Is your baby gay?
- Thread starter Raerae
- Start date
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
While its surprisingly refreshing to see someone in a position of authority from an extremely conservative church acknowledge that homosexuality more than likely has a biological basis, the rest of it disturbs me to no end. But then, most of the stuff that comes out of extremely conservative churches disturbs me.
Beauty Mark
Well-known member
Assuming that you can be born gay (I don't know; if it is a preference, it's probably one of those preferences you can't explain, like why you favor one color over another or why you like some foods), wouldn't you be tampering with God's work if you tried to make your baby not gay?
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
But if homsexuality is a "sin" according to the bible, and humans are born in sin, wouldn't you be able to justify, "curing homosexuality" as helping save a child from a sinful life?
This is just argument btw... I think the overall article is very disturbing.
Originally Posted by Beauty Mark
Assuming that you can be born gay (I don't know; if it is a preference, it's probably one of those preferences you can't explain, like why you favor one color over another or why you like some foods), wouldn't you be tampering with God's work if you tried to make your baby not gay? |
But if homsexuality is a "sin" according to the bible, and humans are born in sin, wouldn't you be able to justify, "curing homosexuality" as helping save a child from a sinful life?
This is just argument btw... I think the overall article is very disturbing.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
Taking that stance would cause me to say "All life is life led in sin, that which is between man and his Creator is exactly that, between man and his Creator. Butt the fuck out."
But that's just me.
| Originally Posted by Raerae
But if homsexuality is a "sin" according to the bible, and humans are born in sin, wouldn't you be able to justify, "curing homosexuality" as helping save a child from a sinful life? This is just argument btw... I think the overall article is very disturbing. |
Taking that stance would cause me to say "All life is life led in sin, that which is between man and his Creator is exactly that, between man and his Creator. Butt the fuck out."
But that's just me.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
Amen.
Quote:
I think you'll find that most psychiatrists and psychologists don't associate pedophilia with homosexuality. But I do see the point you are making.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
I'm much more concerned with my kids being good people who are productive, polite, and contributing members of society who are capable of handling relationships on any level...gay or straight, than I am with my kids' sexuality. |
Amen.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Raerae
I just find it ironic all the "anti gay" or "cure gay" and then all the gay child molesting that goes on in the Church, and the church just covering it all up. Circles circles! |
I think you'll find that most psychiatrists and psychologists don't associate pedophilia with homosexuality. But I do see the point you are making.
Hawkeye
Well-known member
Wait-I can make my child NOT gay? Or I can make him gay?
YAY!
OK now that I've had my god complex....
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me. If (to answer Raeraes argument as shown HERE)
Quote:
that were the case:
Then my response is this-(in the Christian response)
God made man originally perfect. Satan comes along, eve eats the fruit shares with adam they screw it up for the rest of us. Biologically- if they started the sin, and they are now stuck with sins- then it is perfectly acceptable reasoning that a child is indeed capable of being born homosexual. Now, that being said (again with my Christian reasoning)-God never shuts a door without opening a window and therefore this changing from gay to straight could very well be considered acceptable in the Christian church to help prevent the "sin".
That being said-
from my personal perspective- how the hell are you going to know if a child is gay or not? I mean you couldn't tell for a while at least.
That's just B.S.
Anyway other than that- my perspective on this and I have told my pastor (who is very conservative) this - I don't feel it is my place to judge. I mean Seriously, I can guide the child and as a Christian I can do nothing more than teach them that walk and then I can teach them My Native American beliefs and ultimately the decision is up to him- because just being gay- I can tell ya there are so many other ways for man to sin. *shrugs* But really it's not our place to judge who is gay who isn't gay who can we turn into being gay etc.
Honestly- the whole thing is B.S.
Quote:
that being said-
Really it's only what we hear about. Seriously- i mean it's some huge scandal when a church messes up but what about the molestings that go on everyday in the common mans house? The politicians? The businessmen? The doctors? The teachers? You don't hear too much of that except locally. They just love to show attention to people when they are considered spiritual leaders. JMHO
YAY!
OK now that I've had my god complex....
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me. If (to answer Raeraes argument as shown HERE)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raerae
But if homsexuality is a "sin" according to the bible, and humans are born in sin, wouldn't you be able to justify, "curing homosexuality" as helping save a child from a sinful life? |
that were the case:
Then my response is this-(in the Christian response)
God made man originally perfect. Satan comes along, eve eats the fruit shares with adam they screw it up for the rest of us. Biologically- if they started the sin, and they are now stuck with sins- then it is perfectly acceptable reasoning that a child is indeed capable of being born homosexual. Now, that being said (again with my Christian reasoning)-God never shuts a door without opening a window and therefore this changing from gay to straight could very well be considered acceptable in the Christian church to help prevent the "sin".
