I am a heterosexual male, and yes, I would definitely administer this magical shot to my offspring. If I did end up with a homosexual child, I would still love him with all my brain, but since the shot would both A) make his life easier, and B) reduce the possibility that he would do certain things I consider wrong, I have nothing to loose.
Except that, based on the results here at least, very few parents would use the anti gay vaccine.
This.
If this shot existed, we’d see effectively no more gay people in the population in a generation.
Question for those not interested in the shot: How about if it just guaranteed that they were born with a physical gender that matched their mental one? So they were guaranteed to not be transgender.
I’m a woman and tentatively identify as bisexual, and ABSOLUTELY not. I’d have no personal issue whatsoever with having a homosexual child or children, and I think I’d be a more supportive parent than most.
I feel a bit weird about it, but I’ve always harbored some hope that I will someday have a gay son. Probably because some of my dearest friends have been gay men (I’m not nearly as drawn to straight guys).
You gave absolutely no reasoning why you think my mentality is like that. Or at least nothing more nuanced than “they’re the same”. But I’ll give you more reasoning than you’re going to give me:
First and foremost, I am proposing removing a burden from a child to improve its life. Aborting a fetus ends its life, so not remotely comparable. Further, the motivation of the parents has nothing to do with sparing the fetus the difficulty of being female, it’s just because they judge male offspring to be more valuable to them, the parents. So it’s entirely selfish.
Having demonstrated that, your hypothetical of a “male shot” falls apart, since this is demonstrably not for the benefit of the child but for the parents’ own greed and selfishness.
My future child will be black. So you’re saying I should wish he/she will not be. I have two words for you, but they don’t belong here.
If I’m misunderstanding you, please explain.
I’m female, and I identify as straight. I never want to have kids, but if I were to have a child, I would not administer the shot/pill ensuring a straight child. The reason is that I have absolutely no problem with gay people. Many of my friends are gay, and some are bisexual or asexual. I love all my friends regardless of their sexual orientation.
Ah, I see. I viewed your mentality like that because you think that all loving parents should make their children’s lives easier by selecting a fundamental characteristic about themselves.
Okay, as I said, assume a male shot.
The motivation does seem to be to spare the child a life of hardship and pain.
From what I quoted:
Society treats them as second class citizens…So why not spare them that pain?
Actually you’ve done no such thing, as you simply ignored the parts that were convenient for you to ignore (you know, the part I quoted), which had nothing to do with ‘value’.
I don’t think you do. I think he views societal norms as being the most important thing in a family.
Presumably he would be for a ‘white shot’ in 1800’s America, where African Americans were slaves.
All parents who loved their children would get the white shot, according to HMS Irruncible’s logic.
You don’t want to understand. You want to posture. Go right ahead, but don’t pretend you’re interested in an explanation.
Seems to me that changing a child’s race or visible ethnicity to avoid the negative effects of bigotry is a different situation, in that parents generally have an interest in having kids follow their race or ethnicity.
Ok, I apologize. I meekly request you to further explain what you mean. I genuinely took it to mean that you actually believe that if such a pill existed, it would be wrong of me not to change my child from black to white.
And again, aborting a fetus cannot under any circumstances be considered improving its life. It ends the life. It doesn’t get to have a life. You can say it is preventing hardship for the fetus, but under no interpretation does it give a better life.
You went to Wikipedia and scrolled down past a large, well-referenced section called “Cultural Preference” to selectively quote an entirely unreferenced section called “Sexual Discrimination”. Hi, selective reading and quoting? That’d be you.
This doesn’t apply to me and my wife either- it’s biologically impossible for our child to have the same race or ethnicity as both of us.
Actually, he would be developing abnormally, because you intervened to make sure he developed in a way that you find acceptable. His normal development would have made him gay.
As to the question of being a victim of violence, at least as far as it pertains to a hypothetical daughter, have you considered the fact that, as a lesbian, she would be drastically less likely to suffer violence at the hands of her spouse? Domestic abuse isn’t entirely unknown in lesbian relationships, but it’s much, much less common than it is in hetero relationships. Given this, would you considered a shot that would guarantee lesbianism in a fetus?
