Bisexual female. Absolutely not. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, straight, or other as far as I’m concerned. I think meddling in something that’s not a disability is a bad idea.
Then we should be working on getting rid of bigotry and bullying.
If your car was stolen, I wouldn’t tell you it was your fault because you chose to own a car.
Well, clearly. But that doesn’t in and of itself answer the question. I don’t know whether I would use the shot (married straight man, no children) in the current world we live in, but, as I alluded to in a previous post, if we lived in a world where there was vastly more anti-gay prejudice and bigotry, like the not-so-long-ago world of Alan Turing, I would (obviously after consulting with my wife) take the shot in a heartbeat. But it would still be just as true in that would that we should be working on getting rid of bigotry and bullying.
An interesting analogy is President Obama sending his children to private schools rather than public schools. I honestly believe that it’s important to work to improve public education. Really, I do. But if I found myself in as situation where I had children to send to school, and the local public schools were terrible, and I could afford private school, I’d send them to private school. I’d feel bad doing it, and that I was at some level betraying something important to me, but my children’s lives are not something I want to use to try to prove a political point.
Straight male with four kids.
Given the results of my poll of gay males I would NOT take the pill/shot if I was an expectant mother to be.
Straight male.
Yes, I would probably get the shot, if not me, my wife would probably insist on it.
I think all parents want their children to be happy. I think gay children have a harder time than straight. I think eventually, they could find happiness, but there’s just too much angst and self-loathing until they can accept themselves for what they are.
If there were magically no bigots in the world, I think this’d still be a thing. The awareness that one is so fundamentally different than all of one’s peers, and especially right around puberty, has to cause a lot of grief for oneself, even if nobody else is bringing the grief as well (and among middle schoolers, how realistic is that expectation, really?) “Why am I different? Is there something wrong with me?” is already enough of a psychological challenge even among completely straight and unremarkable kids.
Consider vitiglio and port-wine stains, for example. I think everyone would agree that individuals with these conditions have nothing really “wrong” with them, and anyone who would make fun of such a person is a real jerk. Yet how psychologically devastating can those conditions be nonetheless? And those are just matters of superficial appearance.
And one of the major reasons that this is so is that gay children are much more likely to be rejected by their parents (50%), even to the point of being kicked out of their home and left homeless (20%) or physically/mentally abused by their parents (25%.) 40% of homeless teens identify as queer.
So it seems to me that the folks who are in this thread saying that no, they would not take the pill to force their children to be straight, and would love and support them no matter what their orientation, are already taking away a HUGE part of what makes it suck so much to grow up gay.
I grew up bisexual with extremely loving, accepting parents. I was bullied a little at school when I chose to come out, but less than for some other things about me (ADHD and OCD for two!) I don’t feel like I was at any sort of disadvantage by not being straight, nor do I feel like it made my life worse - because my parents loved and supported me, and protected me from bigoted jackasses by not keeping those people in our lives.
So having supportive parents helps with a big chunk. Getting rid of the bigots helps with the rest.
So where’s the pill for THAT?
Ouch. I would never consider that gays are freaks of nature.
You just did. That’s your characterization of the incidence of genetic-based homosexuality, not mine.
This isn’t the Oppression Olympics. There’s no prize for being the “most” bullied. One reason I liked Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign is that it can apply to any bullied kid. It’s important for gay teenagers to hear that message, but it’s just as applicable for a kid that’s bullied for any reason.
Also, “It Gets Better” is not just about bullying from other kids in school - it’s about life in general. For a gay kid who is contemplating suicide due to homophobic and/or abusive parents, getting older and moving away from the parents will indeed improve the situation.
And your hypothetical wasn’t “do you believe everyone should use this shot”, it was “would you choose to use this shot”. I’m sure homophobes, or those who live in area that is very bigoted, might use it. Since I’m not homophobic and I would love any child I had regardless of their orientation, and I live in a more tolerant country than the US, and I feel that anti-gay prejudice will decrease even more in the future, and I think that widespread use of the shot would increase rather than decrease the amount of bigotry in the world, I would not use it. Heck, even if I were to get pregnant tomorrow (extremely unlikely), my kid wouldn’t be a teenager until 2025. By then a large chunk of the homophobic population will be gone (since they skew older); I know of very few young people who are anti-gay.
Indeed. magellan01 is merely the noble conduit through which our bigotries emerge.
You’re the one who is calling them freaks. From your comment
The OP is assuming that all children start out the same, but that something happens in vitro which “turns” them gay rather than being gay as an innate genetic trait.
One could never talk about giving a pregnant woman a shot to ensure that the kid’s eyes are blue.
I don’t think the OP made that implication, but in any event, is it established science that this is not the case?
In other words, do you have proof that being gay is an innate genetic trait? If so, would you kindly provide a cite?
He didn’t use the word “freaks”, which is highly pejorative.
Nope. YOU did. I have no idea how you get that from my statement.
Sure they could. You just did.
By the way, can you let me know at what point, for those who we consider to be “born gay”, become gay. Is it month one, two, six, nine? Or is it inherent in the sperm or egg prior to fertilization?
I am… dubious.
I find it very interesting that you have “born gay” in double quotes.
The question is not what I think, and since current science doesn’t know, then I’m comfortable with not claiming certainty. However, the problem is what your OP assumes.
IANAB (biologist) but for someone to be born with a particular characteristic, you have just a few choices: it’s either inherent in either the sperm, the egg or both or there is something environmental within the womb. Obviously, if being gay is purely genetic, it’s a recessive trait.
The problem with the assumption that a shot can change homosexuality is that it requires believing that being gay is has environmental causes. Does it in fact? I don’t know, but the OP assumes this otherwise the question would not be if giving a shot but aborting or another form of pre-selection. The followup exchange shows that you believe that gays do not develop the same as others, hence are accidents of nature.
If the OP has simply been “if you could ensure that your children were straight, would you?” it would have been less bias.
sexual preference
Well. Wasn’t there a thread about something like this in GD recently? Way too lazy to look it up, but I remember there was a huge kerfluffle about genetic vs. innate, and this study was mentioned, giving some evidence that there’s at least some in-vitro environmental component (while still being innate, if not genetic). I thought that was really interesting, actually.
Anyway, even assuming this is the mechanism (which I was for the purposes of answering the OP, even though personally I believe there must be some genetic component), just because something is true for 10% of the population, and it happens in vitro, doesn’t make them a freak. My kid came out of the womb top 10% in size and weight; my friend’s came out bottom 3%, and in both those cases it was probably at least partially due to in-vitro enviroment – does that make them freaks? (I will have to confess to maybe using some sort of adjective like “freaky” right after birth, but that was the post-partum pain talking, not me! I promise, Little One!) If I could take a shot that would ensure that my kid was going to be under eight pounds, while having no other ill effects… I totally would.
For what it’s worth, I think magellan is trying to be obnoxiously provocative rather than homophobic, but sometimes it’s hard to tell. I agree the “born gay” quotes and comment were a little… um, although I think he’s just trying to wind you up.
Nitpick: I’m fairly sure ‘in vitro’ doesn’t mean ‘in the womb’. It means ‘in glass’, as in ‘in vitro fertilisation’.
Straight female, and no, I wouldn’t take the shot. I don’t personally care whether my kid’s gay or straight, and while I do think that being gay can make things tougher than being straight, it doesn’t make happiness impossible. We live in a time and place where gay people are able to have happy, open, fulfilled lives. If we lived in a society where there was a good chance the kid would be imprisoned or tortured or killed for being gay (and there was no way we could move to a different society), then I might well take the shot.