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

Originally posted by AQuestion

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.

It was. And smoking was once good for you.

disorder |disˈôrdər|
noun
• Medicine a disruption of normal physical or mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition : eating disorders | an improved understanding of mental disorder.

Would you allow your child to grow up with a disorder knowing that you had the chance to stop it?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Dear LesMisanthrope,

You miss the point. Would you allow your child to grow up normal if you had the chance to avoid it?

Originally posted by AQuestion
If you could take a pill and make sure that your child wasn't autistic, would you? How is it any different?

I'm not missing the point. This was your question. I say "yes I would prevent my child from having a disorder if I knew before hand." What would you do? besides avoid answering?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by AQuestion
If you could take a pill and make sure that your child wasn't autistic, would you? How is it any different?

I'm not missing the point. This was your question. I say "yes I would prevent my child from having a disorder if I knew before hand." What would you do? besides avoid answering?

Dear LesMisanthrope,

I gave my answer up front, in the beginning, I would allow nature to take it's course. I am not God and ask you, again, at what point would you stop selecting. Inbreeds are so interesting, they lead to insanity and hemophilia, we select poorly when we select to replicate based on a million things that are personal rather than elective regarding what our children will be like, we are not merely breeders for the status quo, we have the ability to love and choose partners based more on our love than our wish to select what our children will be like, that is what leads to biodiversity. Tell us where you are coming from, are you a transgender supporter, a transhumanist or a fundamentalist?

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by AQuestion
If you could take a pill and make sure that your child wasn't autistic, would you? How is it any different?

I'm not missing the point. This was your question. I say "yes I would prevent my child from having a disorder if I knew before hand." What would you do? besides avoid answering?

Dear LesMisanthrope,

I gave my answer up front, in the beginning, I would allow nature to take it's course. I am not God and ask you, again, at what point would you stop selecting. Inbreeds are so interesting, they lead to insanity and hemophilia, we select poorly when we select to replicate based on a million things that are personal rather than elective regarding what our children will be like, we are not merely breeders for the status quo, we have the ability to love and choose partners based more on our love than our wish to select what our children will be like, that is what leads to biodiversity. Tell us where you are coming from, are you a transgender supporter, a transhumanist or a fundamentalist?

That's all I was asking. I merely wanted to see if you would allow your own child to suffer with a disorder its whole life even if you had the chance to stop it. I cannot understand why one would allow this, but I appreciate your honesty nonetheless.

It doesn't matter where I'm coming from. I'm only words on a screen.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Dear LesMisanthrope (hater of mankind),

That's all I was asking. I merely wanted to see if you would allow your own child to suffer with a disorder its whole life even if you had the chance to stop it. I cannot understand why one would allow this, but I appreciate your honesty nonetheless. It doesn't matter where I'm coming from. I'm only words on a screen.

But, I said where I was coming from in the beginning, you sought to deceive others, I did not. Your answer, in the end, is that would prevent some of us from existing at all because someone said we were a disorder. List the disorders that you would prevent and who should be allowed to determine what is and is not a disorder. As you pointed out earlier, Autism is a disorder and I should not exist. Thanks again for the love and understanding and appreciation. You say it does not matter where you are coming from, why not? Shouldn't you be truthful and upfront in dealing with others or are lies and deceit okay means for having a relationship?

reply to post by adjensen


Dear adjensen,

Do you not find it funny that not one person had the guts to come on this thread and say that they would change God's choice for their child to be born with lesbian urges, yes others said that it was okay to choose to effect their child to be transgendered? The question was really one of choosing life decisions for others versus supporting free will. I believe that it is okay to be flat chested, the ex was and I never wanted her to get the implants she wanted. I accepted her as her. She used to harp on the girls about their weight, I never did, I told them to be healthy, not conform to this world's idea of beauty. This thread was never about gay or straight, it was always about free will, nature or God if you will. While I expected it, no Christians attacked me on this thread, yet. It was transhumanists that attacked me. Peace.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Dear LesMisanthrope (hater of mankind),

That's all I was asking. I merely wanted to see if you would allow your own child to suffer with a disorder its whole life even if you had the chance to stop it. I cannot understand why one would allow this, but I appreciate your honesty nonetheless. It doesn't matter where I'm coming from. I'm only words on a screen.

