Gay baby? Reverend Mohler has your Answer
- another tf fan
- Posts: 1692
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:08 am
- Location: USA
Gay baby? Reverend Mohler has your Answer
The Reverend Albert Mohler has posed a question for you. If you knew your baby was going to be gay, before it was born ( through genetic testing, i guess) would you commit to hormonal treatment to make it heterosexual.
tThis is of course a hypothetical question, but it is perplexing. It would seem an admission by a member of the christian community that homosexuality is a born trait, yet raises the question of whether that trait is a defect or not.
If it wasn't homosexuality but say cystic fibrosis and there was an in utero treatment would you attempt treatment in order to give your baby a better life. I imagine most would. Arguments by the gay community have included that they were born gay because why would anyone choose to live a life that is subject to unfair treatment and discrimination. So would you subject your baby to a harder life or try to make it easier by making them heterosexual.
I personally don't know what is best. I could see that an argument could be made that homosexuality is a trait, like blue eyes for example, that is neither bad nor good. It is not being gay that is making it hard on the person, but the way society acts that makes it hard, so society should change. Yet homosexuality provides no biological function and so I can see an argument that it is a genetic defect.
I don't want to get blasted for being a homophobe here, cause I have no problem with what ever people want to do in bed with each other. Makes no difference to me, but this is an interesting conundrum that I would love to see debated.
tThis is of course a hypothetical question, but it is perplexing. It would seem an admission by a member of the christian community that homosexuality is a born trait, yet raises the question of whether that trait is a defect or not.
If it wasn't homosexuality but say cystic fibrosis and there was an in utero treatment would you attempt treatment in order to give your baby a better life. I imagine most would. Arguments by the gay community have included that they were born gay because why would anyone choose to live a life that is subject to unfair treatment and discrimination. So would you subject your baby to a harder life or try to make it easier by making them heterosexual.
I personally don't know what is best. I could see that an argument could be made that homosexuality is a trait, like blue eyes for example, that is neither bad nor good. It is not being gay that is making it hard on the person, but the way society acts that makes it hard, so society should change. Yet homosexuality provides no biological function and so I can see an argument that it is a genetic defect.
I don't want to get blasted for being a homophobe here, cause I have no problem with what ever people want to do in bed with each other. Makes no difference to me, but this is an interesting conundrum that I would love to see debated.
Come on and wind me up.
Originally posted by another tf fan
why would anyone choose to live a life that is subject to unfair treatment and discrimination
Because there's an alternative: kill the bigots slowly and painfully. The same with people who have a problem with others of mixed race heritage.
Honestly, most of the rest of the Western world seems able to handle democracy and civil rights better than the US in this area.
Only China, for example, promotes abortion purely on grounds such as gender.
- another tf fan
- Posts: 1692
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:08 am
- Location: USA
- another tf fan
- Posts: 1692
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:08 am
- Location: USA
This seems akin to someone asking, "Would you change the pgiment of your baby's skin because a certain shade is subject to unfair treatment and discrimination?"
Basically it's like saying, "Why would you let your child be different in any way knowing that there are ignorant bigots out there that will treat him/her unfairly and dicriminate against her/him?"
The problem is not that the baby is gay or black or white or any other race or female or male or whatever. The problem is the ignorant bigots out there that treat people unfairly and dicriminate.
Better to eliminate the bigots...
@another tf fan: You're assuming Denyer's attacking you when that's not his intent. At least I don't think it is.
Basically it's like saying, "Why would you let your child be different in any way knowing that there are ignorant bigots out there that will treat him/her unfairly and dicriminate against her/him?"
The problem is not that the baby is gay or black or white or any other race or female or male or whatever. The problem is the ignorant bigots out there that treat people unfairly and dicriminate.
Better to eliminate the bigots...
@another tf fan: You're assuming Denyer's attacking you when that's not his intent. At least I don't think it is.
- slartibartfast
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:40 pm
- Location: paris.
- Contact:
it is funny how homosexuality has been so persectuted by the church ( yea, yea... and blah, blahs' sister, and blahs' second cousin) that it's become sacred... anyhow...
