Honestly, I’d be more impressed if the OP considered reducing the suffering of half the planet by having all girls be born boys. :rolleyes:
I’m glad you asked this. It seems to me, that while I would love my gay child as much as I might love a heterosexual one, that heterosexuality does allow for a fuller experience for both men and women. It is clear that men and women were made to come together. The anatomy speaks to that as does the fact that that is who the species is carried on. It seems obvious that being able to experience that equates to the participant having a fuller male or fuller female experience.
Troll? Male Bovine Manure?
Wait, MAGIC exist in this hypothetical? Fuck that, I’m going for the spell that conjures your offspring out of thin air and avoids all that painful and dangerous childbearing crap.
ETA: Straight, man.
ETAA: Errr, I’m a man, and I’m straight, man.
I seems that your personal beliefs are more important than the quality of your child’s life. How is that any different from the point of view of some Christian Scientists?
The same argument could be used if the shot made “black” kids “white”. I don’t think we’re liars or sadists just because we would prefer not to fundamentally change them just to make them more “normal” or “accepted” in society.
Yes, their happiness is very important, so why would I mess around with a potential source of happiness (ie, who they are attracted to)?
As to your question - I do not think that one’s orientation necessitates a life of misery. There are many components to a miserable life - it’s a complex thing - and what makes one person miserable would not make another. Orientation, whether straight or gay, could go either way. The same could be said about many traits humans possess.
An actual réponse would be more helpful. Of course, no one is forcing you to post in this thread.
Should I risk my child’s happiness and possibly life to make them conform to my religion? That would be completely sociopathic. Is this a whoosh?
For the OP’s question- I would be against the pill (for my wife), because it would be fundamentally changing something about the child that is not a handicap or even a negative trait.
If your shot could make “black” kids “white”, then it might conceivably reduce the chance of my future child being a victim of bigotry. But I still wouldn’t do it. Why would it be any different for gay vs straight?
So, no thoughts on what was actually presented? Noted.
Out of curiosity, what if you had to choose:
A) 5’2" and straight
or
B) 6’ and gay
?
Don’t accuse other posters of trolling in this forum.
If you don’t care either way what orientation your kids are personally, having them guaranteed straight has some benefits:
-
Will face less bigotry (though this is a declining factor, it is still not gone)
-
Statistically more likely to have kids themselves - yay grandchildren!
Has some drawbacks as well:
-
Fighting the hypothetical - no side effects? How can we be sure?
-
Encourages bigots everywhere
It is unlike issues such as ethnic and religous bigotry, because the presumption is that the parent themselves doesn’t care either way what orientation their kids are. Many if not most people care to an extent about perpetuating their ethnicity or religion in a new generation.
That said, seems to me the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, assuming we can rely on the hypothetical (and can know this for a fact), since I can’t think of any benefits to the kid him or herself from being gay over being straight. The second point in both sections are benefits to others - to myself (grandkids!) or to society at large (discouraging bigotry!).
Straight guy, son & daughter in their 20’s.
I would not want to do this but would discuss it with the mother. My reason for not wanting to do this is (a) sexual preference is not a choice I get to make for anybody else on the planet and (b) that’s pretty much it, actually.
Whether it’s scientifically enforcing the gene that controls sexual preference or magically mandating a psychological change towards heterosexuality, it doesn’t matter whether I do it in vitro, when the child is seven years old, or an adult: I don’t get to do that.
You know, when I first joined SD, I was upset at the people who mocked instead of argued back in some instances. I even asked them why they did this and they tended to respond that some statements only just deserved to be mocked.
I didn’t understand that at the time. However, I grew to. Your statement was one of them.
But their happiness would simply be tied to, in part, being attracted to people of the opposite sex. It’s not as if their homosexuality was extinguished, with something lost, they’d just gestate and develop into heterosexuals.
I agree with this last part wholeheartedly. But, with all things remaining equal, why wouldn’t you choose to free your child of one area of potential unhappiness and afford him/her the possibility to experience having a child and living in a mother/father/daughter relationship. There’s no inherent downside to that, is there?
6’ and Gay. Definitely.
As a poll, this thread will find its new home in IMHO.
[ /Moderating ]
Then I’d go for the injection. My motives are purely Darwinian: I would want my genes to propagate and the best chance of that would be to ensure that my offspring are heterosexual. There’s no guarantee of that - I only have to look in the mirror - and I know that homosexuals can and do have children, but I’d want to maximise my chances.
I have, of course, spotted the OP’s trap: the flip side is that if homosexuality were shown to be caused by a particular balance of chemicals before or during pregnancy, howsoever caused, should men and women try to avoid that balance? (c.f. smoking, drinking, folic acid, temperature difference & crocodiles, etc.)