But, I said where I was coming from in the beginning, you sought to deceive others, I did not. Your answer, in the end, is that would prevent some of us from existing at all because someone said we were a disorder. List the disorders that you would prevent and who should be allowed to determine what is and is not a disorder. As you pointed out earlier, Autism is a disorder and I should not exist. Thanks again for the love and understanding and appreciation. You say it does not matter where you are coming from, why not? Shouldn't you be truthful and upfront in dealing with others or are lies and deceit okay means for having a relationship?

Please, ad hominem gets your arguments no where. Refrain from calling me names.

First of all, I never said you should not exist, so I'd appreciate if you didn't attempt to put words in my mouth. Maybe you should re-read my posts for clarification. If you could take a pill to get rid of your autism, would you? It doesn't matter, because if you were cured of autism or not, you would still exist. This is fairly obvious.

Secondly, if I had a chance to allow my child a life without suffering with a disorder, I would take it. It wouldn't make my child any less unique than someone who is gay, autistic or bi-polar.

It seems you're claiming you would lose your identity if you didn't have autism. I understand what you're saying, as I too have a disorder, a genetic condition, but I don't let it define who I am. If I was cured of it tomorrow, I wouldn't be less unique.

If its a disorder we are talking about, then I am all for any reasonably safe manipulation, genetic or non-genetic, to cure it or prevent such children from being born. Yes, I have transhumanist tendencies. Nature is not perfect, and it is deeply immoral to put nature above wellbeing of humans.

Sometimes metal crosses are used to treat brain damage but that doesnt mean it works.

There is no such thing as a perfect hormonal cocktail injected into a woman or her baby will prevent homosexuality.

Comparing homosexuality to autism is idiotic.

I think both articles concern transgender issues and fears, rather than homophobia.

I'd say everyone should stop meddling in either case, and let nature run its course.

There are enough options either child could make as adults in a free society.
These are not life-threatening conditions to justify meddling in children's bodies.

Nobody else should impose their solutions and risky interventions on children.

From a lot of intersex narratives one can discover that doctors have always made surgical impositions to "standardize" children along the imagined gender lines of the time, and when the child reached puberty they were almost always the wrong choices made by doctors and parents.

Chemical impositions are the same - the new "bloodless" surgery.
Leave those kids alone.

reply to post by AQuestion


As far as the lesbian couple giving their son medications to slow down the onset of puberty in order to give him time to decide for himself: I understand that they are doing what they think is right for their child, but I don't agree with it. I believe that nature should take it's course and that no child should be given unnecessary medications. There are unknown side effects that could cause harm if not now then possibly further up the road.

When it comes to taking medication during pregnancy to prevent the child from being born lesbian I disagree with that also. I wouldn't want to take any unnecessary drugs during pregnancy. I even quit smoking during my pregnancies and followed a healthy diet and exercised. And yet one of my children was born blind in one eye. If I could have taken a pill to prevent that I don't believe that I would have, as medications during pregnancy could possibly cause far worse birth defects, and being half blind has never hindered her in doing anything she put her mind to.

In my opinion taking a drug during pregnancy to prevent the child from being born different from what nature intended is the same as people who abort babies that an ultrasound has shown to be of a different sex than what the family wants. God blesses us with children, and we are given the exact children that are intended for us to have,

reply to post by AQuestion

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.

No, we're taking our lives out of "God"s hands. We are becoming gods in our own rights, controlling evolution and biology itself.

How soon until we can make our own little universe in a jar? What will happen to religion then? Will we hide the evidence of having broken the God-barrier, or will we finally admit that we've been hiding for centuries behind a myth and stand to recieve our inheritance?

Will we DESERVE our inheritance?

See, we are gods. But we're so destructive that we have to hide ourselves from ourselves. And just so we don't see ourselves doing it, we distract ourselves with shiny things. Thus, materialism.

In closing, I see your point. I have gay friends, and I don't have a problem with them having rights, so I know I'm not the target audience. But these things you mention are symptoms of us not being satisfied with "God"s work, so we proactively take steps to control nature ourselves.

We WANT to be gods.

reply to post by AQuestion

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 don't know about the gay part of your thread, but I can answer this question from personal experience.
My son has Aspergers syndrome, and I often pondered if a pill cane along would I allow him to take it.....and I don't think I would, my son is at the lower of the spectrum, so he's more "normal" (whatever that means), the plus side of his condition is that he is very intelligent, he's interested in thing's like classical music, Greek mythology, Japanese history and culture, and history in general (he wants to be an archaeologist when he grows up or Dr Who) and varies other academic interest, compare this to his older brother who's interested in girls, football and sleeping. The down side of his condition is that he is a loner, he finds it hard to make friends mainly because he's so different to kids his own age, plus he is very logical in the way he thinks which means he is brutally honest and most people don't like that, and has very little empathy towards other people, apart from that he's a great kid and I wouldn't change him for the world.

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.

I disagree with your statement that I must either agree with both or disagree with both. I support the lesbian couple's decision to let their son choose for himself. The issue I have with the parents of the second article is that they are making a decision for an unborn child, a decision which could have disastrous effects on that child's life in the long run and based on a prejudiced and intolerant mindset. If the primary concern for the parents is for their child to bear them grandchildren, I would suggest having more children to improve their odds.

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.

While I'm not exactly a supporter of transhumanism (huge issue filled with ethical concerns) I must say your statement regarding a non belief in natural selection is inaccurate. Natural selection has already been abandoned by our species since we have the capacity to choose who lives and dies to a great extent. Every time a child with a life threatening disorder is saved, natural selection is circumvented. People with various disorders are being preserved by our medicine and allowed to propagate those disorders. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to live or breed but merely pointing out that we have advanced beyond natural evolutionary processes.

My own moral standpoint is that we should try to prevent and treat disorders which have an adverse effect on ones quality of life. Homosexuality does not have such an effect. It is the hatred and intolerance expressed towards homosexuals, which I see all too often on this site and in the world, which has a negative effect on their lives.

We should not seek to fix what isn't broken with drugs which may have adverse effects on quality of life, to do so would be counterproductive.

reply to post by littled16


Dear littled16,

I agree with you and really appreciated how you expressed yourself. Thank you.

reply to post by Glass


Dear Glass,

I will disagree with your first paragraph; but, wish to focus more on the second. If you go back and read the linked article you will find that many of the parents had no idea that the pill was supposed to have the intended effect. The doctors prescribed it without explaining all of the effects. Having said that, I do believe the lesbian couple was doing their best to delay puberty so that their child would have a better understanding of what he was requesting; however, they were still using the therapy to counteract nature taking it's course. There is a big difference between fixing a broken arm and modifying someones genetic or hormonal makeup (as opposed to hormonal supplements for someone who for whatever reason is no longer able to produce them).

While I'm not exactly a supporter of transhumanism (huge issue filled with ethical concerns) I must say your statement regarding a non belief in natural selection is inaccurate. Natural selection has already been abandoned by our species since we have the capacity to choose who lives and dies to a great extent. Every time a child with a life threatening disorder is saved, natural selection is circumvented. People with various disorders are being preserved by our medicine and allowed to propagate those disorders. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to live or breed but merely pointing out that we have advanced beyond natural evolutionary processes.

On the one hand you say that I am wrong in pointing out that this is not natural selection and then you say we have already abandoned it. I think the bigger issue is to what extent do we believe we should abandon it, should we abandon it all together or try and decide where the lines should be drawn? The fact that the world aborts more female than male babies is also contrary to natural selection.

Well, as promised, I gave this a bit of thought and here's what I think.

As I posted earlier, I have Asperger's Syndrome, a high functioning form of autism. It has caused me some problems over the years, such as when my future wife first came to visit my house, she was a bit taken aback by my dining room table, which was covered with binders filled with thousands and thousands of bootleg concert CDs, which I had collected obsessively for years. I was recognized in the bootleg community as an expert on several different bands, learned how to remaster shows and "fix" bad CDs, but one day I just stopped and never traded another show. I piled the binders on the dining room table and never opened them again. They'd likely still be there if Patti hadn't "suggested" that they'd be happier on a shelf in the basement. Well, she'd be happier, lol.

That sort of behaviour has gone on all my life, and with a few exceptions, I do not interact with people if I can avoid it. But... that's who I am, and I don't know who I would be if I didn't have Asperger's. Given that I'm happy, successful and have people to love and who love me, if I had the option to "fix" my birth defect/mental illness, I think I would pass.

