A Question for Gay and Anti-Gay Extremists - You know who you are

I present two articles, please read them both.

Fox News - Controversial Therapy for Pre-Teen Transgender Patient Raises Questions Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Huff Post - The Sad Lengths Some Go to Avoid Having a Lesbian Daughter

The first one is about a lesbian couple whose son told them that he was a girl at age three, at age 11 they gave him medication to delay the onset of puberty because he still wants to be a girl. They wanted him to have more time to understand what he was asking. The second story is about a pill that pregnant women can take that will decrease the likelihood that their children would be born lesbians.

Now, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice and not influenced by biological reasons, then of course you would never have your spouse take the pill, right? For those who support the lesbian couple (who at least believe the kid should choose for himself) you must agree that the people who choose to take the pill to prevent their child from becoming a lesbian are also right because neither side believes in letting nature take it's course.

Just so I can make sure that I offend everyone, for those who believe in evolution and transhumanism, you don't believe in natural selection therefore you do not believe in evolution, nature determining our evolution. Now once you have made your decisions regarding these matters, let me turn your attention to autism. If you could take a pill and make sure that your child wasn't autistic, would you? How is it any different? We are destroying our species bio-diversity by choice and that is contrary to evolution, it is not only devolution, it is suicide according to Darwinian principals.

I need to ruminate on this for a bit, but S&F for managing to tick off all sides of this issue :-)

reply to post by adjensen


Dear adjensen,

That is absolutely the best answer that you could have given, lots to consider. My answer is that these types of changes are all wrong and let nature take it's course even if your kid might grow up to be gay or autistic, like me.

I came back and read this. I am not gay, I am only autistic, how many challenges should I face? LOL.

Lol. S&F cause I don't think anyone can arrive at a "right" answer no matter which way they go. I don't think I would have given the son the pill simply because I would let nature and his own views determine the outcome. In his case he would still have many years to make up his mind before he would legally be allowed to make any changes to his biology.

As far as autism though it is a tough one. I have seen some autistic savants that are so intelligent that it is incredible only it is from one point only. Do we allow the pill before they were born and rob us of that truly magnificent mind only to have a normal, average child?

I don't know what causes "gayness", is that a word?, but what ever the reason be it nature or choice I'm fine with it.

reply to post by mikelkhall


Dear mikehall,

As far as autism though it is a tough one. I have seen some autistic savants that are so intelligent that it is incredible only it is from one point only. Do we allow the pill before they were born and rob us of that truly magnificent mind only to have a normal, average child?

I have Asperger's, I am what they used to call an idiot savant. I ask you and everyone else, don't ever support not letting people like me, be me. Doesn't matter what society gets from us and I have changed four industries, what is more important is that we let people be them. I do not know if you will understand this, when I read the article about the lesbian couple a couple of years ago, I knew the other question that would arise and have waited until now when it did. I needed both shoes to drop. I knew something like the article about the anti-lesbian pill would come out (I thought it would be gene therapy, got that part wrong). I knew it the moment I read the original article two years ago, everyone else just had an opinion. I have been tested and see things differently than others and then there are things I have never understood, that is the nature of the beast and I am good with that, it fits my skin.

I believe the absolute best relationship we can have in this world with another person is a heterosexual relationship which creates a family. I am Christian and believe that is the best we can attain; however, I also believe God knows better than I, what emotions and urges you should be born with and some people are born with homosexual urges. If I am born blind then God chose that also and would want to be born blind. Peace. I doubt I will get many responses to this thread because the extremists will hate the position they must put themselves in.

Originally posted by AQuestion
Now, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice and not influenced by biological reasons, then of course you would never have your spouse take the pill, right? For those who support the lesbian couple (who at least believe the kid should choose for himself) you must agree that the people who choose to take the pill to prevent their child from becoming a lesbian are also right because neither side believes in letting nature take it's course.

There is a slight difference between the two cases. I personally believe gays and transgenders are born that way. The woman who took the pill to lower the likelihood of her child being born lesbian is altering brain development of the fetus in the womb. The lesbian couple who put their child on medication to prevent puberty did so to stop him from becoming more male because he feels female. The difference here is that the possibly lesbian fetus's brain would have already been altered in the womb thus nature would be prevented from taking its course. A transgender person feels like they are the wrong sex, that feeling comes from the brain. Therefore, the lesbians are not really stopping nature from taking its course, they are responding to nature taking its course.

