Got a couple of questions for you. Set-up first. As you may know, technology has advanced to such a degree that parents may choose to kill — pardon me, “sex-select” — their babies if they have sex-related diseases such as hemophilia. The latest topic of discussion in Britain is whether sex selection should be allowed for family planning purposes.
Not mentioned in the article, but an obvious cause of controversy, is that “undesirable” human beings will be killed. My questions to liberal homosexual and non-homosexual abortion supporters are these:
If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a “gay gene,” would your stance on the “right to choose” change or shift in any way? Would the number of women killing these “defective” babies make a difference? Is one potentially gay dead baby one too many?
Please disseminate this post far and wide. No doubt it will attract trolls, but I’m dead serious. Pardon the pun.
Update: Off-topic comments will be deleted. The questions are posed to pro-choice readers, by the way.
Update II: Steven Kelso blogged about the same article. I’m sure he’s not a strict stay-on-topic-and-don’t-call-each-the-names blog host like I am. So why don’t you troll stroll on over and start another thread?
Update III (8/17): Not tired of discussing this topic yet? Click here for the latest info.
{ 9 trackbacks }
{ 123 comments }
I have to trackback this one
. Great question.
Let the rationalizing begin…
More double standards, you mean.
If you’re A Christian Couple that is having a baby who has the ‘gay gene’ you CAN’T abort, well, one, because you’re Christian, but two, it will allow you the joy of learning acceptance of and indoctrination into, the world of the Gay Lifestyle.
Dan are you a gay lib?
La Shawn, this would be the political heavyweight fight of the millennium! The homosexual lobby (the challenger) versus the abortion lobby (the champ).
Who would win in such a battle? Probably the abortion lobby, which I feel is the meanest and dirtiest lobby on Capitol Hill.
Whichever side wins, though, America loses.
I assume you could abort babies suffering from Down’s Syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, and a host of other infirmities which the fetus, if delivered, would suffer. Yes, I think pregnant women should have that choice.
I don’t have an opinion on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, but I doubt you could end homosexuality by eliminating the gene in the womb.
Dell,
Hardly…hehe….I’m definitely a conservative.
Dan
Let them all be born!, because, as my favorite radical cleric, James Dobson points out – it’s easy to tell if your kid is gay, and take the proper corrective actions:
“Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become Women
Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?
Before puberty, children aren’t normally heterosexual or homosexual. They’re definitely gender conscious. But young children are not sexual beings yet — unless something sexual in nature has interrupted their developmental phases.
Still, it’s not uncommon for children to experience gender confusion during the elementary school years. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports, “In one study of 60 effeminate boys ages 4 to 11, 98 percent of them engaged in cross-dressing, and 83 percent said they wished they had been born a girl.â€
Evidences of gender confusion or doubt in boys ages 5 to 11 may include:
1. A strong feeling that they are “different†from other boys.
2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.
3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.
4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.
5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,†“fag†and “gay.â€
6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think†effeminately.
7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.
If your child is experiencing several signs of gender confusion, professional help is available. It’s best to seek that help before your child reaches puberty.
“By the time the adolescent hormones kick in during early adolescence, a full-blown gender identity crisis threatens to overwhelm the teenager,†warns psychologist Dr. James Dobson. To compound the problem, many of these teens experience “great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution.â€
If your child has already reached puberty, change is difficult, but it’s not too late.”
http://www.focusonyourchild.com/develop/art1/A0000684.html
(this is not a joke…)
No, no, no! Not eliminating the gene. Eliminating the baby.
Actually, this post is for pro-choice homosexuals and liberals. But it’s unrealistic to think no one else would respond, I suppose.
Well, I doubt you can eliminate homosexuality by eliminating all the persons with the gene in the womb.
I’m sort of a liberal; does that count?
That really isn’t the question, BB. (#7)
What would the ‘choice at any price’ crowd think if the “defect” in question was a gay gene?
If it is OK to kill a child with Down’s, FAS or other conditions, where is the line drawn? By many accounts, a gay man or woman is bound to live a hard life, full of strife…
What about other people who may suffer more than the average? How about diabetics, people with asthma or other controllable conditions?
Would it be OK to kill of babies with a certain hair, eye or skin color? I seem to recall Planned Parenthood’s founder was a big fan of helping ‘undesirables’ avoid having too many children. China already forces mothers to abort girls if they have already had a couple.
You’re likely right, in that finding a gay gene and allowing people to abort the baby on that basis, would not end homosexuality/homosexual behavior. There will always be those who love their children, regardless of how they’re assembled and delivered.
But if you were a gay man, how would you feel knowing that people were killing off their babies because they might grow up to be like you?
Should we kill undesirable offspring?
Who decides the definition of undesirable?
Hey, LB, offtopic: when did you add spell check? Nifty!
This morning.
I upgraded to WP 1.5.2, too. – Admin
interesting thought experiment. hi; i’m a new reader; i’m fiscally conservative and socially a bit beyond liberal.
here’s where i stand in general:
i am ambivalent about abortion. “a woman has the right to her own body” doesn’t work for me because i view a fetus as a separate being. but i support abortion rights because i think nothing is gained by forcing women to bear children they don’t want; it’s not good for the woman, it’s not good for the child, and it’s not good for society. neither is killing, i agree, but killing before consciousness is not as bad in my book as killing afterwards. it’s a very difficult issue for me.
on the other hand, homosexuality is a very simple issue. i don’t view it as a sin, nor as a defect, but i see it simply as a part of the wide variety of life.
ergo, here’s where i stand in regard to your question:
if somebody knows that she’ll have a gay child, and she abhors homosexuality, i think it’d be better for that child not to be born. it’d be even better if she learned not to hate people who’re different from her, since her child will probably be different in many ways, but the thought of re-education camps doesn’t please me much, *sigh*.
if, on the other hand, abortion becomes a mechanism for fashion (want only blue-eyed, blond sons?), i think it’d be a major problem for society, and i’d wonder how to step in and stop that. and i can see how aborting babies suspected of becoming gay could lead there very quickly. i think sex selection is already a terrible idea — the problems are easily seen when one examines china’s “one child” policy.
I think they’ll push for bans on banning abortion for such purposes, which will bring them into conflict with the whole ‘right-to-privacy’ rationale for abortion, because the only way one would know WHY a woman is aborting a baby is if the State invaded her privacy and asked. So, assuming that a ‘gay gene’ is found, this is the fight:
1. Homosexuals and their supporters shrieking “Genocide!”.
2. Abortion supporters shrieking “Right to choose!”
Either the homosexual side will suddenly discover that unlimited abortion isn’t such a valuable civil right after all, or the abortion crowd will suddenly discover that some government interference and regulation of when a woman can get an abortion is not such a bad thing, after all.