I think it comes down to "harm" -- a correction is acceptable, in my mind, if it prevents harm to a person. If, for example, surgery on an infant can resolve a significant birth defect or save its life, that would be justified. On the other hand, manipulation to affect a fetus' sex, eye colour or other superficiality, that does not seem reasonable.

So, with that moral landscape, we come to your examples. I'll take the "easy" one first, the pill that women can take to reduce the likelihood of birthing a lesbian. If this was 75 years ago, one might (and I cannot emphasize "might" enough) claim that the characteristic of lesbianism was harmful, because of the social stigma, but that is absolutely not the case today. I am not an "anti-gay" Christian, so I think that this sort of unnatural modification is unwarranted. Having a gay daughter may be just the antidote the bigoted parents need to wake them up to the concept of unconditional love.

The other one, I'm not so sure about. On the one hand, I see their decision to forestall puberty as being one that is somewhat merciful, if the boy is going to undergo significant psychological harm by growing up as a boy when he doesn't see himself that way, but on the other hand, I see it as being a bit manipulative, by preventing him from being a boy until he is old enough to "make that decision" -- I'd say that there is zero chance that he would remain a boy.

On that issue, I would lean against the manipulation of the natural process, because I don't think that there is a clear case of the avoidance of harm. Let the kid grow up normally, and when he's of an appropriate age, he can make his decision and go from there.

reply to post by adjensen


Dear adjensen

I believe your answer is perfect as it is honest. And I believe the lesbian couple would be open to thinking about it. I have always said that being a parent means that you can never be right again, you take on the responsibility for taking care of another and you can never know exactly what to do to be right therefore you judge yourself by how much you choose others over you.

So, with that moral landscape, we come to your examples. I'll take the "easy" one first, the pill that women can take to reduce the likelihood of birthing a lesbian. If this was 75 years ago, one might (and I cannot emphasize "might" enough) claim that the characteristic of lesbianism was harmful, because of the social stigma, but that is absolutely not the case today. I am not an "anti-gay" Christian, so I think that this sort of unnatural modification is unwarranted. Having a gay daughter may be just the antidote the bigoted parents need to wake them up to the concept of unconditional love.

I don't know about the antidote; but, it may cause them to look at their heart rather than some legalistic viewpoint as none of us are God and none of us have complete understanding. We can go by the law or have our truth come from our personal understanding of others. Jesus died for our heart to have an part in the decision. Peace.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Glass

 

On the one hand you say that I am wrong in pointing out that this is not natural selection and then you say we have already abandoned it.

I didn't say you were wrong in pointing out that this is not natural selection. You said that a transhumanist does not, or cannot, believe in natural selection, which is not necessarily true. One can still believe that natural selection takes its course (natural selection still exists), but we as a species have abandoned it as I had said before.

I think the bigger issue is to what extent do we believe we should abandon it, should we abandon it all together or try and decide where the lines should be drawn? The fact that the world aborts more female than male babies is also contrary to natural selection.

Everything we do in terms of medicine is contrary to natural selection. If we had not been trying so hard to save the sick, they would have died off and the weakness to those forms of sickness would eventually disappear.

Natural selection gave us the powers of intellect that we possess today. It was determined by natural selection that our brains were the most effective tool to ensure our species' survival, and we are surviving. Now we are out of the hands of natural selection in the same way a student leaves its parents for university; we must use our intellect to direct the course of our destiny as a species.

There are over 7 billion people on earth now because we defeated natural selection and substituted our own idea that every human deserves life...

Ironically, we then turned around and gave ourselves the choice to terminate pregnancies
I do not condone nor condemn abortion, it's not something I would do but I believe in having that choice.

So where should we draw the line? I would start by saying we should do everything possible to ensure that our species' future is not hell for our descendants. We should not make choices now that could cause them undue suffering.

The problem with little Tommy/Tammy is that he is already uncomfortable with his own body, which is probably not his lesbian parents' fault. Transsexualism occurs in the children of heterosexual couples too; the fact that his parents are both women probably made him more comfortable in expressing his gender identity earlier in his life. Hormone blocking medication may not be the best option, but it is their choice and their son has expressed consent to the extent that he is able to understand, granted he may not understand the long term consequences but it is his life, not yours or mine, so we shouldn't pass judgement.