Based on this statement the entire hypothetical is a waste of time because we simply do not and cannot know if life would be better or worse for a gay or straight version of whoever our child was going to be.
That said the entire thread is clearly a way for you to accuse people of not keeping their childs best interests at heart if we do not choose your wonder shot which is why I’m glad it will never exist.
If we get to the point of custom designing our progeny I really hope that we work on health before sex or sexual orientation but given the history of humankind that’s probably a pipe dream.
In case its not clear I would not accept the shot. I’m female and have two straight children in their early 20’s.
For the original question, I see it in terms of “Would you give a shot to drastically reduce your child’s risk of infertility”, so of course I would. Thats not to mention I would be maximising the amount of people who could satisfy them.
It is more debateable whether it is better to be straight or predominantly-straight bisexual. Bisexual people can take enjoyment in more things and it is more than possibly unethical to delibrately limit someones potential pleasure.
I don’t know, maybe. As much as I love my gay & lesbian friends, there’s no denying that our society ensures that life isn’t as easy for them as it could be if they were like the majority. I’d have to think hard about a shot that would keep said hypothetical child from being left-handed like me too for the same reasons.
No, because frankly I don’t care. I want a healthy child, I don’t care whether it’s male, female, straight, gay, left handed, right handed, blue eyed, brown eyed… sexual orientation is so far down the list of what I think would be important it just doesn’t register.
Well, I see the discussion has moved pretty far down the road, so I’ll just respond with a couple brief points and leave the discussion for others to carry on.
Sure. You make it sound like there’s some reason I should.
I’m pretty sure I already told you. I have known numerous gay people and in my experience I see no fundamental difference in their relative happiness, success or sense of fulfillment EXCEPT perhaps regarding their exposure to bigotry. Seems to make sense to me, however that the problem does not lie with their sexual orientation, but with other people’s entirely unwarranted reaction to it.
Well, I guess I don’t understand why, if you are proposing magic pills anyway, you don’t just propose one that eliminates bigotry. Seems like it would be of considerably greater benefit.
Uh, not everything is about you. What if the shot could make your child immune to cancer? Would you give him that shot? How about the other vaccinations? Yet, you refuse to stack the odds in favor of your child have a happier life by “immunizing” them to a thing that is as real as a physical illness: the ridicule, bigotry and bullying that gay kids often are victim to. Or are you of the mind that those things are inconsequential? Something else?
Someone promotes a bigoted stance on the Dope (anti-SSM) then says that anyone who wouldn’t make their child non gay would lessen the child’s chances of happiness because of people like him.
I think the world would be diminished by having fewer gay persons.
I’d be upset if my child were the victim of prejudice because of his or her sexual orientation or religion or race or hair color. But I wouldn’t think my child was at fault. The fault would lie entirely with the bigots who are harassing my child - they’re the ones that need to be fixed. I don’t blame the victim.
As for the argument that you’d just be doing your child a favor by making them straight because they’d be more likely to find a romantic partner when they grow up, you have to carry this argument to its logical next step. If that’s your concern, you give your unborn child the shot that makes them bisexual - that way you’ve maximized their chances for finding love.
If science had conclusively proven the reason for homosexuality was not genetic but entirely a product of the placental environment, then maybe yes, I would approve of the shot. If there were any ambiguity on that point, then no. It seems two very distinct propositions: (1) alter your child’s genes, or (2) alter the environment in which he or she develops as a fetus. Maybe both aspects go into a person’s innate identity, but somehow (1) seems innate-ier.
I do think there is one valid comparison between the OP’s scenario and that of race and religion: the universal desire of parents to be able to relate to their kids, and fear of their growing up. It’s already inevitable that children grow up to be strangers, to some extent, and every parent finds that threatening. A kid of a different race, religion or sexual orientation will be growing up not only into adulthood but into an inapproachable world, from the parent’s perspective. I imagine every parent harbors the desire to have their kids a bit more similar to themselves for this reason,
This. I’m bisexual, and I think early childhood experiences might also have had some bearing on my sexuality. What if I got this shot and it somehow didn’t work because other factors than genes determine the kid’s sexual orientation? Then I’d have a gay kid, in a world where there are less homosexuals around to work for gay rights and acceptance, and they’d have to live with the knowledge that I didn’t want them to be that way.
Straight male. No shot, let nature take its course. Whatever sexual orientation the child might develop, I will love it, and nurture it, and find it some profitable and fulfilling role in my white-slavery biz.