Sorry, Zorro. That’s off-topic. I already posed the questions I want commenters to answer. – Admin
La Shawn
You really put these Leftists on the spot with your question. But it could never happen in a Leftist world.
You forgot an important detail.
Homosexuals are a protected class – therefore, aborting them would be an unspeakable crime in the minds of Leftists.
Well, Zorro tried to use South American cultures as an example of his stance that only one person has the right to decide the fate of the about-to-be-born, and that is the about-to-give-birth.
Maybe my example was too verbose?
LaShawn,
Great question. A number of months ago, I saw an episode of the O’Reilly Factor that had a conservative Republican state legislator in Maine who drafted a bill stating that aborting a baby would be illegal if it could be proved that there was a gay gene, or something like that. He had the backing of homosexual groups in Maine. I don’t remember what the guys name was and am not sure what happened with the bill.
I’m a socially liberal, pro-choice lesbian, and I’ll bite. First off, I agree with the person above who said that sexual orientation, like intelligence, extroversion, or any other profound psychological trait, is probably too complex to identify reliably through prenatal testing, and it could never be eradicated through abortion. For the sake of argument, though, I’ll imagine it could.
On the question of abortion I basically agree with pir anha. I’d add that while I have little sympathy with the kind of people who would abort a child simply because it’s the wrong sex or they want a kid with blue eyes, I’m not at all sure that it’s the government’s place to criminalize it. The state isn’t a proxy for God, and I tend to think it shouldn’t intervene in the lives of its citizens any more than is necessary to maintain basic civil order. So to answer the original question, while aborting a gay child is morally abhorrent, I don’t think it’s the job of Big Brother to be asking intrusive questions about why a woman wants an abortion.
I think I may have an answer to pir anha’s question about how to prevent abortion for “fashion.” India has a major sex imbalance due to the abortion of unwanted female fetuses. India responded to the problem by allowing abortion, but forbidding doctors to reveal the sex of the baby. If abortion for fashion–whether on the basis of sex, orientation, or hair color–became rampant, that might be a reasonable compromise. No one is interfering with your access to abortion or intruding on your privacy, but your information about the fetus is limited to the fact that it’s healthy.
About thirty years ago, a pro-choice, Adlerian friend of mine was upset that people who were using abortion to sex-select their first (oldest) child were choosing to have it be a boy in 80% of the cases. Because of Adler’s predictions of the effects of birth order in his psychology, she felt this would have very negative results for women in society. One might suspect that feminists would oppose this but I haven’t heard anything. I just assumed that sex selection of unborn children was already going on. Was I wrong?
Uhh sorry about that…LS I am a trackbrack novice. Please delete and advise….:)
sorry about the repost, it didn’t seem like the first one went through.
First-time commenters are held for approval. Thanks for participating. – Admin
Evon, I think it’s done on the “down low.”
I can’t answer where the line is drawn, but I do know that sometimes doctors advise abortion when the fetus has been determined to have critical medical problems, which will lead to a life of high medical expenses and no real quality of life. We cannot say that about homosexuality.
I consider abortion to be okay in some cases. (Obviously others disagree, but that’s another question.) I’m okay with the idea of aborting tragically malformed, doomed babies destined for short and painful lives (or stillbirths). I’m uncomfortable with that, but cannot support prohibiting it as an option for other people.
From there, it obviously just becomes a question of where to draw the line. I’m not real comfortable drawing the line for someone else, and thus am a reluctant supporter of child trait selection.
That said, proposing that selecting against homosexuality be the only prohibited selection is just stupid. There’s really no principled argument to be made for that position.
Since homosexuality is not a disorder, disease, illness, etc. no ethical doctor would perform an abortion due to the fetus’s sexual orientation any more than he or she would if it was discovered that the baby had blue eyes and the parents didn’t like blue eyes.
Yeah, I’d still be pro-choice.
I’m a gay liberal. My pro-choice position wouldn’t change if the scenario you offered came true. Women have abortions for lots of reasons, and I don’t think we can start deciding which of those reasons are OK and which aren’t.
It reminds me of the “except in cases of rape and incest” idea. To me, it’s either a person or it isn’t. It’s either murder or it isn’t. Saying an abortion is OK if it’s rape or incest means it’s all about judging the behavior of the pregnant woman. If we think she didn’t “deserve” her unwanted pregnancy, the thinking goes, it’s OK to abort it. I think that’s wrong.
The fact is, many parents abuse their gay children horribly, just for being gay. The person who would want to have an abortion because their child would be gay – well, frankly, I don’t want that person raising that child.
La Shawn, I’m afraid you’re on the losing side of history when it comes to gay people. By the time we isolate the “gay gene,” if we ever do, your scenario won’t be much of a factor.
Adam, which “side” I’m on is not the point. You answered the main question sufficiently. If women choose to kill potentially homosexual babies, it’s still their “right” to do so.
Adam – Thats what they thought in Rome too.
It reminds me of the “except in cases of rape and incest†idea. To me, it’s either a person or it isn’t. It’s either murder or it isn’t. Saying an abortion is OK if it’s rape or incest means it’s all about judging the behavior of the pregnant woman. If we think she didn’t “deserve†her unwanted pregnancy, the thinking goes, it’s OK to abort it. I think that’s wrong.”
I just ended upon on the other side of the position…
It reminds me of the “except in cases of rape and incest†idea. To me, it’s either a person or it isn’t. It’s either murder or it isn’t. Saying an abortion is OK if it’s rape or incest means it’s all about judging the behavior of the pregnant woman. If we think she didn’t “deserve†her unwanted pregnancy, the thinking goes, it’s OK to abort it. I think that’s wrong.
Just like “hate crimes”. No one should be judging another’s behavior or the intent of their behavior right? Abortion is a choice, just like homosexuality, unless they can also “isolate” the abortion gene. LaShawn, if your scenario were possible (and at the rate this death-pursuing nation is going, its not that far fetched of an idea) I think the homosexuals who fight it as a “hate crime”.
Here’s a reworded version of my last paragraph, with my point more directly stated:
Thankfully, each new generation seems to have less and less of the attitude that being gay is wrong. So I don’t think your scenario is likely.
Adam, what makes being gay right?