Personally, I would love to live to see the day when sex isn't taboo. Instead of doing flips and twists to fit people into narrow-minded molds, we could actually have a society made up of people instead of numbers.
edit : anyway, doesn't the church have a splinter group along the lines of "homosexuality is gods' answer to planetary overcrowding" ?[/flame the pope]
No thanks.Originally proposed by reverend Albert Mohler
If you knew your baby was going to be gay, before it was born ( through genetic testing, i guess) would you commit to hormonal treatment to make it heterosexual.
Personally, I would love to live to see the day when sex isn't taboo. Instead of doing flips and twists to fit people into narrow-minded molds, we could actually have a society made up of people instead of numbers.
edit : anyway, doesn't the church have a splinter group along the lines of "homosexuality is gods' answer to planetary overcrowding" ?[/flame the pope]
Not so much "like" -- it is saying, and is acknowledged in the top post.Originally posted by Hound
Basically it's like saying,
Onto a comparison made...
Cystic fibrosis is a painful and debilitating genetic condition that even with benefit of modern science reduces life expectancy to around 30. It severely affects quality of life through no fault of the person with it.
Having a preference for the same sex... affects quality of life due to ignorants, including a large concentration who think that an invisible being has a plan for their life and a keen interest in who they have sex with.
If anyone's actually considering those equivalent, I probably am attacking them.
Which explains why same-sex and non-reproductive sex play occur in other species as well as humans, presumably. (Source: the Daily Mail, one of the most conservative newspapers in the UK.)Originally posted by another tf fan
homosexuality provides no biological function
Sex and attraction perform the function of socialisation in mammals (and in various non-mammalian species) as well as reproduction.
Added to which, over-population is a huge global problem, roughly twenty-eight people born every second whilst ten die. Most countries struggle to accommodate the consumption of resources that accompanies that. The US is no different in that respect; look at statistics for how many lack health insurance.
As a species, we don't "need" more people reproducing. Breeding ourselves into shortages is not success. The "best" situation that can be hoped for is population redistribution or reliable networking -- which will gradually lower the quality of living for a few and greatly improve it for most. It's already happening with tech and phone service jobs disappearing abroad, leaving more unskilled retailing positions at rates of pay closer to the breadline the only option for many people -- lower quality of life.
- another tf fan
- Posts: 1692
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:08 am
- Location: USA
Denyer you'll find I only agree with you about over-population. Hell I encourage abortion for most of the white trash I meet around here. I am a heartless prick, I know. The way I see it human life is a byproduct of earth conditions, not some holy beautiful way to honor a creator. I have no delusions of an afterlife where we will pay for our sinful ways, you and I are going to the exact same place as Hitler, No where.
Seems to me, you think I started this thread as some way to prove a pro or con arguement about gays. Ignoring the whole part where I said what people do sexually is of no concern to me. You are right that same sex or opposite sex play for pleasure serves little or no biological purpose. Neither does the pancreas, so what. I just wanted to hear the debates on either side.
I shoulda known that asking the question was the same as saying I hate homosexuals, even though I clearly stated in my original post that I don't care what people do.
There is no god judging us, Rev Mohler. In my opinion the reverand is wrong and his arguement is based in fear and maybe latent homosexuality.
... and if I am reading more into what you are saying, Denyer, and you aren't assuming the worst about me, then I'm sorry I'n advance, maybe I read you wrong.
Seems to me, you think I started this thread as some way to prove a pro or con arguement about gays. Ignoring the whole part where I said what people do sexually is of no concern to me. You are right that same sex or opposite sex play for pleasure serves little or no biological purpose. Neither does the pancreas, so what. I just wanted to hear the debates on either side.
I shoulda known that asking the question was the same as saying I hate homosexuals, even though I clearly stated in my original post that I don't care what people do.
There is no god judging us, Rev Mohler. In my opinion the reverand is wrong and his arguement is based in fear and maybe latent homosexuality.
... and if I am reading more into what you are saying, Denyer, and you aren't assuming the worst about me, then I'm sorry I'n advance, maybe I read you wrong.
Come on and wind me up.
- tahukanuva
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:48 am
- Custom Title: Human After All
- Location: Kentucky, US
Honestly, I don't see why so many Christians have such a huge problem with homosexuality. I'm perfectly capable of both: A) being a Christian, and B) not being a homophobic bigot. I don't care one way or the other about other peoples' sexual preferences, and don't automatically assume that because a person doesn't want to **** the same people I do, that they're "damned to Hell." Especially when there's pricks like Phelps who are much more deserving of such a punishment.