That being said-
from my personal perspective- how the hell are you going to know if a child is gay or not? I mean you couldn't tell for a while at least.
That's just B.S.
Anyway other than that- my perspective on this and I have told my pastor (who is very conservative) this - I don't feel it is my place to judge. I mean Seriously, I can guide the child and as a Christian I can do nothing more than teach them that walk and then I can teach them My Native American beliefs and ultimately the decision is up to him- because just being gay- I can tell ya there are so many other ways for man to sin. *shrugs* But really it's not our place to judge who is gay who isn't gay who can we turn into being gay etc.
Honestly- the whole thing is B.S.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Raerae I just find it ironic all the "anti gay" or "cure gay" and then all the gay child molesting that goes on in the Church, and the church just covering it all up. Circles circles! |
that being said-
Really it's only what we hear about. Seriously- i mean it's some huge scandal when a church messes up but what about the molestings that go on everyday in the common mans house? The politicians? The businessmen? The doctors? The teachers? You don't hear too much of that except locally. They just love to show attention to people when they are considered spiritual leaders. JMHO
Beauty Mark
Well-known member
And for every minister or priest who molests, there's many others who are not.
I wonder if statistically it's about even with others who molest.
I wonder if statistically it's about even with others who molest.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
I would be surprised if it were much different. The big difference, and the source of most of the uproar I think, is that the Catholic Church was aware these problems existed, did little to punish them and simply shifted the offending priest to a different location where no one knew of the crimes. There was a series of articles (some of the best investigative reporting I've seen) in the Dallas Morning News a few years back that showed how different dicoeses in the US had offending priests (and the number was high) removed from their churches and moved to churches in third world countries where the priests continued their crimes with victims who had even fewer avenues of recourse than the victims in the US. It was absolutely appalling.
| Originally Posted by Beauty Mark
I wonder if statistically it's about even with others who molest. |
I would be surprised if it were much different. The big difference, and the source of most of the uproar I think, is that the Catholic Church was aware these problems existed, did little to punish them and simply shifted the offending priest to a different location where no one knew of the crimes. There was a series of articles (some of the best investigative reporting I've seen) in the Dallas Morning News a few years back that showed how different dicoeses in the US had offending priests (and the number was high) removed from their churches and moved to churches in third world countries where the priests continued their crimes with victims who had even fewer avenues of recourse than the victims in the US. It was absolutely appalling.
giz2000
Well-known member
Quote:
Totally agree...that article is very disturbing.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
I'm much more concerned with my kids being good people who are productive, polite, and contributing members of society who are capable of handling relationships on any level...gay or straight, than I am with my kids' sexuality. |
Totally agree...that article is very disturbing.
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
I think what this person was implying was that if indeed sexual preference is biological, then with genetic research (kinda funny how science is A-OK when it fits their agenda) we could find a way to test for the "gay gene" (for lack of a better word). And if you child comes back "gay positive" ( lol ), treatment could be done on the fetus, eigther hormonally,or perhaps genetically (obviously not with the current technology), to ensure that your baby is born with a "church approved" sexual orientation, aka heterosexual.
What about the implications of the test itself. Chances are testing for the biological reasoning behind sexual preference would be found well b4 a cure (can you even call it a cure? That would imply that being gay is a disease or a disorder, which i really dont see it as that). What % of parents would choose to abort a fetus that tested positive for gay sexual orientation.
Considering that while being gay is becomming less and less of an issue in our society, it's still not the "prefered" way to live. And if you look at the % of fetus's that are terminated when they test positive for other genetic disorders (upwards of 90%), it's plausible to assume that gay fetus's would be subjected to the same termination %'s.
As while many parents (not all) can get used to having a gay child, and support and love them, how many of those parents could they have made the "choice" would have chosen a heterosexual child. I'm avoiding the word "normal" because I really dont think sexual preference can be abnormal at it's most basic, boy or girl (things like benig a pedophile are abmornal imho, as i think something is wrong with you if your sexualy attracted to children). I really do think that if a parent wanted to have their baby tested for homosexuality, that they are looking to prevent it.
| Originally Posted by Hawkeye
That being said- from my personal perspective- how the hell are you going to know if a child is gay or not? I mean you couldn't tell for a while at least. |
I think what this person was implying was that if indeed sexual preference is biological, then with genetic research (kinda funny how science is A-OK when it fits their agenda) we could find a way to test for the "gay gene" (for lack of a better word). And if you child comes back "gay positive" ( lol ), treatment could be done on the fetus, eigther hormonally,or perhaps genetically (obviously not with the current technology), to ensure that your baby is born with a "church approved" sexual orientation, aka heterosexual.
What about the implications of the test itself. Chances are testing for the biological reasoning behind sexual preference would be found well b4 a cure (can you even call it a cure? That would imply that being gay is a disease or a disorder, which i really dont see it as that). What % of parents would choose to abort a fetus that tested positive for gay sexual orientation.
