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

[Sven und EIN HUND]

It wouldn't matter at all really... Of course if they end up failing in school and becoming a janitor or a prostitute.... or both then I'd be pissed off regardless

 

[hazabaza1]

Straight and no change. It's only natural, why would I want to mess up life so much?
Unless of course the human race turned into some ultimate gay hating race who kills any gay person the exists. Then probably make them straight.

 

[theunreliablecritic]

i really wouldn`t care if the child is gay/lesbian/bisexual. he/she would still be my child, and i`ll be with them every step of the way.(unless they start having orgies, then i`ll be mad........or maybe not)

 

[Marcus Dubious]

Nice topic.

Seig heil, l can't wait to join Josef Mengele's eugenics waiting list......

 

[Xojins]

Change genes or abortion. I like to keep away from gays, not because i would be interested in they sex life, no no, I don't like how they talk, how they act and what they are talking about. Homosexuality is not something to be proud about (or ashamed), it's a defect. It happens, but if we can make it not happen, why wouldn't we?

There are many incorrect things about this statement, first being grammar.

Aside from that, you shouldn't talk about homosexuals, because you clearly don't know much about homosexuality. Enlighten me, what do they sound like? How do they act? What do gays talk about? I'd be willing to bet money that you think of all gays as a stereotype, since you "don't like how they talk, how they act and what they are talking about."
Homosexuality is a defect? People used to say black people were defective... now look at what the public opinion is.

I can't really say I'm surprised though, many people are uneducated about homosexuality.

 

[Julianking93]

No, I would not want to know my child's sexual orientation. It takes the fun out of the surprise!

 

[mad benji89]

wouldnt really bother me if i had a gay son or lesibian daughter aslong as they are healthy and happy with the way they are thats what really matters

 

[goldenheart323]

I've come to realize this debate suffers from false choices. There are 3 possible causes for homosexuality, not 2.
1. choose it
2. 100% genetically caused
3. genes don't absolutely dictate it, but can only make a person open to the external influences of his/her life that would cause them to subconsciously go one way or the other.

And just think of the passionate debates to be had if BOTH 2 & 3 can be causes. The result of this false choice makes clear communication much more difficult and the debate much harder than it needs to be. The debate of evolution vs. creationism suffers from this too. People lose track of the notion there are 2 kinds of evolution: Microevolution --little short brown haired dog evolves into bigger black haired dog, but it's still a dog; and Macroevolution --bacteria evolves into a slug, into a fish, yadda, yadda, yadda, into an ape, and an ape evolves into a human. That leads to people arguing about 2 different things that are both called evolution.

 

[goldenheart323]

...snip...

Edit: To all of the people who want their kids to be more likely to have kids, that's probably the worst possible moral choice you could make if you have any regard for the environment or, consequently, the lives of your children (who will need to live in that environment).

Sooo... having children is bad for both the environment and the child. Seriously? Your post was rational until that point. It must be very painful for you to live each day believing your mere existence is contributing to the death of this planet, and every breath you exhale is another nail in the coffin of global warming. If you really believe that, you must be so suicidal. I suggest you seek help.

 

[Eykal]

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.

Despite the fact that your sexual orientation is a choice, and not genetics-based, we'll play this game.

I would not touch the genetics of my child at all, regardless of the changes it could make. I say let nature take it's course.

You're both intolerant idiots. No, you don'tjust go and *choose* to like men or women. Are you straight? Did you one day decide "Hey, I want to be straight." No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.

"People can overcome genes."

Are. You. Serious. You know what, why don't you overcome your genes right now and grow a vagina. Go ahead. Do it. Right now. Or maybe you don't like your nose? Hell, just will it to change! Or maybe neurological. Feel your IQ's too low? Just think it higher! Aren't genetically predisposed to be extremely good at sports? No matter, will your metabolism higher! Need I go on?

Firstly, how is it that offerring a different opinion makes me intolerant? Intolerance implies that I am refusing to accept an opinion or other form of information; I disagree with your belief, but I tolerate it. Also, calling me an idiot is unnecessary; while you may have been primarily referring to the other poster, you also implied that I was an idiot which I feel was unfair.

Secondly, if sexual orientation is fixed dependant on genetic disposition, then how do you explain those who change their orientation over their lives? My aunt recently revealed that she had come out, but had been in heterosexual relationships before. I know more people who have gone from gay or bi to straight, or any combination in between. To me, that sounds an awful lot like making a choice. My roommate, who is in his third year of university study for Biology says that he (and by extension his whole program) have never heard of nor found a gene for sexual orientation.

A gene for sexual orientation other than heterosexual would be pointless, anyways; homosexual relationships could never reproduce, and therefore would be pointless in terms of fulfilling their biological imperative. As for your other examples of choosing to alter your genes, try and keep the hyperbolic speech out of this. Your examples of changing a physical feature, or enhancing your muscle tones strictly through belief is stupid. However, sexual orientation is not a physical trait, it is an emotional reaction; emotions can be changed.

"Despite the fact that your sexual orientation is a choice, and not genetics-based, we'll play this game." We'll play this game, offensive as well. Implying that everyone who thinks that it is genetics based or genetics influenced is wrong and/or an idiot. First of all, good that you wouldn't change it.

Your friend go to school in the American south? Or is the school heavily religious? Those schools tend to...blur the facts. People who change their orientation over their lives have been A.) Lying to fit in. B.) One of the exceptions to the rule C.) Something that I forgot. No, you are implying that sexuality is a choice. I did not wake up one day and say "hm, I think I'll stay straight." Just because it's not physical doesn't make it any less of a gene. IQ, for instance. IQ is not a physical trait, and cannot be simply willed into changing. Plenty of genes that you can't change, or, say, "overcome."

The leading scientific consensus is that it IS IN FACT GENE BASED. Try reading an unbiased report. Or, you know...one from real scientists.

And as to being influenced by surroundings, the vast majority grow up in...lets call them "heterosexual environments." Which, would lend about...no support to your argument. Hmm. It is genetics based, youd not simply decide that you feel like being gay, I'll just state that again.

And back to your roommate. His whole program, are they sequencing THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME? Somehow I doubt that.

As to people that get sex changes, they were born genetically...weird. They have say, the chemical balances of a female, and many thought patterns like them, but were born male. They do not simply decide to be female, something went crazy with their genes. Their. Genes.

In all likelihood (I haven't read extensively on the subject, I'm more into physics myself) it would be [is] a multitude of genes, not just a single gene.

Now, while you read some papers from unbiased sources, or hey, biased ones from both sides, I'll go tell people with a history of various types of cancer that all they have to do is decide that they don't want cancer, and they won't get it.

If you believe in the bible, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. If the bible says that being gay is a sin, no one should say that just because someone is gay, they will automaticly go to hell and so they should repent. That's forcing religion onto someone. Speaking opinion is entirely different. One can speaking their opinion, but say it in the way that doesn't seem like it's almost as if someone is tring to force something upon someone else. But I just wish that everyone could treat every person like a human being. Just because someone is gay, doesn't make them a bad person. Anyone could meet someone that is gay, realize that they are not like the stereotypes that a lot of people tend to picture them as and see that they are like everyone else. We are all part of humanity. But why can't we just be human towards each other?

You are right in the idea that I do not know what its like to be gay. I am aware that it isn't easy to go against, and I feel for those who struggle against it for the sake of Christ.

Know the best part of all of this? Guess what Jesus had to say on homosexuality. Nothing. Hell, he was even against families, technically. They detracted from worship.

 

[irishdelinquent]

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.

Despite the fact that your sexual orientation is a choice, and not genetics-based, we'll play this game.

I would not touch the genetics of my child at all, regardless of the changes it could make. I say let nature take it's course.

You're both intolerant idiots. No, you don'tjust go and *choose* to like men or women. Are you straight? Did you one day decide "Hey, I want to be straight." No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.

"People can overcome genes."

Are. You. Serious. You know what, why don't you overcome your genes right now and grow a vagina. Go ahead. Do it. Right now. Or maybe you don't like your nose? Hell, just will it to change! Or maybe neurological. Feel your IQ's too low? Just think it higher! Aren't genetically predisposed to be extremely good at sports? No matter, will your metabolism higher! Need I go on?

Firstly, how is it that offerring a different opinion makes me intolerant? Intolerance implies that I am refusing to accept an opinion or other form of information; I disagree with your belief, but I tolerate it. Also, calling me an idiot is unnecessary; while you may have been primarily referring to the other poster, you also implied that I was an idiot which I feel was unfair.

Secondly, if sexual orientation is fixed dependant on genetic disposition, then how do you explain those who change their orientation over their lives? My aunt recently revealed that she had come out, but had been in heterosexual relationships before. I know more people who have gone from gay or bi to straight, or any combination in between. To me, that sounds an awful lot like making a choice. My roommate, who is in his third year of university study for Biology says that he (and by extension his whole program) have never heard of nor found a gene for sexual orientation.

A gene for sexual orientation other than heterosexual would be pointless, anyways; homosexual relationships could never reproduce, and therefore would be pointless in terms of fulfilling their biological imperative. As for your other examples of choosing to alter your genes, try and keep the hyperbolic speech out of this. Your examples of changing a physical feature, or enhancing your muscle tones strictly through belief is stupid. However, sexual orientation is not a physical trait, it is an emotional reaction; emotions can be changed.

"Despite the fact that your sexual orientation is a choice, and not genetics-based, we'll play this game." We'll play this game, offensive as well. Implying that everyone who thinks that it is genetics based or genetics influenced is wrong and/or an idiot. First of all, good that you wouldn't change it.

Your friend go to school in the American south? Or is the school heavily religious? Those schools tend to...blur the facts. People who change their orientation over their lives have been A.) Lying to fit in. B.) One of the exceptions to the rule C.) Something that I forgot. No, you are implying that sexuality is a choice. I did not wake up one day and say "hm, I think I'll stay straight." Just because it's not physical doesn't make it any less of a gene. IQ, for instance. IQ is not a physical trait, and cannot be simply willed into changing. Plenty of genes that you can't change, or, say, "overcome."

The leading scientific consensus is that it IS IN FACT GENE BASED. Try reading an unbiased report. Or, you know...one from real scientists.

And as to being influenced by surroundings, the vast majority grow up in...lets call them "heterosexual environments." Which, would lend about...no support to your argument. Hmm. It is genetics based, youd not simply decide that you feel like being gay, I'll just state that again.

And back to your roommate. His whole program, are they sequencing THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME? Somehow I doubt that.

As to people that get sex changes, they were born genetically...weird. They have say, the chemical balances of a female, and many thought patterns like them, but were born male. They do not simply decide to be female, something went crazy with their genes. Their. Genes.

In all likelihood (I haven't read extensively on the subject, I'm more into physics myself) it would be [is] a multitude of genes, not just a single gene.

Now, while you read some papers from unbiased sources, or hey, biased ones from both sides, I'll go tell people with a history of various types of cancer that all they have to do is decide that they don't want cancer, and they won't get it.

First, when I said "We'll play this game" I was implying that I would respond to the thread, not that those who thought sexual orientation was genetics based were idiots.

Secondly, I haved tried to keep this discussion civil, while you clearly have no intention of doing so. My friend goes to college in Canada (where I go as well), and there is little religious presence in the school at all. Yes, I am implying that I feel that sexual orientation is based on choice; I'm not beating my chest and ordering you to blindly follow my words. Also, again with the hyperbolic speech? It is well understood that the IQ value of an organism cannot simply be "willed" to increase, but that is because we understand how the IQ is determined.

Again, why is this turning into an insult? You imply that simply because I have a differing opinion, that said opinion is based off of faulty data. I have read scientific reports on the subject; in fact, I did quite a bit of research in response to your first reply. And while the leading scientific THEORY is that sexual orientation is based on genetics, WE'RE NOT SURE YET! And until the day when scientists say "Hey, here's that gene that determines sexual orientation", I'm allowed to have the belief that sexual orientation is based upon one or more different factors.

I don't exactly recall making a comment referring to sexual orientation being based upon one's environment, but I will respond to it. I had a classmate back in high school who was gay...whose father was a baptist minister. I can hardly think of a more "heterosexual zone" to grow up in, and yet he became gay. And yes, you have clearly stated that you believe orientation is based upon one's genetics, but you cannot state that it is. Again, we as a species only have theories that pertain to sexual orientation and it's source; while most scientists agree that it could be genetics-based, they still are aware that they aren't sure yet, and that there is room for error.

Obviously my roommate has not sequenced the entire human genome...nobody has. However, I merely mentioned his opinion, since I figured his credentials were a little more suited to the discussion than my own. When I discussed it with him, he said that he had not heard of a genome for sexual orientation; that only means that he has not heard of it, not that he is claiming a mastery of the subject. Hell, it doesn't even mean that he agrees with me! It simply means that he has not heard of proof that sexual orientation is genetically based!

And finally, you can stop being an asshole in your responses.

Now, while you read some papers from unbiased sources, or hey, biased ones from both sides, I'll go tell people with a history of various types of cancer that all they have to do is decide that they don't want cancer, and they won't get it.

People with cancer have suffered unimaginable horrors, and they shouldn't be joked about. You are more than welcome to disagree with me, and I'll be happy to have a discussion with you on the issue. But comparing my belief that one's feelings and attractions towards the same/opposite sex with the statement that a cancerous disease is all in a state of mind is just insulting.

 

[cobra_ky]

snip

there's two obvious arguments that spring immediately to mind, in support of homosexual attraction not being a choice. First of all, have you ever consciously chosen to be attracted to somebody?

Second, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians

it's pretty clear that things aren't as simple as there being a "gay gene". But it's just as clear that genetics in some way influence sexuality, and even if they didn't, that doesn't necessarily make it a "choice".

 

[Firia]

Lesbian; wouldn't change the orientation. If I learned my parents tweeked MY genes to suit some kind of cultural or religious need to be "normal," I'd go out of my mind with anger. It would be a violation of MY ethics, years after the fact!

Straight, gay, leave those kids alone.

Where is the option for the fact Homosexuality is a choice, not a matter genes.

Well I'm guessing that option isn't there because it's complete bollocks.

Ninja'd. But that's ok. I'm rather happy I wasn't the first person to call it out.

Lovin' how he declares it a fact as well

He thinks, therefore it is fact?
... I feel like there may be something off with that. A few details, in fact. I've indented the bits I think may be the case.

 

[manaman]

I hadn't realized so many expert escapists had settled the nature vs nurture aspect of homosexuality.

On the flip side, for some of you, I also thought we had moved beyond this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4enfUyGWSY&feature=related] kind of mentality.

 

[irishdelinquent]

snip

there's two obvious arguments that spring immediately to mind, in support of homosexual attraction not being a choice. First of all, have you ever consciously chosen to be attracted to somebody?

Second, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians

it's pretty clear that things aren't as simple as there being a "gay gene". But it's just as clear that genetics in some way influence sexuality, and even if they didn't, that doesn't necessarily make it a "choice".

Firstly, thank you. This is what I was hoping to receive in response to some of my previous posts; a neutral statement based solely on logic. You have presented your point, and presented it well, even going as far to include reference (which I had an interesting time reading, and have some thoughts of my own based on the information provided). You also provided evidence that you understand that this is still open to debate, showing a sense of understanding and tolerance. So thank you, I enjoy having friendly discussions like this.

From the wiki provided, I noticed a few things that stuck out. Firstly, the word "average" popped up a lot in the differences between gay and straight genders. While obviously few tests are ever unanimous, this is solid evidence that there could be a biological difference between gay and straight humans. However, the fact that the tests weren't unanimous shows (to me anyways) that the answer isn't as simple as a "gay gene" (as you already said).

However, a little further up the page are sections regarding the theory that imprinting may have an involvement too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Imprinting.2Fcritical_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Exotic_becomes_erotic

These theories describe that sexual orientation may also be influenced by experiences and nuturing habits during childhood. While this could be enhanced by a genetic anomaly that enhances the succeptability to these influences, I feel that this is a strong case to the fact that sexual orientation is not fixed. I'm also curious to see what people think of cases of pansexuality or polysexuality, where the individual is not attracted to the commonly-accepted binary genders.

As for whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, perhaps I should rephrase my belief slighty. I don't think that people one day wake up and decide that they're going to be gay or straight. However, I also don't think that once you've determined your orientation that you are fixed to that one; Much like nature, humans are adaptive, mutatable. We change over time.

 

[PredatorKing]

Sexuality is a choice?
Fiddling around with your offsprings hardwiring for the sake of "having things in common"?
The ignorance and intolerance showcased in this topic sickens me.

there is no proof that sexuality is not a choice.

Okay then. Decide to be gay for a day, go out and have sex with a guy and see how much you enjoy it. Then we'll know whether or not your theory is true.

 

[y1fella]

dood fucked up thread much. homo is not genes a decision be it conscious or sub. like seriously fucked up poll

 

[Eykal]

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.

Despite the fact that your sexual orientation is a choice, and not genetics-based, we'll play this game.

I would not touch the genetics of my child at all, regardless of the changes it could make. I say let nature take it's course.

You're both intolerant idiots. No, you don'tjust go and *choose* to like men or women. Are you straight? Did you one day decide "Hey, I want to be straight." No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.

"People can overcome genes."

Are. You. Serious. You know what, why don't you overcome your genes right now and grow a vagina. Go ahead. Do it. Right now. Or maybe you don't like your nose? Hell, just will it to change! Or maybe neurological. Feel your IQ's too low? Just think it higher! Aren't genetically predisposed to be extremely good at sports? No matter, will your metabolism higher! Need I go on?

Firstly, how is it that offerring a different opinion makes me intolerant? Intolerance implies that I am refusing to accept an opinion or other form of information; I disagree with your belief, but I tolerate it. Also, calling me an idiot is unnecessary; while you may have been primarily referring to the other poster, you also implied that I was an idiot which I feel was unfair.

Secondly, if sexual orientation is fixed dependant on genetic disposition, then how do you explain those who change their orientation over their lives? My aunt recently revealed that she had come out, but had been in heterosexual relationships before. I know more people who have gone from gay or bi to straight, or any combination in between. To me, that sounds an awful lot like making a choice. My roommate, who is in his third year of university study for Biology says that he (and by extension his whole program) have never heard of nor found a gene for sexual orientation.

A gene for sexual orientation other than heterosexual would be pointless, anyways; homosexual relationships could never reproduce, and therefore would be pointless in terms of fulfilling their biological imperative. As for your other examples of choosing to alter your genes, try and keep the hyperbolic speech out of this. Your examples of changing a physical feature, or enhancing your muscle tones strictly through belief is stupid. However, sexual orientation is not a physical trait, it is an emotional reaction; emotions can be changed.

"Despite the fact that your sexual orientation is a choice, and not genetics-based, we'll play this game." We'll play this game, offensive as well. Implying that everyone who thinks that it is genetics based or genetics influenced is wrong and/or an idiot. First of all, good that you wouldn't change it.

Your friend go to school in the American south? Or is the school heavily religious? Those schools tend to...blur the facts. People who change their orientation over their lives have been A.) Lying to fit in. B.) One of the exceptions to the rule C.) Something that I forgot. No, you are implying that sexuality is a choice. I did not wake up one day and say "hm, I think I'll stay straight." Just because it's not physical doesn't make it any less of a gene. IQ, for instance. IQ is not a physical trait, and cannot be simply willed into changing. Plenty of genes that you can't change, or, say, "overcome."

The leading scientific consensus is that it IS IN FACT GENE BASED. Try reading an unbiased report. Or, you know...one from real scientists.