Just so I can make sure that I offend everyone, for those who believe in evolution and transhumanism, you don't believe in natural selection therefore you do not believe in evolution, nature determining our evolution. Now once you have made your decisions regarding these matters, let me turn your attention to autism. If you could take a pill and make sure that your child wasn't autistic, would you? How is it any different? We are destroying our species bio-diversity by choice and that is contrary to evolution, it is not only devolution, it is suicide according to Darwinian principals.

Taking a pill to prevent something from developing will not destroy biodiversity. These things are in the DNA, which I doubt any medication would alter.

Originally posted by AQuestion
I came back and read this. I am not gay, I am only autistic, how many challenges should I face? LOL.

Hmmm... I am autistic, as well (Asperger's, diagnosed as very high functioning.) Now I have even more to sort through, thank you very much

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Dear acmpnsfal,

There is a slight difference between the two cases. I personally believe gays and transgenders are born that way. The woman who took the pill to lower the likelihood of her child being born lesbian is altering brain development of the fetus in the womb. The lesbian couple who put their child on medication to prevent puberty did so to stop him from becoming more male. The difference here is that the fetuses brain would have already been altered thus nature would be prevented from taking its course. A transgender person feels like they are the wrong sex. That feeling comes from the brain. Therefore, the lesbians are not really stopping nature from taking its course, they are responding to nature taking its course. Just so I can make sure that I offend everyone, for those who believe in evolution and transhumanism, you don't believe in natural selection therefore you do not believe in evolution, nature determining our evolution. Now once you have made your decisions regarding these matters, let me turn your attention to autism. If you could take a pill and make sure that your child wasn't autistic, would you? How is it any different? We are destroying our species bio-diversity by choice and that is contrary to evolution, it is not only devolution, it is suicide according to Darwinian principals. Taking a pill to prevent something from developing will not destroy biodiversity. These things are in the DNA, which I doubt any medication would alter.

I find your answer hypocritical and I don't mean that as an attack. I find it philosophically insincere and conclusion driven. You are born with the genetics you are born with and they are effected by the hormones that are released while you are in gestation. Certainly modifying your genes and hormones in the womb with the intent of changing their natural course is no worse than changing someone whose genes and hormones have been determined by nature. As far as your statement regarding biodiversity go, yes, we can change the DNA, we now have proof that there are children who were genetically manipulated to have three parents. Two mothers and one father. The DNA can be modified now.

reply to post by AQuestion


One is a classified as a disorder. The other is not classified as a disorder. If one had the chance to prevent a child from growing up with a disorder, why not?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by AQuestion

 

One is a classified as a disorder. The other is not classified as a disorder. If one had the chance to prevent a child from growing up with a disorder, why not?

Dear LesMisanthrope,

???. Which are you discussing, homosexuality or autism? They were both diagnosed as disorders. Autism was defined as a disease. You would prevent people like me from even being born? Thanks, I really appreciate that. If the official story is that someone has a "disorder" then they should not be allowed to be born. How many people suffer depression, that is also a disorder according to psychologists. Do we only want brain dead, happy and content slaves?

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

Dear acmpnsfal,

I find your answer hypocritical and I don't mean that as an attack. I find it philosophically insincere and conclusion driven. You are born with the genetics you are born with and they are effected by the hormones that are released while you are in gestation. Certainly modifying your genes and hormones in the womb with the intent of changing their natural course is no worse than changing someone whose genes and hormones have been determined by nature. As far as your statement regarding biodiversity go, yes, we can change the DNA, we now have proof that there are children who were genetically manipulated to have three parents. Two mothers and one father. The DNA can be modified now.

You are missing part of my point. We are going off the assumption that sexuality can be altered before birth, correct? Sexuality and gender are created in the brain. The only way to prevent a fetus from becoming gay with medication would be to alter the environment in which the brain is forming, thus changing how the brain would have formed naturally. I believe that transgender people are also born that way, therefore if a child is expressing a serious conflict with their natural sex and you as a parent respond to that you would still be going with nature. Nature formed the brain of the child who is transgender.

As for altering DNA, I said I do not think medication would, no that it cannot be done.

Why not throw another question in the mix, that may fit this discussion? Should the women have been alloowed to have a child as two women can not naturally procreate and while I'm at it, did the child identify as being a girl because it had two mothers?

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
while I'm at it, did the child identify as being a girl because it had two mothers?

That doesn't seem to be an illogical, non-biased, conclusion.

reply to post by AQuestion


Sorry, but homosexuality isn't a disorder.

