I’ve been asking them the logical question: “What child in their right mind would CHOOSE to be the most despised kid on the playground?” But that doesnt seem to make much of a dent.

Homophobia starts early in life as I’ve witnessed over and over when teaching third grade.

I suppose if it ever does become possible to “turn off” a gay gene (highly unlikely) then the focus can shift to the parents who can now be condemned for failing to use extraordinary measures to eliminate it in utero, so to speak.

Since gay people are harming no one simply by being themselves, it still hasn’t occurred to those looking to condemn them to just let them be to live their lives in peace just like everybody else.

Haters gotta hate, unfortunately.

cazzie's avatar

AGAIN, there is a difference between actual illness and disease and personality traits. Why is this so hard to understand? I work with kids. I see how different they all are. They all have talents and some are more work than others but I would NEVER EVER want them all to be the same.

Skaggfacemutt's avatar

I am as liberal as the next person, really, but trying to make logical people believe that having a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is normal, or just a personality trait, is not going to happen. After all, I have never seen a homosexual animal, have you? That leads me to believe that it is a mental disorder.

Some studies seem to indicate that a strong mother and a weak father will often produce a gay guy – due to the child identifying with his mother more than his father at a very young age. I think other family dynamics can also alter the emotional development of a child, and personally, that is what I believe is the underlying causes of homosexuality.

That being said, I certainly don’t agree with discriminating against them, or any other person. I don’t think it is something that they can control, so not advocating that they all get treatment for it. I think by puberty, that ship has sailed. I have friends that are gay and I love them, but if I had a choice of my child being gay or not gay, I would choose not.

If you want to lambaste me for believing this way, then save your breath. Nothing you can say will every change my mind. It doesn’t matter how much noise the gay community makes about the issue, I will never buy into the idea that it is a perfectly normal lifestyle that should be viewed as perfectly normal.

cazzie's avatar

@Skaggfacemutt Ummm.. yes. Homosexual animals are quite common. Look it up. From penguins to lions. It is NOT a mental disorder. Your entire argument is fallacious, of course, but you decide based on erroneous information. That is all.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Skaggfacemutt “I am as liberal as the next person, really, but trying to make logical people believe that having a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is normal, or just a personality trait, is not going to happen. After all, I have never seen a homosexual animal, have you? That leads me to believe that it is a mental disorder.”

Oh for crying out loud…..

KNOWITALL's avatar

@skaggface

Bagemihl’s research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in about 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[5][6] Wiki

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SavoirFaire But as I have already noted, “malfunction” has precisely the same problem. It only makes sense to call homosexuality a malfunction if you have already decided that it is bad.
I believe you are missing the point for trying every which way around Tuesday to say it is normal.

DNA is exactly like English, or Chinese, or Pig Latin. It’s just a language that communicates instructions to a receiver. In this case, RNA. It is not random or arbitrary. @RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Would you agree with that? It is not about if I, or anyone else liked something, if it is incorrect, it is. If I want to drive at night and I hit the switch for the headlamps and the music player starts, if I liked the fact my favorite tunes start playing how that was not a malfunction? The switch was to send power to the headlamps to make them activate, not start music. If most people read their owner’s manual and know how the switch is supposed to work would take it back to the dealer because the switch is not working as it is supposed to, liking the aftereffect or byproduct of the witch notwithstanding. If DNA is like English, Chinese, etc. if it says ”The house was as large as an aircraft hangar and cost 3.5 million dollars”, that is what it is, the genes or DNA can’t decide on its own it meant a coffee house, school, or hospital, and the cost only 1.6 million. Anything other than what was intended would be a defect or malfunction. If one read the aforementioned phrase and believed it was talking about a hospital, factory, etc. it was misread and the reading of it faulty or their comprehension was.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central If you had a child with Downs in utero, is that child faulty and you abort it, or you have the child and love it as it is?

If a woman is raped, does that child need aborting or are you capable of seeing the child as not ‘faulty’ because of the way it was conceived?

People who think in black and white need to be presented with analogies they understand, and I know you have a good heart, but expand your mind brother, see that we’re all okay as we are.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL If you had a child with Downs in utero, is that child faulty and you abort it, or you have the child and love it as it is?
Technology as I know it, cannot correct that in the womb, if it could, I would correct it. Since technology cannot, I would accept the child because God in His infinite wisdom chose me to have him/her.