And as to being influenced by surroundings, the vast majority grow up in...lets call them "heterosexual environments." Which, would lend about...no support to your argument. Hmm. It is genetics based, youd not simply decide that you feel like being gay, I'll just state that again.

And back to your roommate. His whole program, are they sequencing THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME? Somehow I doubt that.

As to people that get sex changes, they were born genetically...weird. They have say, the chemical balances of a female, and many thought patterns like them, but were born male. They do not simply decide to be female, something went crazy with their genes. Their. Genes.

In all likelihood (I haven't read extensively on the subject, I'm more into physics myself) it would be [is] a multitude of genes, not just a single gene.

Now, while you read some papers from unbiased sources, or hey, biased ones from both sides, I'll go tell people with a history of various types of cancer that all they have to do is decide that they don't want cancer, and they won't get it.

First, when I said "We'll play this game" I was implying that I would respond to the thread, not that those who thought sexual orientation was genetics based were idiots.

Secondly, I haved tried to keep this discussion civil, while you clearly have no intention of doing so. My friend goes to college in Canada (where I go as well), and there is little religious presence in the school at all. Yes, I am implying that I feel that sexual orientation is based on choice; I'm not beating my chest and ordering you to blindly follow my words. Also, again with the hyperbolic speech? It is well understood that the IQ value of an organism cannot simply be "willed" to increase, but that is because we understand how the IQ is determined.

Again, why is this turning into an insult? You imply that simply because I have a differing opinion, that said opinion is based off of faulty data. I have read scientific reports on the subject; in fact, I did quite a bit of research in response to your first reply. And while the leading scientific THEORY is that sexual orientation is based on genetics, WE'RE NOT SURE YET! And until the day when scientists say "Hey, here's that gene that determines sexual orientation", I'm allowed to have the belief that sexual orientation is based upon one or more different factors.

I don't exactly recall making a comment referring to sexual orientation being based upon one's environment, but I will respond to it. I had a classmate back in high school who was gay...whose father was a baptist minister. I can hardly think of a more "heterosexual zone" to grow up in, and yet he became gay. And yes, you have clearly stated that you believe orientation is based upon one's genetics, but you cannot state that it is. Again, we as a species only have theories that pertain to sexual orientation and it's source; while most scientists agree that it could be genetics-based, they still are aware that they aren't sure yet, and that there is room for error.

Obviously my roommate has not sequenced the entire human genome...nobody has. However, I merely mentioned his opinion, since I figured his credentials were a little more suited to the discussion than my own. When I discussed it with him, he said that he had not heard of a genome for sexual orientation; that only means that he has not heard of it, not that he is claiming a mastery of the subject. Hell, it doesn't even mean that he agrees with me! It simply means that he has not heard of proof that sexual orientation is genetically based!

And finally, you can stop being an asshole in your responses.

Now, while you read some papers from unbiased sources, or hey, biased ones from both sides, I'll go tell people with a history of various types of cancer that all they have to do is decide that they don't want cancer, and they won't get it.

People with cancer have suffered unimaginable horrors, and they shouldn't be joked about. You are more than welcome to disagree with me, and I'll be happy to have a discussion with you on the issue. But comparing my belief that one's feelings and attractions towards the same/opposite sex with the statement that a cancerous disease is all in a state of mind is just insulting.

Well, I don't have time to reply properly, but I'll say a few tings.

1.) Plenty of people treat homosexuality as a disease of the mind, or people just spiting god.
2.) I said it was good that you weren't shoving it in peoples' faces telling them what to believe. Or maybe I meant to. I did say it was good that you wouldn't change your baby.
3.) Anything can be joked about, depends how you it.
4.)Oh, it's a theory is it? Do you know what else is a theory? Gravity. It seems to work pretty well now, doesn't it?

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

I don't even want to know what gender the baby is, why would I want to know it's sexual orientation?

 

[Captain_Caveman]

I don't even want to know what gender the baby is, why would I want to know that?

So you could paint the baby's room pink or blue?

But that also raises the question. If you're having a baby who's gay what color would you paint it?