Considering that while being gay is becomming less and less of an issue in our society, it's still not the "prefered" way to live. And if you look at the % of fetus's that are terminated when they test positive for other genetic disorders (upwards of 90%), it's plausible to assume that gay fetus's would be subjected to the same termination %'s.
As while many parents (not all) can get used to having a gay child, and support and love them, how many of those parents could they have made the "choice" would have chosen a heterosexual child. I'm avoiding the word "normal" because I really dont think sexual preference can be abnormal at it's most basic, boy or girl (things like benig a pedophile are abmornal imho, as i think something is wrong with you if your sexualy attracted to children). I really do think that if a parent wanted to have their baby tested for homosexuality, that they are looking to prevent it.
Beauty Mark
Well-known member
I can't see any reason to test except to prevent. It's not like sex, which impacts name and what you buy. Well, I guess there might be a few situations where a parent may want a gay child, for whatever reasons.
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
Well the guy wrote:
"The article, published March 2 on Mohler's personal Web site, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"
And further down a supporter of his wrote:
"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."
So these guys along their lines of thinking that it may be biological in nature, view homosexuality like any other genetic disorder. And would probably condone pre-natal testing, just like we currently test for other diseases and such. Since they just see it as something people are "suffering from" and want to help them. In a wierd twisted sorta way.
| Originally Posted by Beauty Mark
I can't see any reason to test except to prevent. It's not like sex, which impacts name and what you buy. Well, I guess there might be a few situations where a parent may want a gay child, for whatever reasons. |
Well the guy wrote:
"The article, published March 2 on Mohler's personal Web site, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"
And further down a supporter of his wrote:
"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."
So these guys along their lines of thinking that it may be biological in nature, view homosexuality like any other genetic disorder. And would probably condone pre-natal testing, just like we currently test for other diseases and such. Since they just see it as something people are "suffering from" and want to help them. In a wierd twisted sorta way.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
Ahhh, but the thing is, does the medical community consider it disordered? I don't believe that to be the case at all so I would be more inclined to believe that the medical community in general wouldn't even accept the idea of prenatal testing for homosexuality.
I think that today's genetic screening covers abnormalities that cause disease only. IIRC, genetic abnormalities can exist without causing a disease or problem. Plus, if I'm thinking correctly, genetic abnormality screening generally (in women who aren't known as carriers) begins with a blood test for the mother before moving on to more invasive testing. I would imagine that the only way to determine if a child had the genetic markers of a homosexual would be with more invasive testing, which carries a risk to it. I don't know that the medical community, would be willing to recommend invasive testing as a place to start for something that isn't a disease.
| Originally Posted by Raerae
"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science." So these guys along their lines of thinking that it may be biological in nature, view homosexuality like any other genetic disorder. And would probably condone pre-natal testing, just like we currently test for other diseases and such. Since they just see it as something people are "suffering from" and want to help them. In a wierd twisted sorta way. |
Ahhh, but the thing is, does the medical community consider it disordered? I don't believe that to be the case at all so I would be more inclined to believe that the medical community in general wouldn't even accept the idea of prenatal testing for homosexuality.
I think that today's genetic screening covers abnormalities that cause disease only. IIRC, genetic abnormalities can exist without causing a disease or problem. Plus, if I'm thinking correctly, genetic abnormality screening generally (in women who aren't known as carriers) begins with a blood test for the mother before moving on to more invasive testing. I would imagine that the only way to determine if a child had the genetic markers of a homosexual would be with more invasive testing, which carries a risk to it. I don't know that the medical community, would be willing to recommend invasive testing as a place to start for something that isn't a disease.
Beauty Mark
Well-known member
I'm not sure if the medical community has a stance on homosexuality. The psychology/psychiatry community has, except for a handful of doctors I presume, decided that it isn't a mental defect a while ago.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
I was kinda grouping the psych communities with the medical community in my thoughts. I am curious as to if the medical community doesnt have a stance on homosexuality because they think the psych communities have covered it or if they don't find it to be a medical issue. Hmmm.
The church could certainly fund private research into it, but I would be willing to bet that they'd have trouble finding legitimate medical professionals that were willing to experiment with it. Another hmm.
| Originally Posted by Beauty Mark
I'm not sure if the medical community has a stance on homosexuality. The psychology/psychiatry community has, except for a handful of doctors I presume, decided that it isn't a mental defect a while ago. |
I was kinda grouping the psych communities with the medical community in my thoughts. I am curious as to if the medical community doesnt have a stance on homosexuality because they think the psych communities have covered it or if they don't find it to be a medical issue. Hmmm.
The church could certainly fund private research into it, but I would be willing to bet that they'd have trouble finding legitimate medical professionals that were willing to experiment with it. Another hmm.
