General Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Technology and the world of tomorrow, genetic modifications are as common as treating tonsils, would parent allow their child to be born gay if screening showed it?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26783points) August 21st, 2016

If genetic alterations became as easy and common as treating tonsils, etc. and screening showed the child of potential parents that their son/daughter was going to be born gay, if they could cover the fix under their insurance policy or out of pocket, would more or less allow their child to be born gay anyhow? If the parents were gay would they be more incline to leave things as they would turn out, or would some of those even opt to genetically adjust their child to live out the traits their physical body they will be born in?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

62 Answers

PriceisRightx26's avatar

All that I care about is if the child is healthy.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

You understand that is not how it works. Or maybe you don’t ? ?

I’m with @PriceisRightx26 – - Healthy is most important.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ You understand that is not how it works.
Genetic engineering and gene modification, I believe, has not even scratched the surface yet. What it can do or can be done with it 50, 75, or 100 years from now might never make the radar today. Go back 40 years and tell them you can operate on a child before it was born and they would have thought that science fiction.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

What’s wrong with being gay? Hopefully it could be my child’s choice when they are 18. Providing that gene therapy can be used as an adult it would be his/her choice.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ What’s wrong with being gay?
That would be irrelevant, if some parents know they were to have a son, and they expect someday to have grandchildren that shared family DNA and was birthed naturally, the possibility drops into the cellar if he were able to be screened and found to be gay, so to avoid that, choose to make it more sure he would be a normal hetero male.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central ”...if they could cover the fix… What is to be fixed? Nothing is broken except in your anti-LGBTQ belief system.

…they expect someday to have grandchildren that shared family DNA and was birthed naturally,... Are you aware that gay men can father children, and that lesbian women can get pregnant ? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with fertility.

I know three children that have the same lesbian birth mother and the same other mother who she is married to, and they were sired by the same gay man and the children view both the father and the man he is married to as fathers. And the kids have 8 grandparents, and the annual family picnic is so much fun that all the kids on the street asked their parents if they can go too.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@zenvelo What is to be fixed? Nothing is broken except in your anti-LGBTQ belief system.
So, if a person were born with 7 digits on each hand and feet, or if their hands had webbing in between the fingers but was otherwise functional that would be as it was supposed to be and if someone wanted to correct it to make it normal they would be wrong? What about a cleft pallet?

Are you aware that gay men can father children, and that lesbian women can get pregnant ? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with fertility.
Did I say they could not? However, getting pregnant by a test tube is not exactly natural is it?

I know three children that have the same lesbian birth mother and the same other mother who she is married to, and they were sired by the same gay man and the children view both the father and the man he is married to as fathers
One man has no genetic ties to any of the children, and the children themselves are not full siblings as they are half siblings, and if that works for them, oh well, but not every one cares for having that weak of a genetic tie, but I guess they would be wrong for wanting their grandchildren for having direct genetic makeup of both parents who are together and not providing material because they cannot do it naturally in the coupling they choose.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Why just gays? Maybe you want to check in case the kid is a Jew or Mexican, too.

While you’re being a bigot, you need to be more thorough.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay Maybe you want to check in case the kid is a Jew or Mexican, too.
I do not know many Hispanic people who do not want to have a Hispanic child, never met any Jewish people either who wanted to have a child other than Jewish…..

While you’re being a bigot, you need to be more thorough.
Because I am not kissing the ass of the LGTB contingent, or lauding them the most highest praise I am a bigot….wow, oh, wow, heaven forbid to entertain the notion that there might be, just might be someone who wants a straight child because they are straight, and would assure themselves of such if it were possible, I guess free will doesn’t apply to parenting.

Soubresaut's avatar

Just throwing this out there—if currently ordinary method of conception like IVF really aren’t enough for parents in want of grandchildren…

If we’ve reached the point where we can genetically modify a person’s sexual orientation, not to mention modify it with that level of precision—since everything we know right now indicates that sexual orientation is a complex part of identity, and the genetic link will probably be just as complex if not more so, and perhaps tied in with other aspects of the person’s makeup if it’s “changeable” at all—if that’s the case, we’re probably at a point where we can fertilize an egg with another egg, or turn an x-chromosome sperm into an egg to be fertilized by another sperm, or whatever we would call the various packages of genetic code at that point… and actually, I’m pretty sure that if we couldn’t already do this sort of egg-egg sperm-sperm thing with CRISPR and our current knowledge of biology, we’re at least closer to this sort of genetic manipulation than we are to making specific modifications of a person’s basic identity….

Anyway, to make a rambling point shorter: If we’re at a point of identity-modifying genetic control, it will probably be quite simple (and probably easier) for same-sex couples to just have children that are a biological combination of the couple.

And if it’s really the case that parents are only wanting children who will produce grandchildren, they’d better cover all their bases. They’d better make sure their child is genetically disposed to fertility. And they’d better make sure their child has a strong parental instinct, and that that instinct will turn itself into wanting children (because not everyone does, even people who really like children). And they’d better make sure their child doesn’t have too much of a humanitarian spirit, or else the child might decide to adopt a child instead, and then the child would have no biological relation! (And while we’re at it, they’d better make sure their child will not want to be involved in a blended family, because then only some of their grandchildren if any would have biological ties.)

Parents should not be having children because they want grandchildren, and more than that, biological grandchildren. That’s not a good reason for wanting a child, it’s not a good enough reason to tamper with a child’s identity, and it’s not an honest or valid reason for wanting to control the child’s sexual orientation.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central first of all, in the family I described, all three children are full siblings of each other. They have been adopted by the other two non genetic parents. The children were not created in a test tube. You really need to know how fertilization can work.

Secondly, what does a physical deformity like seven webbed fingers or a cleft palate have to do with sexual orientation? Being gay is not a physical deformity.

And, it has nothing to do with ” kissing the ass of the LGTB contingent”. You are a rank bigot against non heteronormative people. And that is the worst kind of parenting, not accepting a child for what it is.

Your line of questioning leads to an alternative response that I thought you were against. Genetic engineering is not fixing a fetus before birth, it is mixing DNA prior to or in the zygote stage. If you find your fetal child is gay, is that grounds for aborting it? Would you kill a fetus because it has a predilection for being gay?

kritiper's avatar

I would probably not allow it, if I could and it was not a major cost issue. If the child should go that way after being born it would be different.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Soubresaut And if it’s really the case that parents are only wanting children who will produce grandchildren, they’d better cover all their bases.
I would not get stuck on that, it was just an example, the reasons why a straight couple would want straight children could be many, I certainly don’t know them all.

Parents should not be having children because they want grandchildren, and more than that, biological grandchildren. That’s not a good reason for wanting a child,…]
Even if that was the reason, there would still be a child that is alive, people seem to be OK for just about any reason to kill the child off in the womb when it is unwanted and often the reason or worse than just to have grandkids.

[… it’s not a good enough reason to tamper with a child’s identity, and it’s not an honest or valid reason for wanting to control the child’s sexual orientation.
It might be other reason, who knows, again, there is a live child at the end. If that is what it takes for parents to have a live child at the end they are happy with, should they not be afforded the same courtesy as a woman wanting a dead child in the end she never wanted?

@zenvelo […first of all, in the family I described, all three children are full siblings of each other. They have been adopted by the other two non genetic parents.
Now I see it clearer, but that means the children carry none of the parent’s bloodline, which takes it completely out of the spectrum of this question.

Secondly, what does a physical deformity like seven webbed fingers or a cleft palate have to do with sexual orientation? Being gay is not a physical deformity.
Let’s get to the root, if a person is born with sexual parts that are supposed to go with the sexual parts of the other side of the species, even by plain logic of nature, which is how it should go. If one can simply have them and not use them as nature intended and that is normal, then anything nature produced in a human is normal. Just because a cleft pallet would not be ”normal” to those who don’t have one, to those who did, it would then have to be ”normal” for them, same as those with extra digits, etc. If a person with working feet decides to walk everywhere on his/her hands, would you call them normal, or would you say not using their hands and feet as nature created them to be used?

You are a rank bigot against non heteronormative people.
And if you have the right to float that blatant lie about as if it were truth and it be OK, then if I put out there I believed you and some others were ranked debased, wicked anti-Christ to the Catholic Church as well as numerous US congregations, it is just as OK and you and others cannot whine about being disrespected.

Genetic engineering is not fixing a fetus before birth, it is mixing DNA prior to or in the zygote stage.
You are thinking of here and now, I am thinking of what might be discovered or plausible in the future. Once upon a time having a mechanical heart that was reliable and allowed a person to live a full normal life was science fiction, now it is pretty old hat. What will come of genetic modification in the long run, who can tell, they might be able to treat, or modify genes long after a person is born with some method today that is unknown same as microwaves were unknown to those coming across in covered wagons swiping land from the Native Americans.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I think this question has very real roots in future reality. If homosexuality is a trait or has an identified gene ,most parents would opt for a hetero child.

I like what @kritiper said though. If it’s a choice they make,fine with me. I don’t think and most would agree that homosexuality is a choice. It’s an anomaly in the gene pool. If I had the choice, I would prefer my child have as few anomalies as possible. It’s the same reason most look for a good mate. Offspring with the best chance to flourish and reproduce. Nothing evil or homophobic about it to me.

To clarify, I have NO problems with the gay community or their lifestyles.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

I don’t think and most would agree that homosexuality is a choice. It’s an anomaly in the gene pool.
In THIS PLACE, you will never get an agreement of either, that is a choice or it is an anomaly and that is why it is not a choice.

canidmajor's avatar

The way this Q is worded, you seem to be asking for likely statistical probabilities. You use the third person, so, of course, without a survey round-up, we are ill equipped to answer. I guess you could Google it to try and find out if such surveys have been done, and what the results were.
If you want our opinions on the subject, why? This ^ ^ ^ last post of yours indicates that you’re already sure of the outcome.

LostInParadise's avatar

Certainly homophobic parents would be likely to keep their children from being gay.
What if it was shown, as some claim, that being homosexual correlated positively with artistic talent? Would that make a difference? Would cutting down on the number of homosexuals result in fewer artists? As the article points out, being an artist is not a simple matter of genetic expression. Those who find themselves, for one reason or other, as being apart from society tend to be more artistic. If we hone in on a narrow set of genetic traits, we may end up creating a dull homogeneous population pool.

I find the whole idea of genetic engineering to be scary. Here is an article by Harvard philosophy professor Michael Sandel making another case against it.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central ”...Now I see it clearer, but that means the children carry none of the parent’s bloodline, which takes it completely out of the spectrum of this question.”

How many times do I have to tell you, they are the biological sons and daughter of the same mother and father, and both the birth mother and the birth father are jointly raising the children along with their respective spouses. Quit changing the terms of your question to fit your prejudice.

I am telling the truth to your bigotry, and I am supported by the Catholic Church. Such kids, gay, straight, upside down or neutral, are all God’s Children. You, as a supposed “believer”, might consider that, and quit being so damn condemning of people with different sexual orientations.

cazzie's avatar

HaHaha. ... ‘I guess free will doesn’t apply to parenting’. ~ Spoken like a non-parent. A trolling non parent.

hornet's avatar

I actually had a discussion like this with a homosexual couple. They said that they sometimes hope that their children are hetero because they know how hard it is to be homosexual and there is a part of them that wants a better life for their kids.

I think that given the hypothesized technology there would be parents who would make modifications to their children just so that they won’t be picked on by others.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There would be BIG controversy in the deaf community over such matters as engineering people to eliminate hearing impairments. And the gay community will probably pitch a fit with the notion that a kid is better off straight. Their argument that a kid shouldn’t be better off straight is compelling and to my mind valid, but that doesn’t change the realities on the ground. But we shouldn’t forget that as with the deaf, we’re talking about the systematic elimination of a culture.

Coloma's avatar

Choosing to abort a fetus that is identified as homosexual is not different than choosing to abort a fetus because it doesn’t have the blue eyes you had hoped for. The original question aside that I cannot answer any better that @zenvelo has already answered it, but….this is one of my big bones of contention with bigoted religious types. IF your, oh so loving and forgiving “God” was really so opposed to homosexuality he/she it would never have created a human with a genetic predisposition to being gay in the first place.

The whole religious premise is that being gay is a choice that goes against the will of “God” rather than a genetic predisposition.
Such lunacy is beyond my scope of understanding.

It blows my mind that some, in this day and age, still view homosexuality as an aberrant CHOICE inspite of all the evidence to the contrary.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Is it a choice to be bisexual? Or am I too far off topic?

cazzie's avatar

Yes, in some countries they still throw fits if a mix ‘race’couple are depicted in an advert. We should just give in to ignorant bigotry and wipe out anything anyone may find offensive or unappealing. ~¡

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@canidmajor*The way this Q is worded, you seem to be asking for likely statistical probabilities.*
Most of the questions asked here have a wide range of statistical outcomes if they can even be answered, and there are plenty of questions asked which no one can answer. One can use their life experience to extrapolate a plausible answer, if one asked ”which would a 5 year old choose for dinner if given the choice of ice cream or some vegetable?” One might never know the exact answer but it is not rocket science to fathom the more plausible answer.

If you want our opinions on the subject, why?
As with most or many questions here, it was just to check a barometer of what people thought, but here if you ask anything other than touting LGBT issues as the greatest thing since sliced bread, the defenses go up, opinions pertaining to the question never gets made, and people waste time trying to defend something that was not under attack. I do not know what the world must have done to have some of the LGBT contingent walking around with Jupiter-sized chips on their shoulders.

This ^ ^ ^ last post of yours indicates that you’re already sure of the outcome.
As with anything or anyone, I can only use my experiences to form any outcome. The people here in this area is not the whole US, it might be, just might be, different than what those in the South think or those in Maine, however, I guess it is some offense to ask.

@zenvelo Certainly homophobic parents would be likely to keep their children from being gay.
So if both parents were gay and somehow decided to have their child screened and discovered he/she was going to be a regular old heterosexual human and had the ability to genetically make it gay, they would be heterophobic parents? By your criteria, that would be their default position.

@zenvelo I am telling the truth to your bigotry,…]
Nope, a lie. If it were true then I can say you were a wicked, debase anti-Christ, and that would be just as real as the lie you float out there.

@cazzie Spoken like a non-parent.
If one can only speak on what they experienced, that cuts out most people here form answering or commenting on ANY QUESTION. Guess you best tell those people to quit answering dream questions about dreams they never had….oh, you forgot to tell them that, huh?

@hornet I actually had a discussion like this with a homosexual couple. They said that they sometimes hope that their children are hetero because they know how hard it is to be homosexual and there is a part of them that wants a better life for their kids.
What? Bu what is spoken here, those would be gay parents that were homophobic, definitely an abnormality of sorts. ~~ To think a child cannot have a fully stellar life being gay, is homophobic and has so truth in it, from what I am told. Gay kids NEVER get picked on and such. ~~

I can relate, but I can see the world through a real lens and not have my head in the sand or be on ”mushroom status”; kept in the dark and fed a healthy amount of s**t.

@stanleybmanly And the gay community will probably pitch a fit with the notion that a kid is better off straight. Their argument that a kid shouldn’t be better off straight is compelling and to my mind valid, but that doesn’t change the realities on the ground.
Holy smokes Bullwinkle, someone who actually dropped a nugget of truth; I even had to Atta boy that.

@Coloma IF your, oh so loving and forgiving “God” was really so opposed to homosexuality he/she it would never have created a human with a genetic predisposition to being gay in the first place.
Post that in a question thread and you would get an answer you would not accept or you can ask one of the experts from above who know so little that compared to the parenting I supposedly don’t know, and equals a feather hitting a pillow, their knowledge would be less than vapor hitting something less than vapor.

canidmajor's avatar

You didn’t answer my queries, you just “blah blah blah Gingered” your same old rhetoric. Why do you bother to ask these things here if you already know everything about how they will be answered and why they are answered that way? Really, @Hypocrisy_Central, you are just just recycling your same old same old. I am sorry (really, I am) to have wasted your time and mine by. Trying to address the question as written.

Coloma's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central There is no possible answer to my question that I would find acceptable that relates to your mythical god delusions. Homosexuality is not a choice of free will, period, end of story. You are unable to accept facts and yep, I am unable to accept fiction.
@canidmajor That’s okay, I too fell into the hole in this sidewalk again myself. It happens, next time I WILL go around it.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@canidmajor You didn’t answer my queries,…]
I did, you just did not look at it.

canidmajor's avatar

I did look. You just parroted yourself.
Never mind. I tried to discern your intent. Silly me. I really do know better. <sigh>

Soubresaut's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central—okay on the example. It just hit a nerve for me for personal reasons and I reacted… I won’t get into the reasons, they’re not really relevant. Sorry.

But I do think the issue of abortion is different from the issue of designer babies. When a woman doesn’t want a child, finds herself pregnant, and has an abortion, she is acting on her right to bodily autonomy, her right to not have to give up the right to her body for the sake of another human being to whom she has promised nothing. It’s more or less the same principle that says I can walk around with two functioning kidneys and not be morally obligated to give one up to a stranger, even if it would save the stranger’s life, even if I could live without a kidney. It’s right to bodily autonomy; it has little to nothing to do with the other subject. (And yes, it would be nice for me to give up my kidney, but I am not morally obligated to do so; it would be nice for me to carry an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy to term, but I am not morally obligated to do so.)

But when we get into the issue of designer babies, now we’re talking about the baby’s right to bodily autonomy. Genetic therapy that addresses specific health issues—a degenerative genetic disorder, a congenital heart condition, etc.—seems morally okay. We make equivalent decisions when we try to save the life of someone who is unconscious: we assume they’d want us to save their life. Then there are some cases that are more murky, and less clear—I know that certain kinds of disability are often brought up in this category, but I won’t get into that whole discussion right now….

Sexual orientation is not a health issue, and it is not even one of the murky cases. It is just another dimension of human identity, and like too many dimensions, some of its expressions have been subject to prejudice… I don’t think people have the right to make that sort of a call for their child, but maybe I’m conservative in this issue.

@MrGrimm888—there’s nothing inherently wrong with anomalies. They’re just idiosyncrasies, differences, the natural variety of a healthy genetic pool. Some anomalies are detrimental to the individual who possesses them, and I would agree that I would want a child of mine to have as few detrimental anomalies as possible. But for the health of the child and the health of the species, anomalies more generally are quite a good thing.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@canidmajor If you want our opinions on the subject, why?
Let me simplify it do the minimum; all the answers to the question is not among those I know, so, to have a possible different perspective, I ask some things here; we up to speed now?

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Soubresaut. I just feel like life is hard enough if you’re ‘normal. ’ I would hope my child would not have to deal with the homophobic behavior of some in this world. Yes I’m aware of the benefits of anomalies to evolution.

To whom it may concern,

Did I miss something in the thread? I see many saying that Hypocrisy Central thinks being gay is a choice. I didn’t see anything in this thread regarding that. And I dont understand weather you choose to be gay as relevant to the question.

Could we not all just pretend that HC’s views from other threads are irrelevant to the current thread? I understand why flutherites would be passionate about the subject, but all the constant ‘attacking’ of HC’s beliefs makes it hard for me to enjoy the debate. Some of his questions are intriguing to me. I would agree that the way they are phrased sometimes gives me the impression that there are religious overtones, but he’s a religious guy,as we all know. I’m sure most of my questions have an atheist flavor, because I’m an atheist.

If this question, or HC’s rhetoric offend you just leave. I was offended by what was said in the Pitt bull thread recently, so I said my piece and stopped following it.

I feel it relevant to mention that this question, and ones involving ‘designer babies,’ are very important to have. It is highly likely that in the future this may be a subject requiring new laws and subsequent voting for which laws.people support the most.
Why not begin breaching this subject matter now? I know it’s offensive to think about, but emotional topics usually provide the best threads.

I would wager most flutherites consider themselves HC’s superior mentally. If that’s the case then be grown ups and either contribute to the question or find another thread. Watching HC absorb round after round of attacks is of little entertainment value to me. I don’t agree with very much he has to say,which is why I like debating him. I hope he enjoys being such a lightning rod, or we will eventually be a debate forum full of like minded people. BORING….

zenvelo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 it isn’t some opinion of the OP’s that being gay is a choice that is at issue. It is his belief that being gay is something wrong that needs fixing.

MrGrimm888's avatar

But being gay IS an anomaly. Regardless of opinion of it being wrong or not. I’m of the opinion that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. But if I had the choice of not having my future child be gay I would choose not. It seems like a burden in this world. I think it’s illegal in several countries to be gay (yes,stupid,pathetic .) A parent just wants what’s best for their child. If wanting what’s best for my child is immoral, then I’m immoral I guess.

If I had a child naturally, who turned out gay,it wouldn’t bother me at all. I would just want the child to have a long happy life.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

I see many saying that Hypocrisy Central thinks being gay is a choice. I didn’t see anything in this thread regarding that. And I dont understand weather you choose to be gay as relevant to the question.
I am so happy someone can see through the haze. That is why I like when you are in the thread because I know there will be a sensible debate and not some emotional, Jupiter-sized chip on shoulder, accusative, soapboxing, filibuster move to deviate from the gist of the question or debunk it rather than engage it. The question was not about one’s choice to be gay, if it was a choice, or as you say, a genetic anomaly, it was about the choice of parents in a generic sense. Anyone else can ask this but because I am supposedly the misogynist homophobe ANY question I ask that is not kissing the ass of feminist or the LGTB contingent is taken as some latent sneak attack, ripe for debunking attempts.

If this question, or HC’s rhetoric offend you just leave.
If that’s the case then be grown ups and either contribute to the question or find another thread.
They cannot filibuster anything they are not a part of, it is almost as if they are scared someone would see the logic in it and believe and it is their duty to debunk it and show it false because they know better and have to save the lagoon less it catch on and leave them equally balanced or in a minority. With all their logic, IT IS the most logical thing to do, but they can’t seem to follow that logic as if the thread was to them as catnip is to felines.

Watching HC absorb round after round of attacks is of little entertainment value to me.
Believe you me, it serves no point of entertainment for me either, the irony is that people complained about the moderation of YA, AB, Sodahead, Askville, etc. when the moderation against attacks are no better here most of the time.

I hope he enjoys being such a lightning rod, or we will eventually be a debate forum full of like minded people. BORING…
It is the de facto position they want in spite of what their mouths say, because:

In the basement bars, in the backs of cars, be cool or be cast out.

I would give you 50 Atta boys if I were able.

cazzie's avatar

If I left a debate every time offense was given that wouldn’t make any of us much of a decent discussion partner, would it? Human diversity is NOT something that needs fixing. It requires preserving. We need more genetic diversity not less and THAT is scientific.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Human diversity is NOT something that needs fixing.
Diversity is one thing, but this is another. Diversity would be some having blue eyes while other had brown, some Blonde, others red heads, some tall, others short, etc. The diversity doesn’t deviate from the purpose. Even if you went by your random nature constructing things as they are, it is a useless variation that has no purpose. If this nature was to do things to assure the survival of the species, it has to be a mistake, because if it had a way to permeate the whole species, there would be none. Well, there might be since we, unlike animals, can use science and create children by way of petri dish, but it would not survive naturally as your nature intended it.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^^Well. Apparently gay people are part of the diversity of humanity. And it causes no harm. I suppose it would be bad for the species if ALL were gay. Because as HC points out, they wouldn’t be able to reproduce (without scientific interference anyway. ) But many things do things differently than nature intended. Whales once came from the sea,only to return. Now they have a useless pelvis. But provide invaluable function to the environment.

As I’ve learned on another thread though, there are ‘levels ’ of sexuality. Some homosexuals may reproduce because they are occasionally bedding the opposite sex.

I think what hasn’t been addressed here is more important.

What if you could make sure that the designer baby never even once had homosexual thoughts? That would be all the way straight, I guess, on this scale I’ve heard of. Maybe a 1? Now I’m getting less comfortable with the idea at all….That’s getting to the point where I also choose the person’s sports teams or religion.

I have to think about this question now…. I may decide I wouldn’t change whatever makes my child potentially gay after all…

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Some homosexuals may reproduce because they are occasionally bedding the opposite sex.
How could they be * bona fide* homosexual? That would be like a tiger deciding to be a vegetarian for a day and not eating meat. If you are for what sex you are for, having sex with another would not be fathomable. If offered the Lamborghini of my dreams and I had to so was have sex with the gay billionaire that would provide it, I would still be without a Lamborghini because there is no way I can ”switch off” my attraction for women or fake an attraction, for whatever gain, for another man……just can’t be done any more than I can say I will be unaffected by acid, so I can handle it without gloves.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I told you HC. I did another thread asking about homosexuality, and there is a scale. It’s not black or white. These people who identify as gay may consider themselves on different sides of the spectrum of homosexuality / sexuality. So this may be another source of some flutherites anger (this time.)

Atheists also (I learned ) identify on different ‘levels ’ of atheisim.

Some on the these ‘scales’ don’t like to be lumped into the categories of the others.

Makes sense to me.

I’m starting to feel like taking homosexuality completely away from a person ( prior to birth) is taking away their individuality. I’m not comfortable with that. I thought it would be for the child’s benefit. But my wheels are turning…...

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ I’m starting to feel like taking homosexuality completely away from a person ( prior to birth) is taking away their individuality.
If that identity is an abnormally over what normally should occur, how is that different than saying if they were born with a cleft palate, that was to be their identity, or if it were discovered before they were born by ultrasound and it could be repaired it should not because that is part of their identity. Were people normally designed to have cleft palates? Was humans designed to have sexual organs that would be useless for the survival of the species? In another thread it was said people who spend years in a coma would have muscle that waste away, do we have legs that were intended to do something or function, to move the body and support its weight? If someone was born with a mental dispensation to walk on their hands and not use their feet for what they were intended, would people simply say that was a diversity and do nothing but buy the person tons of gloves? If it could determine before birth that the baby was going to be a “hand walker” and not use their feet, and it could be corrected, should nothing be done because it would be part of who the child is?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^HC. I don’t personally put cleft pallet in the same category as homosexuality. I think one is more of a lifestyle, and the other is a physical deformity. I feel like that would equate homosexuality with being born with no arms.

More to your question about my response about individuality.

People view sexuality in many different types. It’s as much a part of their lives as how they dress, paint, dance, laugh or ‘express’ their identity. In other words, what makes us human. Not an ant colony. The more we would sculpt ourselves towards perfection, the further we would get from ‘who’ and ‘what’ we are.

My rather new opinion on this topic is that I would just be happy with a healthy child. All else I would prefer to leave to probability.

I just hope he/she doesn’t decide to be a NE Patriots fan. Now THAT is something I couldn’t tolerate.~

zenvelo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 You nailed it. @Hypocrisy_Central considers homosexuality a deformity. That is why he keeps comparing it to a cleft palate or polydactylism.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^No. I failed it. Because I also didn’t fully understand the lifestyle of homosexuals, or the separate types. For lack of a better way to say it,I saw homosexuality as an imperfection and a potential cross to bare. I have gotten a better view in some recent threads. As usual. The world is very grey.(in a good way.)

I would like to point out that from a cold ,scientific view, this is still a good and relevant question. It should be discussed often before reality makes it a real elephant in the room.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@zenvelo
@MrGrimm888 You nailed it. @Hypocrisy_Central considers homosexuality a deformity.
No I do not, for the sake of this question I filter it through nature in a world that is just the world and not as I do see it. Homosexuals are not deformed as they have all their limbs in the right places, presumably working in the same manner. However, having all the limbs, etc. in the right place but not using them as nature mandated or developed them, one cannot fold into normality, because it isn’t.

LostInParadise's avatar

not using them as nature mandated
Explain to me how nature issues mandates. Is there some manual that I am unaware of? Did all the species send representatives to write it? Or, as is more likely, are nature’s mandates what HC decides they should be?

There is great diversity in nature and within any given species. Homosexuality exists in all societies and throughout history. There may be something about homosexuality that provides an evolutionary advantage to the overall society. At the very least, there must be evolutionary reasons why it resists extinction. For example, I have seen it suggested that females who carry the male gene for homosexuality may be more fertile. People and their attractions are parts of nature and the range of their sexual attractions is therefore natural, mandated or not.

MrGrimm888's avatar

HC.
So. I’m just going to say it. Dicks can fit just fine in butt holes(doesn’t have to be a vagina .) I think butt holes are the same probably for both male and female (I’ve thankfully had female butt hole ). Kind of like the saying ‘a mouth’s a mouth.’ A saying from my younger days.

And I’ve done much research on lesbian sex,purely for science. ~

‘Sex’ is still anatomically achievable, with the exception of DNA exchange, between same sex coupling.

So anatomically speaking, the sex organs could have fluidity in use. They don’t necessarily have to be connected A to B. Regardless of my orientation, I know that sex is ‘possible ’ between the same sex .

If you walked on your hands your whole life,you’d be fine.

Just saying…...

Sneki95's avatar

if we come that far in medicine (is that medicine? Dunno.) what makes you think societal norms would remain the same?
Society changes all the time. We will probably have no problem with homosexuality.

But then again, having that much power in our hands, who knows what can come to people’s minds. If people get allowed to decide the looks, health, and personality, why not sexuality too? Add the fact that whatever happens, some people will always be stupid and bigoted, so who knows? Maybe there’ll even be ones who will make the child gay on purpose. If we can inbreed dogs to look and behave certain way, why not humans then? And yes, there are people who think that being gay is fancy and would probably be ones themselves if they could, just to hang out with the cool crowd. Stupidity is limitless. No offense to gays, I refer to the posers. (Also, adopt a mutt. Don’t support a greedy industry of creating sick degenerates just to please your stupid ass aesthe- wait a second….)

What scares me is living in such a world as a victim of genetic engineering. My parents dictated my looks, desires, likes and dislikes. Do I as a person even exist at that point, if everything that makes me me is actually crafted by someone else?

Anyways, if people are given a chance to do something stupid just because they can, they will do it and they will enjoy it, because morons are indestructible. So, if some don’t want gay kids, they probably would use a chance not to have them. Some others that want gay kids would use the chance to craft one. Having a child at that point won’t have any meaning anyways and would probably turn into some game similar to buying a pet.
That is why, in my opinion, the whole thing is bullshit. If I ever have a child, I will have a mutt child, even if it’s sick, ugly and whatever sexuality it is. I don’t care. At least I know it’s a unique living organism, created solely by itself, with no “help” by anyone. All I care is that I provide a good life of love for my ugly duckling. It will turn into a swan by itself.

and now that I read the comments…...you are advanced ignorant. Has it ever occurred to you that gay men and women, despite being gay, can still have sex with hetero partners and thus provide grandkids for their parents? Genitals of a gay person are not hetero genitals-phobic. Jesus…
There is absolutely nothing that stops a gay person to have children, unless s/he is infertile, which has nothing to do with sexuality.

LostInParadise's avatar

On the general topic of genetic engineering here is an article that discusses the dangers. What is advantageous to individuals may not be advantageous to society. There is reason for concern about giving us the tools to change human nature.

cazzie's avatar

What if getting rid of the gay gene meant more chance for having a psychopath? If we are screening for personality traits, why bring up gay and not psychotic?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@LostInParadise Explain to me how nature issues mandates. Is there some manual that I am unaware of?
Under the banner of science how can I when scientist have not even figured it out completely, the closest one can say is DNA.

There is great diversity in nature and within any given species.
But you cannot use ”diversity” and truncate anomaly under it. There are many trees, all different sizes, but they basically all have the same elements, leaves, wood trunks, roots, etc. if a tree grew stones instead of fruit, it would not be a diversity but be seen as an anomaly, same as if the tree had metal nail-like needles growing instead of leaves, or instead of producing oxygen it produced methane.

On the general topic of genetic engineering here is an article that discusses the dangers.
There are dangers to many things, but people decide of the benefits outweighs the negatives. If the article hold truth, one would not be able to stop their child from being gay, a psychopath, or anything else, because there would have to be a ”gay gene”, which for gays would be a double edged sword, they would have proof positive it was no choice involved, but if it were a gene, then one day it might be possible to remove, alter, or enhance, etc. which means of the gay contingent loses ground in future generations and the ability was there to wipe out the gene like small pox, gay people would die off.

On the general topic of genetic engineering here is an article that discusses the dangers.
There are dangers to many things, but people decide of the benefits outweighs the negatives. If the article hold truth, one would not be able to stop their child from being gay, a psychopath, or anything else, because there would have to be a ”gay gene”, which for gays would be a double edged sword, they would have proof positive it was no choice involved, but if it were a gene, then one day it might be possible to remove, alter, or enhance, etc. which means of the gay contingent loses ground in future generations and the ability was there to wipe out the gene like small pox, gay people would die off.

@MrGrimm888 Dicks can fit just fine in butt holes(doesn’t have to be a vagina
Yes, it can, and I can use a CD to flip eggs, but that is not what a CD was created for. What do you figure a vagina is for, to be a body coin purse so women can hide gold coins from thieves?

‘Sex’ is still anatomically achievable, with the exception of DNA exchange, between same sex coupling.
I never said it wasn’t, just misused. People have found ways to sexually couple with just about anything they can stick a phallus into or has a phallus to penetrate them, or get to lick or suck their sexual parts, but that doesn’t mean that was the intended use.

If you walked on your hands your whole life,you’d be fine.
Would I, would my legs truly develop as they should have not getting the exercise or going through the motions they were supposed to do? When those miners were trapped in Chili, Ecuador, or wherever, they had to have shades when they were rescued out of that mine to protect their eyes because being in near total darkness shifted the natural ability of their eyes to deal with sunlight.

@Sneki95 Add the fact that whatever happens, some people will always be stupid and bigoted, so who knows?
To be able to, and use methods of sexuality is no more or less bigoted than height or weight, as terminating a pregnancy is not selfish and heinous.

My parents dictated my looks, desires, likes and dislikes.
Likes and desires might be directed in part from one’s DNA but I do not think one can genetically be made to like ice cream or hate country music.

There is absolutely nothing that stops a gay person to have children, unless s/he is infertile, which has nothing to do with sexuality.
True, chances are it just would not be conceived naturally or as nature intended.

@cazzie What if getting rid of the gay gene meant more chance for having a psychopath?
They would discover that negative byproduct of it and alter whatever gene(s) that made a person that way when their gay gene was removed, or given an alteration.

Sneki95's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

“True, chances are it just would not be conceived naturally or as nature intended.”

Man/woman/whatever you are…...........what the hell are you talking about?

You want a child? Get a fertile partner of opposite sex and do the thing. Your sexuality has nothing to do with it. Nothing. It won’t affect your child. It won’t have any consequences that sex of two hetero people wouldn’t have. There is absolutely no difference and there is absolutely nothing unnatural there.
I don’t even know the way your logic goes at this point. “It wouldn’t be conceived naturally or as nature intended”. What kind of argument is that? Are you a troll?

LostInParadise's avatar

HC just does not get that nature has no intentions. Apparently he uses nature as a stand-in for God, who he stays away from mentioning, probably because so many jellies are atheists.

cookieman's avatar

Does “nature” intend anything? I always thought it just is.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Sneki95 You want a child? Get a fertile partner of opposite sex and do the thing.
That is the rub, isn’t it? That is the order nature put in place in a world that is just the world, even if by a fluke. That would take homosexuals outside the order they feel they are or were born in. They do not want to be with the opposite sex but the same sex where no natural pregnancy or birth is possible. You can see that, right?

@LostInParadise HC just does not get that nature has no intentions.
Eve n in a world that is just the world nature has an order, for ions of time the order for a species to reproduce and survive was what? I am sure if you did not have sex ed. in school, you have gleaned the process off the Internet or other sources.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I feel it relevant HC, to say hopefully nobody ‘learned ’ about sex,from sex ED. I left the course far more confused about it than before attending. I was 10 and it was a cluster fuck of different ways to try and scare everyone and only use scientific terms.

I couldn’t resist bringing up that ONE person WAS conceived unnaturally, Jesus ; )

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ I couldn’t resist bringing up that ONE person WAS conceived unnaturally, Jesus ; )
Not to some because to them He never existed, and to those who know He did, there was a very good reason He wasn’t, but that is another subject.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^^Indeed HC. I apologize for polluting your thread sir.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Indeed HC. I apologize for polluting your thread sir.
I find no mention of Jesus Christ ever pollution, however, the mere mention of him causes blood to boil in this place and the soapboxing about how He isn’t real comes out, and then it is either set the record straight or let a horde of lies fly. So, I keep in in their court and come from a dispensation they are comfortable with.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I know he wasn’t mentioned HC.It was a cheap shot,and I’m sorry… I knew you have thick skin, so I poked a little harder than I should have.

Peace n love.

Response moderated (Spam)
Response moderated

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