If you knew your child was going to grow up with autism, but you had the means to prevent it, you wouldn't?

Interesting.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Dear acmpnsfal,

You are missing part of my point. We are going off the assumption that sexuality can be altered before birth, correct? Sexuality and gender are created in the brain. The only way to prevent a fetus from becoming gay with medication would be to alter the environment in which the brain is forming, thus changing how the brain would have formed naturally. I believe that transgender people are also born that way, therefore if a child is expressing a serious conflict with their natural sex and you as a parent respond to that you would still be going with nature. Nature formed the brain of the child who is transgender. As for altering DNA, I said I do not think medication would, no that it cannot be done.

I am not missing your point, you are avoiding the question. I will simplify, should a lesbian couple be allowed to find a surrogate that was willing to take pills to ensure that their child was born a lesbian? Should we be able to select a child's sexuality? Should we be allowed to delay a child's puberty because they might choose to be gay or straight? Make it simple, reverse the choices, are your answers the same? You want to tell me that a three year old is seriously challenging anything? Really, you don't have any kids then, they challenge everything.

Altering DNA, it has already been done. You are simply wrong and did not bother to even use a search engine to check what I said. This has already happened, it happened a couple of years ago and was in the news within the last three months. The issue is not gayness, the issue is manipulating the outcome and denying nature. Choosing for others who are not of a mature nature. Answer this, how old should someone be to choose to have a sex change?

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
Why not throw another question in the mix, that may fit this discussion? Should the women have been alloowed to have a child as two women can not naturally procreate and while I'm at it, did the child identify as being a girl because it had two mothers?

Do boys raised by single mother all want to become women? Do girls raised by single fathers all want to become men?

reply to post by acmpnsfal


I'm sure it's possible! It would depend on how that child was raised. If they are man hating lesbians, perhaps the child would rather identify itself as female.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but so is this entire thread.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Sorry, but homosexuality isn't a disorder.

If you knew your child was going to grow up with autism, but you had the means to prevent it, you wouldn't?

Interesting.

Dear LesMisanthrope,

Actually, it was. For many years that standard psychological test specifically tested for homosexuality. Which disorders should you be allowed to prevent pre-birth? Whose definition should we approve and why? Please explain fully rather than just leave a sentence or two.

Originally posted by AQuestion


I am not missing your point, you are avoiding the question. I will simplify, should a lesbian couple be allowed to find a surrogate that was willing to take pills to ensure that their child was born a lesbian? Should we be able to select a child's sexuality?

I was not avoiding anything. Perhaps the questions you ask are not clear enough? Or they are more loaded in your mind than how you present them? But fine I will go with this. No, I totally disagree with attempting to alter the sexuality of a child. I also highly doubt that two lesbians would try to do this.

Should we be allowed to delay a child's puberty because they might choose to be gay or straight? Make it simple, reverse the choices, are your answers the same? You want to tell me that a three year old is seriously challenging anything? Really, you don't have any kids then, they challenge everything.

Delaying the onset of puberty would make no sense for someone who is not transgender, people all across the sexuality spectrum still identify with the sex they were born as. Note earlier, I said serious conflict, that means something outside of challenging gender roles, which most kids do. Also, this child was not three he was eleven.

Altering DNA, it has already been done. You are simply wrong and did not bother to even use a search engine to check what I said. This has already happened, it happened a couple of years ago and was in the news within the last three months. The issue is not gayness, the issue is manipulating the outcome and denying nature. Choosing for others who are not of a mature nature. Answer this, how old should someone be to choose to have a sex change?

What are you on about? Lol. I'm not going back here.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Dear acmpnsfal,

You fail to understand what I have said at all and you failed to answer what I asked you. Here is a link to a collection of articles on the lesbians.

EqualityMatters - Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

You don't even understand where I am coming from. I did not say the child started the therapy when they were 3, I said that they defined themselves as a female at three. The lesbian parents do not support a sex change, they want their child to have time to understand what it means. I did not attack the lesbian parents for wanting their child to decide for himself, I said they shouldn't delay his choice nor promote it. The truth is they are not believers in transgenderism and it confused them. They are trying to buy their child time not make the decision for him or allow him to make the decision without understanding what it means.

As for your refusing to believe that children have been born with the DNA of three parents, refuse to read the news, refuse to understand it, it is what it is. Test tube babies have been around for decades, that is just a fact. Now we can manipulate the genetic code, that is just a fact and we have done it and that is just a fact.