Oy. This is just… just so very, very stupid.
First of all, to the extent that anyone is “meant” to be anything, gay people are just as much “meant” to exist as straight people. Whether you believe we were made this way by God or by nature, we were made this way, and if there’s a purpose behind being straight, there’s just as much a purpose behind being gay. Most men were “made” to come together with women. Some mean were “made” to come together with men. Some women were “made” to come together with women.
Secondly, your argument from anatomy fails on so many levels I’m not sure where to begin. The fact that a gay man is somehow less fulfilled because he never sticks his dick in a vagina, the way it was “meant” to happen, makes about as much sense as saying you’re living an unfulfilled life because you’ve never put your appendix to its “intended” purpose. Secondly, evolution is an ongoing process. When our ancestors stopped swinging from trees, they weren’t suddenly unfulfilled because they were no longer using their arms for their “intended” purpose. The argument that men aren’t “supposed” to use their dicks on each other is meaningless from an evolutionary standpoint, because evolution happens when we start using our bodies in ways they weren’t “supposed” to be used. There’s also some pretty clear inefficencies in heterosexual intercourse. Most vaginas are not designed in such a way that the clitoris can be stimulated by penile intercourse. And, of course, no guy is ever going to have his prostate stimulated by standard heterosexual intercourse, meaning he’s missing out on one the biggest erotic zones on his body. These are both problems that are almost entirely avoided by gay sex. And, of course, the reduced odds of conceiving is not a drawback to homosexuality, it’s a feature, and not something that’s automatically counter to what nature “intends.” Nature “uses” lots of different mechanisms to limit fertility. There’s no reason to think that homosexuality is any different than an estrus cycle, pack dynamics where only the alpha mates, or having the majority of the species be infertile drones.
Lastly, on a purely personal note, I’m bisexual. I can state, from first hand experience, that heterosexual relationships are not, on balance, any more or less fulfilling than homosexual relationships.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay, but plenty of people in this world do. If I had full and safe control of the orientation of my child, I would pick straight so that they wouldn’t have to endure the hardships of growing up in an environment which makes them feel wrong or ashamed about who they are.
I actually think it makes more sense to be gay. If you’re looking for a partner, you’re likely going to have more in common with someone of the same sex than the opposite. You’ll likely have more similar interests in hobbies and it’s likely that your sex drives will be more in sync. But I don’t think that advantage is worth it considering the real world that we live in with all the bigots out there.
I wonder what people would do if they found out they could control the child’s orientation based on how they were conceived? For example:
- Lay on left side – Guaranteed straight
- Lay on right side – Guaranteed gay
Now you’d have full control of what you wanted to happen without any health risks to the child. I would guess most people would strive that their child had their same orientation.
Indeed. Hit the nail on the head in post 95
Allow me to repeat what I wrote and to emphasize something:
*Okay, as I said, assume a male shot.
The motivation does seem to be to spare the child a life of hardship and pain.*
Your abortion qualms are moot.
Er, I said there were many reasons - are you asserting that sexual discrimination is not one of the reasons?
Cause if so, you are clearly wrong.
If you are saying that we should ONLY consider ‘cultural preference’ as a reason, then it would be you that is reading selectively. Obviously I’m going to reference what best helps my case and since sexual discrimination IS one of the reasons, that’s why I quoted it.
This is clearly handwaving, and quite frankly, bizarre.
Gay male.
-
I am so glad my mother didn’t have this pill; my life would possibly be greatly diminished.
-
So this is how insecure and bigoted straight people will do their “recruiting” in the future?
Seems to me that there are some distinctions here:
- It is not proved that people have male children because they wish to spare their children a life of female discrimination. You have demonstrated that such discrimination exists, not that this is their motive male selection. From your link:
- Selecting males has bad societal implications down the road, which will affect the children so selected - namely, lack of mates for many. It is unclear what bad societal and personal implications hetero selection would have.