Normally I’d jump on DL’s “homosexuality is a choice” line, but that’s not what this thread is about. And I respect La Shawn’s wishes to keep this on topic. Still, the original premise is a heady mix of two complex and divisive subjects.
Dell: See my just-posted comment.
Huh?
With all due respect La Shawn, on this question I’ll have to consider the source. I am well aware of your position on both of these issues; “Abortion is murder and homosexuality is an abomination.”
With that in mind, your questions emanate’s as a paradox wrapped in a quandry concealed behind an enigma.
With that said, how could a liberal or a homosexual give a concise and meaningful answer?
Allow me to draw a parallel;
I am a Black man. If a White man were to ask me, “is it okay to call you a ‘N—-R’ “, I would most likely respond in anger, yet, he would recieve a concise and firm answer!
Now, if another Black man were to ask the same question, I would have to ask “whats the catch” or Why? (being that so many Blacks use the word often as a term of endearment). Whereas with the White man there is no need to ask why.
Frankly, I dont care for the word no matter who’s using it.
You are free not to participate, “Hipstreet.” Subsequent off-topic and beside-the-point comments will be deleted.
“If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a “gay gene,†would your stance on the “right to choose†change or shift in any way?”
LaShawn, I see a flaw in the question. A woman liberal enough to abort/kill her unborn child for ANY reason is likely liberal enough to accept homosexuality anyway.
Jason:
So only liberals have abortions, huh? Huh.
Adam,
Is there a conservative pro-abortion movement?
Some weird group calling itself, “Republicans for Choice.” But you asked about conservatives, didn’t you? Please disregard.
Lol, LaShawn… kinda like the Log Cabin folks, eh?
Jason,
There are plenty of homophobes that have no problem with abortion. And probably a few people that view gays as inhuman anyway, so they may not se abortion of a gay child the same as another child.
I think LB is asking, would the pro-life or gay communities oppose other people aborting babies for the gay gene, not would they themselves get the abortions.
Let me go on record right here as opposing the murder of homosexuals. We can debate forever how one “becomes” gay, but I firmly oppose any hatred or violence toward homosexuals.
Inside the womb or out.
A little moral clarity please?
PS: I LOVE the spell-check!
SCSI, I understand. But I don’t think there’s a need to ask if ANY pro-lifers would support aborting/killing ANY child. Pro-life, by its very definition, means they oppose aborting/killing the unborn. Sure there are anti-gay pro-lifers, but I think the pro-life aspect will trump any opposition to a “lifestyle”.
That leaves us with just asking whether those who are pro-abortion would have a problem with aborting a baby simply because it has a gay gene. My point is that someone who supports aborting/killing unborn children probably doesn’t give extra consideration for certain genes the baby may possess.
There may not be a conservative, pro choice movement, but you can believe some conservatives have been involved in abortions. Whether having one, paying for one, or covering one up.
Jason/48: In post 28, Jeff explicitly supports choice and considers which genes the baby possesses.
If you only knew the half of it, bb. Human sin and depravity are not bound by race, sex, or political affiliation. Why you think anyone on this blog is ignorant of that fact is a mystery.
I doubt the left would have a conflict in this situation. As stated above, by Frank Zavisca, homosexuals are a protected class; so are pro-choice women. Anti-abortion women are not in a protected, victim class and therefore could easily have their right to an abortion abrogated. The pro-abortion on demand position is theological (ie, life begins at birth; this is not based on facts but on beliefs, as support for late trimester abortions of viable infants shows) and is based on the degrees of victimhood involved. Homosexual fetuses would have a higher valence of victimhood than pro-choice women. Therefore, any woman who would abort a homosexual fetus would lose her protected status and be classed as a homophobe. The contradiction between the positions would be mooted.
ptm, reading Jeff’s post (#28) it appears he’s pro-abortion regardless of whether the sun shines or not. That’s my point. Pro-abortionists want the right to kill a baby…FOR WHATEVER REASON the mother “chooses”.
I think that the previous commenters who made the point that this would not end homosexuality are correct. There are more than enough perverted souls out there willing to teach the joys of sodomy. That being said, I almost wish there was a gay gene just so I could watch two of the most powerful left leaning lobbies at each other’s throats. I’d buy popcorn.
No mystery, Just stating it for the record.
I even want hypocrites to have access to safe, legal abortions.
That figures.
– Admin
Interesting subject and informative post..
Disclaimer: I’m against abortion and I don’t believe the “gay gene” exist., .
However, hypothetically speaking, I don’t see how a homosexual could appose an abortion, because the baby has the “gay gene”. Although, I’m sure most of them would agree that the thought of it is barbaric (like I would, but then again read my disclaimer), in order to oppose the abortion, they would have to apply person-hood to the unborn gay child. After that is done, who decides what persons live and which ones die? Would killing a baby with Downs Syndrome be any less tragic than killing a baby with the “gay gene”?
Maybe I have a misunderstanding of the pro-abortion argument (which is possible), but if the unborn child is not yet a child, then it’s sexual orientation is a moot point when considering an abortion.
And Jeff, you have a lot more confidence in the ethics of doctors than I do.
killingthemonkey:
Sounds like you’re looking for a teacher.
Doth protest, and all that.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Isn’t this FUN?
Isn’t this FUN?
*pictures LaShawn in a witch costume, standing over a large boiling pot, eagerly stirring and just cackling…. mwahahaha*
La Shawn:
Yes.
I’m wondering – are you surprised by the liberal responses so far? Because I don’t think we feel “put on the spot” (Frank Z) or conflicted at all, based on piranha, tilts_at_windmills and my responses.
BTW, to those parents who are concerned that their children might turn out gay, Dr. Dobson recommends fathers showering with their sons as a preventative. (Although, frankly, that seems a little “gay” to me.)
La Shawn you throw the BEST party mixers!
Oooooh, that’s a tough one La Shawn.
*FOR THE MOMENT*, I am a ‘choice’ proponent. Not a strong one, but for the moment I’m still harboring old Democrat notions.
This is a tough one to really answer without throwing in a boatload of caveats.
My ’snap judgment’ answer would be that if the child was going to be severely messed up….maybe.
I dunno – on one hand, I think that the child would be spared the trouble of getting through life with one or more handicaps. On the other hand, who am *I* to decide what the qualifications for a ‘decent’ life are to be.
Like I said, I am *FOR THE MOMENT* for a woman to choose….I guess you could say that while I’m not ‘pro-life’, I’m more anti-abortion. And believe me that this is something that’s gnawed (sp?) at me ever since my 11-year old daughter was born.
Hope this adds something to the mix.
I cannot honestly believe first and foremost that anyone believes that Homo’s are somehow created that way???
Man oh man…has decades of propaganda had its effect on the masses…….again, what do the homosexuals do about all those ten’s of thousands of ex gays out there??
What evil evil times we live in where lies are treated as the truth……….thankfully their are still brave secular and sacred counselours out there willing to help treat this disease and help Gay’s leave this sad lifestyle!!
I haven’t read any of the previous comments, so I approach this untainted by others’ views (assuming that pro-choice liberals have responded). Hopefully, I won’t be repeating anybody else.
“If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a ‘gay gene’, would your stance on the ‘right to choose’ change or shift in any way?”
Of course not.
Ethically, I would have a problem with women who choose to have abortions for that reason, but I don’t get to make that decision. Please understand: the right to choose necessarily means the right to make bad and unpopular choices. Even choices that are bad and unpopular to pro-gay-rights liberals like me.
To take away the “right to choose” simply because we may not like the choices some women make, is like taking away the “right to free speech” simply because we don’t like the racist or sexist speech that some people utter.
That’s why “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” are not necessarily contradictory (like pro-democracy and anti-liberal aren’t contradictory). I sometimes wonder why so many people on the right can’t grasp that. But I digress (a little).
“Would the number of women killing these ‘defective’ babies make a difference?”
No. Nor would I take away women’s voting rights if a number of them made (in my view) the wrong choice. See above.
“Is one potentially gay dead baby one too many?”
I hope you are not under the impression that liberals want to populate the world with gay people. You seem too intelligent to believe that rhetoric.
That said, your last question is loaded. Obviously, we pro-choicers wouldn’t consider the abortion to result in a “dead baby” since (a) to become dead, you have to be a life first, and we don’t necessarily ascribe to your rules as to when life begins (although, being pro-choice, some of us might); and (b) “baby” implies a living human being which again, is a subjective determination.
But I think you can glean my answer from the previous two responses.
Hope this helps!
Whether I’m intelligent or not isn’t really the point. I wish people would just follow simple instructions. No one is asked to speculate about what I might be “too intelligent” to believe . – Admin
Ooops. Obviously, I meant to say “pro-choicers”, not “pro-lifers” in my last graf. Sigh.
Horror of horrors! I “fixed” it. – Admin
I think most “pro-choice” advocates do not see this type of technology as part of their agenda.
Jason/53
Let me clarify something. I am not in favor of killing a baby for “whatever reason the mother chooses.”
I’m actually pro-choice but anti-abortion. Believe it or not, one can be. Unlike many right-to-life zealots, I realize that, unfortunately, abortion is a necessary evil. I do not believe that it should be used as birth control and I don’t believe a woman should be able to have an abortion when she wants to have one.
In addition, I do not believe that a woman or girl who is raped should have to carry a baby to term. I don’t believe that a woman or girl should have to carry a baby to term if the life of the mother is in danger. I do not believe that a 16, 15, 14, etc. year old girl who made a stupid, stupid mistake by falling for some guy who says he loves her and then dumps her after they’ve had sex should have to carry a baby to term.
Should there be limits on abortion? Absolutely. I think PBAs are atrocious procedures that should only be performed because of medical emergencies. Additionally, I have a real problem when older, established women who are working full-time and are supporting themselves have abortions because a baby would interfere with things.
“Whether I’m intelligent or not isn’t really the point. I wish people would just follow simple instructions. Speculating about what I might be ‘too intelligent’ to believe isn’t part of the questions. – Admin”
No, it wasn’t part of the questions, nor was it a significant part of my answers. If you can overlook that small aside, I think I HAVE addressed your point more than adequately.
Great. Thanks for participating. – Admin
Albertan/64
The tens of thousands of “ex”-gays are still gay – they just stopped having sex with people of the same sex. They are not heterosexual. And I’ll bet you didn’t know that all one has to do to be an “ex”-gay is to attend one, ONE, seminar. I suggest you read a book entitled *Anything but Straight* for some information on “ex”-gays.
Blanko/57
I don’t doubt that there are plenty of doctors willing to perform abortions because of the sexual orientation of the baby. They would be unethical doctors.
Jason/48
Why is it that people who do whatever they can to protect the unborn can’t give a flying fig about the baby after it’s born?
“You breed ‘em! You feed ‘em!” is the mentality a lot of them seem to have.
Dell Gines, in comment #35, asks “Adam, what makes being gay right?”
I’m not Adam, but I’d like to ask Dell:
Dell, what makes being straight right?
In all honesty, I do not recall the moment I “decided” to be gay. Do you recall the moment you decided to be straight? If I decided to be gay, it only follows that you decided to be straight. Exactly when did that happen?
As for aborting gay fetuses… I find it illuminating that I see questions like this only on conservative blogs, never on liberal blogs. Is this really the kind of thing you people spend your days thinking about?
“I don’t doubt that there are plenty of doctors willing to perform abortions because of the sexual orientation of the baby. They would be unethical doctors.” – Jeff
Agreed…
La Shawn, if I offended you in any way please accept my deepest and heart felt apologies. My comments weren’t intended to offend you or anyone else on the blog.
Allow me to be straight forward and concise, you asked; “If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a “gay gene,†would your stance on the “right to choose†change or shift in any way?”
My answer is NO.
You asked; “Would the number of women killing these “defective†babies make a difference? Is one potentially gay dead baby one too many?”
Here again my answer is no because I beleive a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion.
Furthermore, the question implies that such a gene exists.(Maybe you beleive it does, maybe you dont, I can’t tell)
In keeping with the topic, I would like to pose a question for the Consevative crowd.
If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a “rapist, murderous or a terrorist gene,†would your stance on anti-abortion change or shift in any way?
Again, I am not trying to offend you in any way. I’m simply one of those “Liberals” that YOU called upon for this discussion.
“If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a “rapist, murderous or a terrorist gene,†would your stance on anti-abortion change or shift in any way?” – Hipstreet
Nope, I think all babies have the potential to become rapist, murderers, or terrorists (to a certain extent)
As La Shawn said in previous post blanko; No, no, no!
Not potential, the genetic possibility. If the gene exists and it “kicks in” at some time in the persons life the “potential” for murder and mayhem becomes a certainty. If the gene is discovered prior to actual birth, the question was asked, “do we abort?”
Hipstreet/75
A rapist gene?
Could we keep this thread to BELIEVABLE hypothetical situations? Yours is utterly absurd. No one is genetically pre-disposed to violence. Violence is learned.
Correction #77. I meant the “genetic trait” not possibility.
Well, I wouldn’t compare homosexuality to murder, rape, or terrorism, but I think I understand your question. I’m not sure if you understand my position though. My position is aborting a child is killing a child and knowingly doing so is murder. So, what your asking is, would I murder my child to prevent him or her (I have three) from commiting murder or rape in the future. My answer is still no, but I might consider turning them in after beating them myself. Gotta get back to my domino game, catch ya later…
“Man oh man…has decades of propaganda had its effect on the masses…….again, what do the homosexuals do about all those ten’s of thousands of ex gays out there??”
Pray they’re all single?
Jeff/78: “Could we keep this thread to BELIEVABLE hypothetical situations? Yours is utterly absurd. No one is genetically pre-disposed to violence. Violence is learned.”
Well, I’m not sure that a homosexual gene is a BELIEVABLE hypothetical situation, but there IS a “violence gene”. It’s called monoamine oxidase-A.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. As we know, violence can sometimes be controlled by chemicals. This suggests that violence, or at least some forms of it, can be biologically-based, and therefore, genetic.
But that aside, is it so hard for everybody to assume that La Shawn’s hypothetical is true, and proceed from there?
Jeff, I guess you didn’t read the initial posed questions.
I never said I believed there was a “gay gene, rapist gene” or any other hypothetically unbeliveable gene. I was responding to the question as it was posed.
If my response is “utterly absurb”, hence, the same reaction applies to La Shawns’ initial questions.
Jeff, read post # 38. Maybe then you will get a better understanding of my position.
Hipstreet/83
You are correct Hipstreet. I did not follow the thread all the way back. Looks like I misinterpreted your posting. My apologies.
Ken/82
I don’t know if there is a gay gene either Ken and I happen to be a gay man. No one knows why people are gay. Personally, I think it’s a mixture of biology and environment. I also believe that your orientation is set pretty early on in life. Most gay people will tell you that they remember feeling “different” for as long as they can remember.
Does anyone know if there is a difference between biological and genetic reasons for why people are they way they are? I hate using terms incorrectly. Does something have to be genetic for it to be biological? For example, some studies suggest that one cause of homosexuality might be increased hormones during gestation. I don’t know if that is genetic or biological, since I am neither a biologist nor a geneticist.
Hipstreet/77
Let’s say that one of the genes you mentioned is discovered prior to birth. Hypothetically, couldn’t the gene be altered to prevent someone from committing these acts?
Well, since there is nothing wrong with gays and society will be accepting them sooner or later, then it would be like ending the life of any other unborn fetus.
Of course, I’m sure that religious people are not encouraging or supporting eugenics or euthanasia, so tell me, what do you want to do?
Jeff, apology accepted.
Although again your question, gene alteration, strays from the topic at hand, I’ll reply.
Altering human genes, human genetic engineering, human cloning and human stem cell research are all frowned upon by the Conservitive Right. That is to say, “hypothetically” the anti-abortion crowd would not agree with altering the gene even if unborn were “hypothetically” prone to become violent.
Hipstreet/87
It stands to reason that the Conservative Right would be opposed to genetically altering some pre-disposed to violence. Without violence, they wouldn’t have anyone to fry – now that the Black Robed Judicial Activists said it was unconstitutional to “kill them underage retards”. Okay, I think we’ve strayed far enough.
Strayed enough, I agree.
I am quite tired, goodnight!
Perhaps a post on Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and motivator for the radical feminist 1970’s abortion movement would serve as a backdrop for the position of the today’s pro-abortion movement.
That said, Homosexual genocide by abortion will be as acceptable as is Black genocide by abortion as is acceptable the genocide of those ‘poor’ people.
Excellent question…
Kicking back reading the responses …
Jeff, I’m not sure violence is learned. I know PLENTY of Males who are overly aggressive.
And have been since they were babies…where was it learned? In the womb? Testosterone does wonders.
At any rate, I’m Pro-life. Abortion is wrong no matter how you slice it.
1.-No
2.-No
3.-No
1. I could care less that a rational, legally sane woman would choose to have an abortion. It’s her right. It doesn’t matter that the fetus is genetically gay…or sad.
2. See 1. It would have no bearing on my feelings whether the fetus is “defective” in any manner or as perfect as can be. But I must thank you for schooling me to the “fact” that homosexuality equals defective.
3. No, one potentially gay dead baby is not one too many. We won’t hit the magical “too many” number until we force someone to have an abortion who didn’t want one. Otherwise, any number between zero and infinity is just fine with me.
Doesn’t matter what any male thinks about abortion as all males rights on the issue were castrated in 1973.
Therefore, 1, 2 & 3 are meaningless to the debate.
Hmmmm
This kind of [DELETED] is so misleading. One, it presumes that gayness is “disease” one should eradicate. It also takes away any accountability on us as a society to become progressive and stop qualifying difference as inherently good or bad. One would only “save” their child from gayness by aborting it if one felt 1) that it was a sickness or 2) would make life hard. The first isn’t true and the second doesn’t have to be true. The burden is on us.
On the other side, this question presupposes that abortion is all about getting rid of a child you don’t want (want in the sense of intense connection). This is misleading. Women abort for a number of reasons and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Furthermore, it gets morally murky if you consider that those opposed to abortion, may or may not be opposed to eradicating genes that would make their child’s life difficult once born (i.e. down’s syndrome, poor vision, etc). To act as if all those who oppose abortion oppose it for the same reasons, or to the same degree or wouldn’t “compromise” based on certain circumstances is also disingenuous.
But that’s what happens when you conflate issues into simple dichotomies. You make it seem easier on either side than it really is.
No profanity at LBC. – Admin
Len/73,
“Dell Gines, in comment #35, asks “Adam, what makes being gay right?â€
I’m not Adam, but I’d like to ask Dell:
Dell, what makes being straight right?”
I would start by seeing which combination, gay or straight, has the possibility of procreating. There are intentional design elements in the human body, procreating through homosexuality isn’t one.
Look, either accept the hypotheticals, answer the questions, or GO. I did not ask for your opinion on how I framed the questions. This is one of the drawbacks of a public, comment-enabled blog, I guess. – Admin
Good question LaShawn Let’s see,
I’m straight and i’m pro-life but i’m a liberal so let’s see. This may have already been said by now but rehashing isn’t against the law. I’m guessing most women who are conservative enough to consider aborting a gay baby would probably also be pro-life and opt against aborting the baby.
I hang with other liberals and I believe for the most part that among liberal circles, the women’s right to choose outweighs the reason for choosing. Now how homosexuals in particular feel, who knows I don’t really hang with them.
the existence of a “gay gene” isn’t too likely, most gay people have straight parents and straight grandparents and thus no one to inherit that gene from. I’m told that gay people tend to have some sort of chromosomal deterioration or something (?!?), regardless, I don’t think we’ll ever be capable of determining who will be gay before birth.
Love ya LB, keep doing what you do.
Since other people have strayed from the point, I thought I might also.
In response to Dell:
Being gay isn’t right or wrong. It just is. Being gay has a lot of similarities to being left-handed.
-About 10 percent of the population is left-handed.
-People are still disagreeing about the cause – genetics, environment, or a combination.
-For much of human history, being left-handed was a sign of Satanic influence. “Sinister” comes from the Latin word for “left.”
-Over the years, people have spent a lot of time and effort trying to “cure” others (mostly children) of being left-handed. As the Wikipedia entry says:
“And until the latter part of the twentieth century, Roman Catholic nuns in American elementary schools (and possibly elsewhere, for example Dutch primary schools) would punish children for using their left hand to write, typically by slapping their left hand with a ruler if they attempted to pick up a pen with it.”
Like left-handedness, more and more people are realizing (finally) that being gay is a value-neutral characteristic, like having green eyes. (Can you imagine an ad campaign today for an organization that promises to “Deliver you from the Satan’s grasp of left-handedness! I stopped shopping at the Leftorium, and you can, too!”)
Progress on this is slow, but I think inevitable. After all, it took the Catholic Church more than 300 years to apologize to Galileo for that whole “earth revolves around the sun” thing.
That said, Homosexual genocide by abortion will be as acceptable as is Black genocide by abortion as is acceptable the genocide of those ‘poor’ people.
Comment by susan — 08.17.05 @ 7:48 am
Black “genocide” via abortion?
Where in “hades”(no cussin’, LB) did you come up with that one? Black birthrates are ahead of White birthrates at this moment. At least, according to the ultra-liberal, politically correct, pro-abortion, publication called the US Census Report Of 2000. The Black birthrate was 17.6 per 1000 while the White birthrate was at 14.1 per 1000.
And please go easy on the word “genocide”. My Jewish, Kurdish, Bosnian, and African(many tribes) brothers may take offense at your callous use of a word that threatened their very existence as a people. On one hand you have a systematic attempted “extermination” of an entire race, religion, or culture. And on the other hand, you have a pregnant woman’s decision that she has every legal right as an American citizen to make. And as much as you hate hearing it, it is none of your business. Bake cookies, learn to knit, practice surgery on farm animals. But stay out of wombs that aren’t yours!
Lay off the hyperbole. It destroys any logic that someone else, not me, might absorb from your point of view. And by all means, don’t have an abortion if you don’t want one. I’ll support your right to that decision with every fiber in my body and soul.
Jason/98
So the ability to have sex and procreate is “good” and not having the ability to procreate is “bad”. Wow. Thanks for defining “good” and “bad” in such an easy, black and white way.
Let’s do some more!
Go to church: Moral
Don’t go to church: Immoral
Read books: Smart
Don’t read books: Dumb
Republican: Patriot
Democrat: Hates America
Let’s see how many others people can come up with!!
I am a straight female and strong proponent for abortion and homosexual rights. I will not change on either stance. A woman’s choice is still the ultimate factor in my opinion. She is living, the fetus is not yet. Whether I agree with her choice or not, it is hers to make. I cannot say what I would do in the situation. I am all for equal rights for homosexuals. I am not sure I would want to bring a homosexual child into a homophobic society. Perhaps that is selfish on my part for not wanting to deal with that.
Another interesting thought I had: What if a conservative Christian very pro life couple found out their fetus had the “gene”, they cannot abort, but they do not condone homosexuality. I suppose they would let a therapist or whoever “change” their child’s preference.
Beth wrote, “I suppose they would let a therapist or whoever “change†their child’s preference.”
You better believe I would. I would raise my child up in the Christian faith and seek as much counseling as possible to help my child live a moral and decent life. It’s called parenting. I would no more stand by while my child persued such a “preference” as I would let them do drugs or join a gang. But that’s just me…
Independent:
Of course, channeling Bill Clinton, it depends on what “let,” “change” and “preference” mean, doesn’t it?
Or maybe you’d just like to try Dr. Dobson’s “fathers shower with their sons” idea. Or pounding square pegs into square holes together. (Yeah, that sounds pretty “gay” too.)
Adam, even if there is a “gay gene” or a “violent gene” or whatever gene, people still can make the choice to fight their “preferences.” I just believe in the power of “raise your child in the way you would have them go” theory. Heterosexual intercourse as well as sodomy are both activities a person has to choose to engage in. Our society has embraced an ideology that reduces human beings to animals that are not capable of controlling their urges be them sexual or otherwise. If my child has a homosexual preference, I would hope my teaching of right and wrong would help him/her use a little self-discipline to not act on it. OK?
Jeff/108,
I wasn’t saying heterosexuality was morally right because of procreation, I was saying it was “correct”. Basically, homosexuality doesn’t fit the intended use of the body’s design. Sexual intercourse is designed for procreation (sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t). I’m not making a moral comment, just saying the science doesn’t prove that homosexuality can result in procreation, thus it’s the “wrong form of sexual intercourse”…
“”any doctor who aborts on the basis of sexual preference is unethical” -paraphrase.
How would that choice by any more or less ethical than aborting for ANY reason. If you’re liberal, I don’t see how you can say aborting for whatever reason is fine, but aborting becuase of sexual preference is wrong. I think most liberals would say “it’s not a person, so it doesn’t really matter.”
As was said, if you’re liberal enough to have an abortion, you don’t care whether the kid is gay or straight.
Now if you’re conservative, you do care, but won’t abort. That seems a much stickier wicket.
I’m socially liberalitarian. aborting diving cells and such, that’s fine. It’s not human. But to charge ahead with the issue as one of “choice” I find really wanting. I’m finding abortion harder and harder to defend through the “choice” argument.
But sexual preference? I’ll never understand why anyone could care that much about some other guy’s preferences. why does it bother you so much? What’s the big freakin’ deal?
i have a feeling it’s more about the social aspect of being gay than the bedroom aspect.
Chris, it’s not that I (only speaking for myself) “care that much about some other guy’s preferences.” When he, along with “preferences,” starts clamoring for special rights and trying to redefine the institution of marriage to suit his needs (which I think are perverted, but that’s beside the point), he has pulled me into what should be his private business, and I have a right, dare I say the obligation, to speak out against what I think is destructive. I don’t care if he’s sleeping with a goat, for crying out loud.
Independent:
Of course people can suppress their urges. And who you have sex with isn’t the same as whether you’re gay or straight. Lots of straight men have sex with other men in prison when women aren’t available. That doesn’t make them gay. Lots of gay men marry women and father children, in the hope that it will make them straight. It doesn’t.
If you would teach your gay son to either only attempt to have sex with women or remain celibate, to me that’s child abuse. You’re telling them that their very being is wrong. (See my previous paragraph before you dash off the expected “it’s about behavior” comeback, please.) “Reparative therapy” or whatever euphemism they’re calling it these days is cruel, and in my opinion, sick.
Thought experiment: could you change and be gay, if society and your religion demanded it?
But this thread isn’t really about being gay, is it, La Shawn?
Back to the point of the thread. I think the assumption here was that my pro-choice stance and gay identity would be in conflict under La Shawn’s hypothetical. And they’re not.
The existence of a “Gay gene” wouldn’t make a person gay, it would increase their likelihood of becoming gay. In such a fashion, a “terrorism gene” or whatever wouldn’t make a person a terrorist, just increase the likelihood. A true parent does not condemn their children because of a possibility. That said, a true parent would also be required to try and correct any behavior contrary to their beliefs. Yes, REQUIRED. I don’t recall much tolerance for parents who teach their children “yes, I think shooting your classmates in cold blood is wrong…but who am I to judge?” I am not equating the two, I am pointing out that a responsible parent cannot excuse any behavior they feel is wrong merely to fit someone else’s social expectations.
In a way the same is true of abortion. I don’t believe in abortion for any reason…ANY reason…as it fits MY definition of murder: Taking any conscious action that deprives another human life. It doesn’t matter if you want to quibble about when life begins, abortion still deprives another human of life. Just because they haven’t begun that life yet is inconsequential and in no way lessens the horrific nature of abortion. This is why it gets tricky: Should I write this off to a difference of opinion? “Ha ha ha, I see your slaughtering your children. Well we just disagree.” Kind of like telling the African dictator “Ha ha ha, I see your slaughtering the ethnic minority. Well, I can’t stop you from having a different opinion.” When is it a difference of opinion and when is it time to stand up for innocent children…or for innocent “fetuses”..which we ALL know will be innocent children if we don’t allow them to be murdered? This is my dilemma with abortion, and many Christians as well (though I am an atheist.)
brainy435, you summed up my feelings on the subject completely. Thank You.
“If you would teach your gay son to either only attempt to have sex with women or remain celibate, to me that’s child abuse. You’re telling them that their very being is wrong.” – Adam
So by this logic, since I’ve inherited promiscuous, alcoholic, and violent genes (and I can prove I have inherited these traits), I should be angry with my mother for abusing me and telling me that these characteristics of my very being are wrong? Darn you, for saying my hanging out in bars 24/7, starting fights, and one night stands are wrong, my God created me this way. I also want your children to be taught my behavior is an acceptable life style, before they are old enough to know what these things are, just in case they’ve inherited the promiscuous, violent, and alcohol gene (most people I know with these traits say they’ve had them all of their lives and I’ve seen signs of these traits in children as young as five years old).
No offense intended towards homosexuals, I just disagree with your arguments.
Adam wrote, “Thought experiment: could you change and be gay, if society and your religion demanded it?”
It would no longer be my society or religion. Therefore, I would have to join La Shawn to the Mars colony and start all over.
08 17 05
Hello. I just got on this site and have an opinion on the matter. First of all, I think that all doctors who perform abortions are acting unethically. Remember the Hippocratic oath: “do no harm….”? I read an article years ago about a Jewish couple that was trying to conceive. They had a child who died due to Tay Sachs disease and subsequently kept trying for more children. Amniocentesis kept revealing that their fetuses had Tay Sachs disease. They kept aborting until the test showed a disease free fetus. When I read that article years ago, I was so incensed! This is because they were playing God the whole time! If the purpose of pregnancy is to bring a child into the world, despite what its genetic profile is it should be allowed to live! Who is to say that a child with Tay Sachs disease could not positively contribute to society in some unforeseen way? Even in the sense of changing consciousness levels and bringing this issue up in debate? When someone aborts, they are saying that the life of the child is not valid and therefore can be relegated to the garbage can. By allowing these practices to continue in the world, we are perpetuating a culture of death not life. Let us think about the implications of our actions when it comes to doling out and taking lives…
Look, either accept the hypotheticals, answer the questions, or GO. I did not ask for your opinion on how I framed the questions. This is one of the drawbacks of a public, comment-enabled blog, I guess. – Admin
It’s intellectually lazy to just accept them. I answered the question through my discussion of the framing of it.
This kind of stuff is purposely divisive instead of trying to be in anyway illuminative of the complexities of personal morality.
But to answer your question more directly. Most people are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. There is a difference, essentially that abortion should be a personal choice left up to each woman to make. Furthermore, pushing abortion underground by making it illegal endangers the very babies pro-lifers supposedly care about.
Furthermore, your question doesn’t really juxtapose abortion and homosexuality and liberalism because your question isn’t really about abortion, it’s about selecting “perfection” — if you could create the child you want, eradicate genes in a fetus that are potentially threatening to an “easy, happy” life.
Not the same thing as abortion.
That comment wasn’t directed toward you, so why you responded as though it were, I don’t know. Whether the questions are divisive or not, you are free to move along if you don’t like them or the discussion. You’re obviously new to LBC, so I suggest you look around and educate yourself about how I run this blog. – Admin
Independent:
Ducked the question, didn’t you? Yep. Because I think you fear the “no” answer.
Blanko:
You equate being gay with being promiscuous, violent and alcoholic. OK. Common thoughts. They thought that about being left-handed, too, not that long ago. How do you feel about lefties? They’ve got The Devil in ‘em, after all. Those left-handed shops with those damn scissors and notebooks are just examples of the “special rights” they demand of good right-handed people like me.
I also love how people like you say “no offense intended” in the middle of comments they know are patently offensive. It’s humorous, really.
Chris, it’s not that I (only speaking for myself) “care that much about some other guy’s preferences.†When he, along with “preferences,†starts clamoring for special rights and trying to redefine the institution of marriage to suit his needs (which I think are perverted, but that’s beside the point), he has pulled me into what should be his private business, and I have a right, dare I say the obligation, to speak out against what I think is destructive. I don’t care if he’s sleeping with a goat, for crying out loud.
All of what you said is flat out incorrect. First, what special rights…the rights to give half their stuff away once they divorce? the rights to get tax breaks because they live and love with someone exclusively? the rights to have society recognize a union? These are not special. You don’t really get to argue that, the sex doesn’t change the way we love. This is not about rights for people to engage in freaky sex clubs, S&M and get tax breaks, this is about monogamous lovers who want to be able to have their union blessed with the same arbitrary benefits of society that heterosexuals get. No one has a right to those tax breaks, it’s just the way it’s been set up.
Secondly, the institution of marriage has been changed throughout history…hmmm, like in the fact that it was, and IS, about money. It’s always been an economic institution. Religion got involved in Western society to control the flow of money, particularly to the Catholic Church which was the most powerful institution in the Western world. That fact is always obscured because folks wanna act like marriage is inherently religious and moral, when that is not the case.
On the flip side, however, if the gay movement is really all about the rights and privileges of marriage they shouldn’t quibble about the term. If it’s called a civil union, who cares that it’s not “marriage” if you get the same rights. Then, it does become about religion and wanting to get acceptance from an religion itself — an institution that chronically misconstrues, misreads, and misapplies the Bible, ripping it from it’s historical context to suit whatever ridiculous need one can think of.
Lastly, how does homosexuality destructive? No one can adequately answer that question. Mostly, because any of the things you can name are not exclusive to homosexuals (for instance, straight men love anal sex too…just a different anus).
It’s all fine to dislike whatever you like, but if you can’t back it up with any kind of legitimacy, then be prepared to be told so. What you’ve said is nothing more than hate filled ignorance. Nothing you’ve said is remotely true or moral. Again and again, Jesus tells us to love and respect one another and not to cast the first stone. How come we never seem to listen to that?
Re: brainy’s point
You really hit this one on the head, man. You’re explanation of the “gay gene” really makes this question a non-issue as it is presented. Kudos!
Nope, I didn’t take it personally, I just saw it as an opportunity to clarify. But you are right I am new and I don’t know how y’all get down. But I would think that serious interrogation, respectfully offered, of anything you post would be welcome.
Updates available!
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/08/17/memento/
Jason/109
Is it okay for heterosexuals to have sex that isn’t for pro-creation – birth control, other types of sexual activity?
Adam wrote, “Ducked the question, didn’t you? Yep. Because I think you fear the “no†answer.
Adam, when a person says they had just as soon move to Mars than do something, I think that can be interpreted as a resounding “No.”
“You equate being gay with being promiscuous, violent and alcoholic. OK. Common thoughts. They thought that about being left-handed, too, not that long ago. How do you feel about lefties? They’ve got The Devil in ‘em, after all. Those left-handed shops with those damn scissors and notebooks are just examples of the “special rights†they demand of good right-handed people like me.” – Adam
I did not equate homosexuality with being violent, alcoholic, nor promiscuous, I simply chose traits that could be argued to be hereditary and followed the argument to its logical conclusion. My point is that even if you were born with certain characteristic (which I don’t believe is the case with homosexuality) that doesn’t automatically make that characteristic healthy for you or society. I chose characteristics that I could argue I was born with, but do not act on by choice.
And who is this “they” that you keep saying didn’t like lefties and why are you equating them to me?
“I also love how people like you say “no offense intended†in the middle of comments they know are patently offensive. It’s humorous, really.” – Adam
I’m happy my post humored you, but I really have no desire or reason to offend anyone, but I often find it’s difficult to walk on egg shells, while discussing a somewhat controversial topic. My sincere apology is given to anyone offended by my post.
I chose characteristics that I could argue I was born with, but do not act on by choice. Correction – I don’t act on them by the grace of God (my strength has nothing to do with it)
Tyler:
First, thanks for your comments. But I have some things to say about civil unions.
A “civil union” isn’t the same as marriage, at least in the ways it’s been applied up to now. “Separate but equal” is wrong, and rarely equal. And if a “civil union” and a “civil marriage” are exactly the same, why do we have to invent a new term to avoid offending people who think being gay is icky?
Marriage is a civil contract delineated by the government, no more, no less. That’s why you get a “marriage license.” I don’t want any religion to be forced to marry two men or two women if they don’t want to. Because it’s called “marriage,” though, there’s all this blurring between secular and religious concepts. Personally I’d like to get rid of “marriage” as a secular government concept, and allow anyone to get a “civil union” or whatever. Leave the “marriages” to the churches. But that’ll never happen, will it? People like the benefits they get with civil marriage (and legitimacy, frankly), and they see no reason why gay people, whose very existence is an abomination, should get the same as they do.
Blanko:
Take this quiz. Imagine you’re filling out the SATs.
Being gay is more like
a) being alcoholic, or
b) having green eyes.
“Take this quiz. Imagine you’re filling out the SATs.
Being gay is more like
a) being alcoholic, or
b) having green eyes.”
Homosexuality is nothing like either and making that comparison is dumbing down the subject. If you’re asking me if I believe homosexuality is immoral, my honest answer is yes. However, that doesn’t mean I wish to offend or for bad things to happen to those practicinng that lifestyle.
Adam
All you said is true. I’m saying that IF they civil union could give the rights then we shouldn’t quibble about the term “marriage”. Furthermore, if marriage is so sacred, then just provide the rights to gay folks in another form, just don’t call it marriage.
To me, it’s always gonna seem like too much work for something that isn’t that big a deal, but i’ve never thought marriage to be all that important and frankly, antiquated.
Blanko:
Choice A came from your comment, and Choice B from mine. So to say it’s “nothing like either” is both disingenuous, and a misapplication of the SAT instructions. But no matter. I expect at this point neither of us wants to waste the other’s time, right?
Enjoy your “lifestyle.” I certainly won’t interfere.
Tyler:
Obviously “marriage” is a big deal, or straight people wouldn’t be guarding it with the force and venom they are. There’s only so much “marriage” to go around, and why should they let gays have any of it?
I guess this is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Sarcastically snide, too. It’s time to close this thread anyway. See the latest post update to continue the discussion elsewhere. – Admin
Comments on this entry are closed.