If a woman is raped, does that child need aborting or are you capable of seeing the child as not ‘faulty’ because of the way it was conceived?
I think you meant that to those other people on Fluther, you should know how I would choose. You don’t punish the child for the sins of the father or eliminate it because it is an unwanted inconvenience to the mother. Unless there is a danger to the mother that she perishes, which will mean the child would as well, you never abort; that is just selfish.

[… and I know you have a good heart, but expand your mind brother,…]
My mind has, thank God to that, too many other people try to think of God in mere human terms or terms we are comfortable with. When the created beings can out think or equal think the creator, then He ceases to be the Creator at all.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I know you’re thinking this through, and I’m interested in your processing.

It just makes me really sad to know that you may be nice to my LGBT friend, while thinking to yourself that they are a genetic mistake that should have been corrected, you know? Such beautiful souls reduced to stigmatized words with negative connotations (for some.)

My female cousin has a 14 year old daughter that is gay, my own uncle is arguing with her on fb about it, because he is such a ‘superb’ Christian that he has to be ‘right’ and tell her her daughter is ‘wrong’, and he’s never even met the girl. This just really hits home for me, and seems so cruel.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL It just makes me really sad to know that you may be nice to my LGBT friend, while thinking to yourself that they are a genetic mistake that should have been corrected, you know?
This is all I am going to say about that, because Fluther can’t get out of secular thinking to keep up. I do not think gay people are defective, if I had to go only off science and evolution it is the only option I am left with, other than to say they chose to be gay. I personally believe gay people were not born gay, but at the moment, they have no choice to be gay, especially if they don’t care, and 99.8% don’t to see it as something they can be delivered from; make of it what you want, you are not capable of more than that, and that is all I am saying about it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central ..“you are not capable of more than that”

Did you really just say that to me? If you think being gay is a choice, then you must not be talking to real gay people, honey, because everyone I know says it was not their choice.

I make mistakes and try to learn from them, and I hope you can do the same thing. I KNOW you can do better than that.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ “you are not capable of more than that”
Read the PM, I don’t have enough water to put the place out should I speak it here.

Buttonstc's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

I’ll just ask one simple question again here:

What child in their right mind would CHOOSE to be the most despised kid on the playground ?

And please don’t try to tell me there is no such thing as a gay child. I have had them in my third grade classrooms. Their parents knew it, the other teachers knew it, and the other kids knew it.

Obviously this is an age where they (presumably) haven’t had sex with anyone yet. But being gay is NOT JUST about sex.

It is about identity. Most gay people to whom I’ve spoken knew they were “different” at a very young age (usually by 4–6 years old on average)

Some knew what that difference was called. Others didnt until later. But the point is, THEY KNEW. and this was long before they ever had sex with anybody at all.

So, why would any kid CHOOSE this?

Tell me Hypocrisy_Central if you assert its a choice, WHY would a kid choose this ? Are they a masochist and get pleasure from being ridiculed by other kids? Are they crazy?

That makes no sense at all.

cazzie's avatar

@Buttonstc et all…. good answer. Another question is, who would CHOOSE to be the child that picks on another child for being different. Who would CHOOSE to be the parent of the bullying child and look the other way and say, .. Well, it’s kids being kids, or What do you expect from kids? Those are the actual choices we need to be talking about. It isn’t just the gay kids being picked on, of course, (I have a kid who is slightly aspie and he has been picked on and ostracised) but the choice to pick on and bully children and adults whom we deem different comes from such an ignorant, primitive-lizard section of our brain, we have to learn and teach our kids how to NOT judge and bully and make fun of.

Buttonstc's avatar

Well, as usual, I’ve received no answer from those who keep insisting that being gay is a choice.

When I’ve asked this in the past, I’ve been told that “there is no such thing as a gay child”

As simple observation by most gay people as well as their concerned parents and numerous other observant adults proves, there are plenty of gay kids who will grow up to become gay adults. They are in every classroom and on every playground being taunted.

@Hypocrisy_Central

You wrote: “it is the only option I am left with, other than to say they chose to be gay.”

So, instead of asking the same question again, let me ask you this: At what age do you think this choice is made?

And, at what age did you decide to be straight?

I would assume you have some idea. Or are you going to duck these simple questions also ?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Buttonstc So, why would any kid CHOOSE this?
Why wouldn’t they? If they felt it was no different than having shocking red hair and freckles, being 5 inches taller than most around them, or having hazel colored eyes, why would they worry about it?

Tell me Hypocrisy_Central if you assert its a choice, WHY would a kid choose this?
If it is not a conscious choice is it really a choice? I don’t think they had a conscious choice, though they may believe it was not choice and others might believe they chose it out of two or more options.

So, instead of asking the same question again, let me ask you this: At what age do you think this choice is made?
I would say it is different from person to person, even when one is in their teens or later they may not understand what forces prompted them to choose the choice they felt was the only thing there was, thus there being no other option.

And, at what age did you decide to be straight?
I would have to say I planted my foot down and accepted that I liked girls in high school. I knew I liked girls before high school but going through high school having very close relationships with some of my buds who seem more effeminate made me think there were more to our platonic was more, me letting in the leaven to pollute my whole loaf, because the parson of which I shared such a strong bond with had very feminine tendencies or appearances.

Or are you going to duck these simple questions also ?
I don’t duck questions because I don’t need to, you must be thinking of those other people who attack the question or the comment because they have no answers.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central May I ask if you’ve ever discussed the issue of ‘choice’ with an actual gay or lesbian?
Sometimes I think it may take one person from each side, locked in a room with each other, to solve some of these major conflicts.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL May I ask if you’ve ever discussed the issue of ‘choice’ with an actual gay or lesbian?
Yes.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Huh, I have never heard anyone I know say it was a choice, I assume that’s what you were told?

Some were even married in hetero relationships before they were able to face the reality that they weren’t straight.

Skaggfacemutt's avatar

Just out of curiosity, do you also think that transgender people were “hard wired” to want to be the opposite sex? That doesn’t even make any sense.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL Huh, I have never heard anyone I know say it was a choice, I assume that’s what you were told?
I have not known or spoken to any gay children so this response is limited to teens on up, some I have been told by a few that they just found people with females easier, (however they meant that). Some others said as some here, that they were gay when they knew themselves. Some switch back and forth depending on their attraction to the person gender/sex notwithstanding. Some tried, as your friends did, to play it straight, only to admit they were gay and that is why their relationships failed. Others, yet again, due to failed relationships or lack thereof were told that it was because they were gay and should be seeking the same sex. Off that leaven they believed they were gay and tried to have gay relationships only to realize they were not gay; the reverse of your friends. I am not bashful to ask them how they got to where they got, because I have a genuine curiosity.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You know, it’s your personal business to believe how you want to believe, I’m not faulting you for that, if you’ve asked around and tried to learn what you could.

The only thing that bothers me is that it seems you don’t respect their right to be who they are. If you want people to accept your Christianity, why can’t you accept a gay person’s right to be gay? Or can you and I’m misreading you?

May I ask your enthicity, or what country you’re from originally?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL The only thing that bothers me is that it seems you don’t respect their right to be who they are. If you want people to accept your Christianity, why can’t you accept a gay person’s right to be gay? Or can you and I’m misreading you?
Greatly misreading me. You may have missed it when I say I do not dislike gay people, I have had great gay friends, I care and pray for gay people as much or more than straight people. However, I can love gays (as fellow people, neighbors, and friends) but not their way of living. Would I say toss them all in jail, wipe them out or anything like that? No, I would not. Secularly they can do what they wish as well as anyone else in their immorality. From a stand point of faith I have said, if you remember, what form of physical intimacy I am down with, and it is found squarely in the Word. By the Word they are no worse or better than fornicators, or adulterers.

dxs's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Are they worse than “straight” people?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Okay. I have ‘great friends’ I disagree with on some lifestyle issues, too, so I do understand that part.

I think we understand each other since we’ve PM’d about this subject so many times now. You are entitled to your opinion of course, I think sometimes it just sounds a little judgemental and that’s what throws me off sometimes. Peace.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther