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

[ManiacEskimo]

No I wouldn't change it and I don't see the problem. Nor is it caused entirely by genes.

 

[DannyBoy451]

being gay is still a disability.

Being homosexual does not mean that a person is physically unable to have children; surrogacy and pregnancy through sperm donorship are common.

This is like asking if you know your son is going to have no legs

That analogy fails on every possibly level.

Homosexuality is not the way we are meant to be

Who says we were meant to be any way?

 

[WhiteTiger225]

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

So if genes is a problem.. then we should remove your genes that allow you to form limbs so you cannot do illegal things like shoot people, or run from the police.

Gay is sometimes a choice, sometimes psychological, sometimes you are just born that way.

I look down on ANYONE who is American and voted any of the options to change their babies orientation. It is NOT Obama that will bring about a communism, socialism, or dictatorsship to America, but people like I mentioned, whom are glad to predefine a child's choice without giving them the chance later on to choose.

 

[Dancingman]

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

It's a philosophical question, it does not need nitpicking.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

being gay is still a disability.

Being homosexual does not mean that a person is physically unable to have children; surrogacy and pregnancy through sperm donorship are common.

This is like asking if you know your son is going to have no legs

That analogy fails on every possibly level.

Homosexuality is not the way we are meant to be

Who says we were meant to be any way?

I love people like him...

Homosexuality is not natural!

Then 90% of the animal kingdom is evil? Seeing as male dogs will dominate eachother by fucking eachother, so will lions, and other pack animals. Then you look at chimps who masturbate infront of children and their own young, or how they perform autofelatio, or even acts of homosexuality. Face it people, gayness is not a human only phenomena.

 

[seidlet]

I am a genetics major, and if I have a child I already want to modify the crap out of it.

Gay or straight? How passe`. You didn't even include bi-sexual or asexual options. For shame.

How very insightful, yes, I would prefer my child to be asexual.

EDIT: and seriously people, please stop getting all up in arms over genetic engineering. You are only hurting our species and hindering societal progress by opposing it. Give me one reason why it is bad, and I would be perfectly willing to debate this with you over PM, so long as you leave the movie GATTACA out of it, since that movie is just that: a movie.

because our ethical progress has not caught up to our technological progress. the fact that we're even having this debate says that we are NOT ready for genetic engineering.

 

[chronobreak]

we can totally get into the argument of more/less gay. gender identity isn't binary, neither is sexual preference.

I am of the camp that believes if you are born a man you are a man for life, at least at this stage of scientific progress. Hell, if you are born both, you're both! But that's just me, and I don't care what gender people want to turn themselves into, really, just like I don't care what someone's sexual orientation is.

What I'm saying is, while we are on the topic of discrimination and such, as this thread has tunred into, let's say I'm someone who has chosen to be gay. I only have sex with male partners, and it actually isn't too bad, and I enjoy it, and would never go back to a female. Never had any tendencies before I tried it. As far as I'm concerned, this would make me gay, or at least everyone would consider me to be gay.

If somebody discrimninated against me because I was "less gay", I would take their ass to court. Just like how black people may exclude people of their own skin colour because their skin is darker or lighter, because that happens all the time. I don't think this would happen as much with the "gay community", however, because they have made it their mission seemingly to make sure they show love and open-ness to all, and it would be hypocritical of them to discriminate against someone who chooses their lifestyle over someone that was born with that preference.

That being said, I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone that they can't choose to be gay. Sure, you can think what you want about the person, but in the end they'd have to go through all the same BS a gay-from-birth person would in their life, the same discrimination and hateful comments, and I'm sure the gay community would accept that person for that.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

I am a genetics major, and if I have a child I already want to modify the crap out of it.

Gay or straight? How passe`. You didn't even include bi-sexual or asexual options. For shame.

How very insightful, yes, I would prefer my child to be asexual.

EDIT: and seriously people, please stop getting all up in arms over genetic engineering. You are only hurting our species and hindering societal progress by opposing it. Give me one reason why it is bad, and I would be perfectly willing to debate this with you over PM, so long as you leave the movie GATTACA out of it, since that movie is just that: a movie.

It's bad because it's like.. radioactive and stuff.. I mean.. we don't know the longterm effects, and instead of feeding billions who can't be picky like us middle class-elitists in green peace we should keep it from those hungry people so we don't accidentally harm them!

 

[RavingPenguin]

Sexuality isn't something in your genes. If that was the case the so called "homosexual" gene would've died out ages ago.

And no, I wouldn't change it.

Wow, that is the most logical argument against genetic homosexuality that I have ever heard. Go you!

 

[WhiteTiger225]

I am a genetics major, and if I have a child I already want to modify the crap out of it.

Gay or straight? How passe`. You didn't even include bi-sexual or asexual options. For shame.

How very insightful, yes, I would prefer my child to be asexual.

EDIT: and seriously people, please stop getting all up in arms over genetic engineering. You are only hurting our species and hindering societal progress by opposing it. Give me one reason why it is bad, and I would be perfectly willing to debate this with you over PM, so long as you leave the movie GATTACA out of it, since that movie is just that: a movie.

because our ethical progress has not caught up to our technological progress. the fact that we're even having this debate says that we are NOT ready for genetic engineering.

Actually if anything, this increases demand for it. If we could genetically engineer the need for the human mind to place people in metaphorical folders whne storing data in their brains out of the human genetic code, then the world would be an awesome place! No more discrimination because we would no longer folder people as objects such as "Black, white, gay, straight, lesbian" and instead have to view them as human beings, fellows of our race.. well... a Bi Man can dream..

 

[nick_knack]

Ignoring the impossibility of genetic sexual determination....

One of my reasons for hypothetically having kids, is to leave a genetic legacy. I cannot do that with a gay baby. Also a straight kid would be easier to relate to.

Also, I imagine it is easier to get by in life as a straight person, as opposed to dealing with hardship and discrimination like school is always telling me about.

Nothing wrong with gays though.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Sexuality isn't something in your genes. If that was the case the so called "homosexual" gene would've died out ages ago.

And no, I wouldn't change it.

Wow, that is the most logical argument against genetic homosexuality that I have ever heard. Go you!

I pray that was sarcasm XD

 

[erythro]

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

You'd have half of your genetic code in common, you moron.

And the notion of a 'gay gene' is so far off the mark it's like bringing an actual bull to a darts game - you're fundamentally missing the point and the notion is pretty dangerous.

There has been some suggestion of genetic factors, yes, but they are simply not consistent enough. There are also significant variables for chemicals present in utero, the production of various hormones after (and during) puberty (which is controlled by genetic and non-genetic factors), as well as an entire school of thought based not on biochemistry but sociology and conditioning. Plus the definition of 'gay' is about self-identification, and becomes very convoluted when you take into account that many of the factors that are believed to effect sexual orientation also effect sexuality (i.e. gender). Many statisticians have begun using the notion of "men who have sex with men" and "women who have sex with women" because it is altogether more precise. Add to that chromosomal differences like Klinefelter's syndrome...

Sexual orientation is never going to be a simple, clear cut genetic issue. Even with relatively simple traits - i.e. eye colour - simply having the genotype for brown eyes will not necessarily lead to you getting them (I won't describe the broader mechanism here so as to stay on topic but you should be able to find it on google). And sexual orientation is a hellufa lot more complicated than eye colour.

What the original poster was actual asking, I think, is nothing to do with genes or doctors at all, more "if you could influence your child's sexual orientation, would you, and in what way?". It should come as no surprise that a large number of heterosexual people say they would want their children to be heterosexual, what with the massive amount of anecdotal evidence of gay people who have been ostracised by one or more parent because of their sexuality... I think a lot of heterosexual parents would consider themselves to have failed in their role if their child came out as gay, which is a very sad thought.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

One of my reasons for hypothetically having kids, is to leave a genetic legacy. I cannot do that with a gay baby. Also a straight kid would be easier to relate to.

Also, I imagine it is easier to get by in life as a straight person, as opposed to dealing with hardship and discrimination like school is always telling me about.

Nothing wrong with gays though.

Problem is though... It may come down too the good ol' human race.

IE genetically altered people will become the new minority to pick on.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

I don't know what i am so my offspring will have that fun dilema also.

Yes i realize that after you get married to a straight women that it is not a good time to question your sexuality.

I choose the first one for the record because bi wasn't on there and even if it was i don't know if thats where i belong.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

As a gay, I can say that I was spawned from a vat of toxic waste, therefore I am not natural. I was Not Meant To Be.

 

[RavingPenguin]

Sexuality isn't something in your genes. If that was the case the so called "homosexual" gene would've died out ages ago.

And no, I wouldn't change it.

Wow, that is the most logical argument against genetic homosexuality that I have ever heard. Go you!

I pray that was sarcasm XD

Why? It makes sense. If a man is gay he's going to find another gay man. Those two men are then unable (or rather choosing not) to pass on their genes. Even if it was a recessive gene from both parents then their child would not pass on their genes. Thus the gene dies out due to not being passed.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

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

You'd have half of your genetic code in common, you moron.

And the notion of a 'gay gene' is so far off the mark it's like bringing an actual bull to a darts game - you're fundamentally missing the point and the notion is pretty dangerous.

There has been some suggestion of genetic factors, yes, but they are simply not consistent enough. There are also significant variables for chemicals present in utero, the production of various hormones after (and during) puberty (which is controlled by genetic and non-genetic factors), as well as an entire school of thought based not on biochemistry but sociology and conditioning. Plus the definition of 'gay' is about self-identification, and becomes very convoluted when you take into account that many of the factors that are believed to effect sexual orientation also effect sexuality (i.e. gender). Many statisticians have begun using the notion of "men who have sex with men" and "women who have sex with women" because it is altogether more precise. Add to that chromosomal differences like Klinefelter's syndrome...

Sexual orientation is never going to be a simple, clear cut genetic issue. Even with relatively simple traits - i.e. eye colour - simply having the genotype for brown eyes will not necessarily lead to you getting them (I won't describe the broader mechanism here so as to stay on topic but you should be able to find it on google). And sexual orientation is a hellufa lot more complicated than eye colour.

What the original poster was actual asking, I think, is nothing to do with genes or doctors at all, more "if you could influence your child's sexual orientation, would you, and in what way?". It should come as no surprise that a large number of heterosexual people say they would want their children to be heterosexual, what with the massive amount of anecdotal evidence of gay people who have been ostracised by one or more parent because of their sexuality... I think a lot of heterosexual parents would consider themselves to have failed in their role if their child came out as gay, which is a very sad thought.

You forgot the worst part of his argument... there are TONNES of gay men who like football, are muscular, and could cave in chuck norris' skull with a waggle of their hips. Not to mention I know plenty of gay gamers, a gay police officer, gay metalheads, gay classic rock lovers...

And if Freddy Mercury doesn't fall under the catergory of manly.. then I better get my frilly pink tutu now..

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Sexuality isn't something in your genes. If that was the case the so called "homosexual" gene would've died out ages ago.

And no, I wouldn't change it.

Wow, that is the most logical argument against genetic homosexuality that I have ever heard. Go you!

I pray that was sarcasm XD

Why? It makes sense. If a man is gay he's going to find another gay man. Those two men are then unable (or rather choosing not) to pass on their genes. Even if it was a recessive gene from both parents then their child would not pass on their genes. Thus the gene dies out due to not being passed.

Artificial insemination.

Not to mention there are plenty of gay men out there that are high up in the world who take on a wife and have kids to cover up the fact they are gay.

So that argument has failed harder then the hindenburg.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I would have an unaltered baby. Throw it into a lake, if it sinks, it would have been worth keeping, and I would mourn the loss. Because, whether or not it is a witch is far more important.