- another tf fan
- Posts: 1692
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:08 am
- Location: USA
- slartibartfast
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:40 pm
- Location: paris.
- Contact:
Originally posted by another tf fan
if I am reading more into what you are saying, Denyer, and you aren't assuming the worst about me, then I'm sorry I'n advance, maybe I read you wrong.
Originally posted by another tf fan
If it wasn't homosexuality but say cystic fibrosis and there was an in utero treatment would you attempt treatment in order to give your baby a better life.
You could pick better analogies.
It does serve purpose -- socialisation isn't inconsequential in natural selection.Originally posted by another tf fan
You are right that same sex or opposite sex play for pleasure serves little or no biological purpose.
Statistically, women prefer some traits that are stereotypically feminine in long-term partners. (Biological imperative: they're less likely to kill their own young, better providers, etc. In fact the correlation is bit stronger than this -- studies tend to suggest animals have stronger attraction to others with similar genes to them, even if those genes are recessive and don't manifest in their own generation or sex. So a female bird with genetic code for long tail feathers, even if that doesn't express in female birds, will have some preference for birds with long tail feathers. This is likely to be kept in equilibrium by birds having tail feathers that are "too long" finding it harder to fly and to avoid predators.)
Various traits that are stereotypically masculine tend to be preferred for quick shags, and it seems credible we're breeding away from, say, men being very hairy because (amongst many other factors) reproduction is less certain now due to people actively aiming to prevent it. The quick shag relationships reproduce sometimes, but more people reproduce approximately when they choose to with long-term partners.
Given a society in which people can follow instincts to have sex without any prospect of unwanted reproduction or disease, there'd be a strong chance the traditional "quick shag" pool will decrease faster.
I doubt hormonally messing around with embryos would achieve anything other than bring to light a couple of decades later solid reasons for not meddling that closely with a gestation "system" that's survived with few changes for a very long time (at least, not meddling if you want the embryo to survive.) I suspect the truth is that the human brain isn't that fussy -- anything it can form associative connections with can stir sexual arousal, whether it's nude photos, shoes, videos of mice being eaten by snakes, etc. Genetics are predispositions to behaviour, and environment never entirely divorced from genetics. There's a balance of sorts.
Also, genes aren't the magic on-off things biology textbooks tend to portray them as; it's possible to look at an embryo and say "that has an XX% chance of that well-identified genetic factor being expressed" but hoping that a flood of testosterone supplements, for example, will have a specific effect is dicing with someone's health years down the line (assuming a someone develops from that embryo.) There's too much complex interlinking in the process of developmental gene expression to risk switching bits just to see what happens. If you "cull" a gene for blue eyes, for example, without switching some other genes you don't at that time know are important, you may breed in a higher chance of myopia, or the optic nerve growing backwards, etc.
So, it's more feasible to look at factors present and abort on the basis of those factors than it is to try to rewrite the genetic code by modifying the environment. Fortunately, religious nutjobs tend to want eugenic effects without widespread abortion, and the ethics of adding chemical compounds directly to human embryos (where those embryos will then be brought to term) other than within the spectrum of a 'normal' diet are likely to pose some barrier to experimentation in this area.
- another tf fan
- Posts: 1692
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:08 am
- Location: USA
- tahukanuva
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:48 am
- Custom Title: Human After All
- Location: Kentucky, US
- slartibartfast
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:40 pm
- Location: paris.
- Contact:
There's a lot to be said in favour of embryo-modification though. Just because we seem to have no clue on what we should be doing doesn't mean that it doesn't have a tremendous potential for good. We can all imagine mad max scenarios where everyone looks like danny devito but I'm sure there are plenty of practical applications that aren't quite as radical as changing pathological traits... I'm sure I'll think of one in a minute...
... rhaa ... "submit reply"
... rhaa ... "submit reply"
I look forward to meeting your sclerotic sentient jelly kids one day, and I'm sure they'll try to shake my hand with whatever appendages they have.Originally posted by slartibartfast
Just because we seem to have no clue on what we should be doing doesn't mean that it doesn't have a tremendous potential for good.
- tahukanuva
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:48 am
- Custom Title: Human After All
- Location: Kentucky, US
- slartibartfast
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:40 pm
- Location: paris.
- Contact: