5 ms·

By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as ho

By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.

zer00eyz 9y ago
Thanks for your candor: Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question. If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  That would be a tough situation, I'm not sure. My first thought is that the moral choice for me would be to accept celibacy and try to do the best I can for others in that role.
  - debatem1 9y ago
    Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
    - quantumofmalice 9y ago
      That's a reasonable perspective. I would have to ask my children to remain celibate, though, and would it be fair to put that burden on them, even (maybe especially) if they didn't accept it? It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
    - azinman2 9y ago
      Why do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?
      - jschwartzi 9y ago
        Because the people who would want to get rid of their homosexual children want to do so because they consider it a sin.
        bobthechef 9y ago
        This is a common confusion. If homosexual attraction were found to have a genetic cause, it would be understood as a genetic or genetically-caused disorder. That in itself would not be a sin because sin only applies to voluntary actions and not conditions. So from this POV, someone with genetically caused homosexual attraction would not be sinning if he refrained from engaging in homosexual acts.
        debatem1 9y ago
        Even without genetic predisposition this is the Catholic stance-- that being gay isn't a sin, but having gay sex is. Of course, this is sophistry; ask about whether two celibate gay men would be allowed a Catholic wedding and the answer will be no because they can't have children, nature of marriage, yadda yadda. Ask whether a man or woman without intact junk can get married and suddenly it's love that is really important.
      - debatem1 9y ago
        If you consider homosexuality a sin (worth saying: I don't) and determinism is at play, the risk is that you go full Zvingli. That would be very unusual today, so it seems worth asking about.
  - mfukar 9y ago
    What is the connection you've made between homosexuality, abortion, and celibacy? I fail to see it.
    - yipopov 9y ago
      Celibacy means you won't have any children. Same reason why a carrier of the Huntington's disease gene may choose celibacy instead of reproducing.
      - bobthechef 9y ago
        Celibacy means sexual abstinence, not not having children. The latter is implied by the former, of course.
        mfukar 9y ago
        Not really, we're past requiring intercourse for reproduction.
        yipopov 9y ago
        Yes, but in the context of upholding traditional Christian moral standards that's not an option that's on the table, and neither is using contraception. Celibacy, or to be more precise, abstinence, is the only option.
        mfukar 9y ago
        You're talking about a very specific "Christian" society, which, you should bear in mind, has very few things in common with other Christian societies, like the orthodox for instance.
        yipopov 9y ago
        I know the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do in fact practice things like abortion and contraception, but they are still highly controversial subjects and far from universally accepted in the hierarchy. I still think it's a pretty fair generalisation of traditional Christianity and the vast majority of Christians (liberal western Protestants are a minority on the global scale, and even they don't universally accept abortion and contraception, take for instance Pastor Anderson)
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Let me have a go at answering as disciple of Jesus Christ and a father and grandfather. Irrespective of any "genetic disorder", I would bring those children up as followers of Jesus Christ, teaching them to be Holy as He is Holy. Part of this holiness is to keep oneself pure, avoiding sexual misconduct of every kind. So irrespective of any same/opposite sex attraction, the way of life is the same. Whether they end up choosing to follow that path is, however, their choice and their responsibility.
  - ZirconiumX 9y ago
    >the way of life is the same Would you mind elaborating more on this? It's hard to tell if you mean "avoiding sexual misconduct" as "don't rape, don't have sex outside of marriage" etc, or as "gay men must live as if they were straight". From a Buddhist perspective, the first choice seems reasonable, if a little restricting, since it's a rephrasing of the Third Moral Precept, but the second seems far too imposing on somebody else.
- WillReplyfFood 9y ago
  We already know its a vital disorder for society. Near all larger contract-institutions of the past where run by "conscripted" closet cases. So without that- no contracts, no law, no real society - this is why people instinctivly yell for better morals when corruption is detected. Pressure on the outliers creates more contract-caste-conscripts. Problem solved.
- fithisux 9y ago
  Since it is not fatal or cause general disability........... nothing.
- hackeraccount 9y ago
  It's not a popular analogy but (for me) it's similar (though clearly not the same) to saying the same thing for alcoholism. I'd still have kids but I'd make sure they were aware of the facts - and the main thing I'd let them know is that they did have control over how the acted if not - according to the scenario - how they felt. A related question would be - would you have kids if under the same scenario conditions - there was a 100% chance they'd drop dead at age 10? Or 5? That potential child has a chance at life and everything wonderful and terrible it entails but not in any way that you conceive it. You'd think it horrible but maybe they'd feel grateful for the chance. Maybe they'll be the first 10 year old to cure cancer. It's not the same thing but for it gets at the spirit of it. I mean, my child will have different problems then me. Heck, they might not even view things that I see as problems as problems. It's still my responsibility to raise them to live the best life possible as I see it and then to give them the chance to do that.
kapauldo 9y ago
Being opposed to homosexuality is like neon being opposed to being black. You don't choose it.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
I would be considered opposed to homosexuality I'm keen to hear what you consider it to mean to be "opposed to homosexuality". If you were to consider homosexuality a disordered condition (i.e. disease), then being "opposed" to it is pretty nonsensical, in the same way it would be meaningless to be "opposed" to autism or "opposed" to diabetes. If that's not the case, then would you consider yourself to be "opposed" to it in the legal sense (homosexual acts should be illegal)? The social sense (homosexuality should be publicly shunned)? The civic sense (homosexual relationships should have no civic legitimacy)?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

zer00eyz 9y ago

Thanks for your candor: Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question. If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?

quantumofmalice 9y ago
That would be a tough situation, I'm not sure. My first thought is that the moral choice for me would be to accept celibacy and try to do the best I can for others in that role.
- debatem1 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    That's a reasonable perspective. I would have to ask my children to remain celibate, though, and would it be fair to put that burden on them, even (maybe especially) if they didn't accept it? It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
  - azinman2 9y ago
    Why do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?
    - jschwartzi 9y ago
      Because the people who would want to get rid of their homosexual children want to do so because they consider it a sin.
      - bobthechef 9y ago
        This is a common confusion. If homosexual attraction were found to have a genetic cause, it would be understood as a genetic or genetically-caused disorder. That in itself would not be a sin because sin only applies to voluntary actions and not conditions. So from this POV, someone with genetically caused homosexual attraction would not be sinning if he refrained from engaging in homosexual acts.
        debatem1 9y ago
        Even without genetic predisposition this is the Catholic stance-- that being gay isn't a sin, but having gay sex is. Of course, this is sophistry; ask about whether two celibate gay men would be allowed a Catholic wedding and the answer will be no because they can't have children, nature of marriage, yadda yadda. Ask whether a man or woman without intact junk can get married and suddenly it's love that is really important.
    - debatem1 9y ago
      If you consider homosexuality a sin (worth saying: I don't) and determinism is at play, the risk is that you go full Zvingli. That would be very unusual today, so it seems worth asking about.
- mfukar 9y ago
  What is the connection you've made between homosexuality, abortion, and celibacy? I fail to see it.
  - yipopov 9y ago
    Celibacy means you won't have any children. Same reason why a carrier of the Huntington's disease gene may choose celibacy instead of reproducing.
    - bobthechef 9y ago
      Celibacy means sexual abstinence, not not having children. The latter is implied by the former, of course.
      - mfukar 9y ago
        Not really, we're past requiring intercourse for reproduction.
        yipopov 9y ago
        Yes, but in the context of upholding traditional Christian moral standards that's not an option that's on the table, and neither is using contraception. Celibacy, or to be more precise, abstinence, is the only option.
        mfukar 9y ago
        You're talking about a very specific "Christian" society, which, you should bear in mind, has very few things in common with other Christian societies, like the orthodox for instance.
        yipopov 9y ago
        I know the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do in fact practice things like abortion and contraception, but they are still highly controversial subjects and far from universally accepted in the hierarchy. I still think it's a pretty fair generalisation of traditional Christianity and the vast majority of Christians (liberal western Protestants are a minority on the global scale, and even they don't universally accept abortion and contraception, take for instance Pastor Anderson)
oldandtired 9y ago
Let me have a go at answering as disciple of Jesus Christ and a father and grandfather. Irrespective of any "genetic disorder", I would bring those children up as followers of Jesus Christ, teaching them to be Holy as He is Holy. Part of this holiness is to keep oneself pure, avoiding sexual misconduct of every kind. So irrespective of any same/opposite sex attraction, the way of life is the same. Whether they end up choosing to follow that path is, however, their choice and their responsibility.
- ZirconiumX 9y ago
  >the way of life is the same Would you mind elaborating more on this? It's hard to tell if you mean "avoiding sexual misconduct" as "don't rape, don't have sex outside of marriage" etc, or as "gay men must live as if they were straight". From a Buddhist perspective, the first choice seems reasonable, if a little restricting, since it's a rephrasing of the Third Moral Precept, but the second seems far too imposing on somebody else.
WillReplyfFood 9y ago
We already know its a vital disorder for society. Near all larger contract-institutions of the past where run by "conscripted" closet cases. So without that- no contracts, no law, no real society - this is why people instinctivly yell for better morals when corruption is detected. Pressure on the outliers creates more contract-caste-conscripts. Problem solved.
fithisux 9y ago
Since it is not fatal or cause general disability........... nothing.
hackeraccount 9y ago
It's not a popular analogy but (for me) it's similar (though clearly not the same) to saying the same thing for alcoholism. I'd still have kids but I'd make sure they were aware of the facts - and the main thing I'd let them know is that they did have control over how the acted if not - according to the scenario - how they felt. A related question would be - would you have kids if under the same scenario conditions - there was a 100% chance they'd drop dead at age 10? Or 5? That potential child has a chance at life and everything wonderful and terrible it entails but not in any way that you conceive it. You'd think it horrible but maybe they'd feel grateful for the chance. Maybe they'll be the first 10 year old to cure cancer. It's not the same thing but for it gets at the spirit of it. I mean, my child will have different problems then me. Heck, they might not even view things that I see as problems as problems. It's still my responsibility to raise them to live the best life possible as I see it and then to give them the chance to do that.

kapauldo 9y ago

Being opposed to homosexuality is like neon being opposed to being black. You don't choose it.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

I would be considered opposed to homosexuality I'm keen to hear what you consider it to mean to be "opposed to homosexuality". If you were to consider homosexuality a disordered condition (i.e. disease), then being "opposed" to it is pretty nonsensical, in the same way it would be meaningless to be "opposed" to autism or "opposed" to diabetes. If that's not the case, then would you consider yourself to be "opposed" to it in the legal sense (homosexual acts should be illegal)? The social sense (homosexuality should be publicly shunned)? The civic sense (homosexual relationships should have no civic legitimacy)?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]