Would the discovery of a "gay gene" lead the gay community to be staunchly pro-life?

[Oftencold]

Rush Limbaugh has said for years that if there is ever discovered a gene that can be tested for in utero, that would indicate that the unborn child was likely to grow up to be homosexual, the gay community would become monotonically opposed to elective abortion.

This supposes that as a private decision, most pro-abortion couples would choose to abort and try again in such cases. Pro-Life couples, it is to be assumed would carry the child to term, regardless.

I tend to agree, and have little problem believing that may such couples, even if rabidly in favor of the "gay agenda," would have little trouble in convincing themselves that their actions were not the result of their own prejudices, but a repose to "societies."

I'm curious to see who agrees, disagrees and why.


Poll Question: Do you think that if it became possible to predict an unborn child's future sexual orientation before birth, the Gay community, on the whole, would move to a staunchly pro life position?

[dabateman]

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Rush Limbaugh has said for years that if there is ever discovered a gene that can be tested for in utero, that would indicate that the unborn child was likely to grow up to be homosexual, the gay community would become monotonically opposed to elective abortion.

This supposes that as a private decision, most pro-abortion couples would choose to abort and try again in such cases. Pro-Life couples, it is to be assumed would carry the child to term, regardless.

I tend to agree, and have little problem believing that may such couples, even if rabidly in favor of the "gay agenda," would have little trouble in convincing themselves that their actions were not the result of their own prejudices, but a repose to "societies."

I'm curious to see who agrees, disagrees and why.


Poll Question: Do you think that if it became possible to predict an unborn child's future sexual orientation before birth, the Gay community, on the whole, would move to a staunchly pro life position?

I think that the connection between the gay community and pro-choice community is based upon philosophy, not action. The philosophy is one that true freedom lovers should love, and that's that freedom comes down to an individual right/choice. I don't see how that philosophy changes upon the discovery of a gay gene.

Frankly, the same number of people who would have elective abortions would be considering it for the same reasons they're considering abortion now. The number considering aborting a child because they're gay would be so statistically insignificant that the exercise in discussing the matter is merely a red herring.

[Oftencold]

Originally Posted by dabateman

I think that the connection between the gay community and pro-choice community is based upon philosophy, not action. The philosophy is one that true freedom lovers should love, and that's that freedom comes down to an individual right/choice. I don't see how that philosophy changes upon the discovery of a gay gene.

Frankly, the same number of people who would have elective abortions would be considering it for the same reasons they're considering abortion now. The number considering aborting a child because they're gay would be so statistically insignificant that the exercise in discussing the matter is merely a red herring.

I always find myself slightly bemused by the concept of the love of freedom bought at the expense of another person's life. But, leave that in shadow for the moment.

I submit that since most elective abortions take place for the convenience of the parents, and since the attending philosophy perforce greatly devalues the worth of any particular conception, it simply stands to reason that in light of my posited test, most people comfortable with casual abortion, would simply forgo the bother and dispose of such embryos. In a month or so, it can be easily replaced.

And why would they not? Again, casual abortion is usually about convenience, or the avoidance of problems. Even in our supposedly enlightened times, and even in the most liberal of locales, a gay child would present certain problems, that an abortion could easily remedy before they happened.

[1069]

Historically, the gay community have been allies of the pro-choice movement, and vice versa.
I don't see this changing.

[dabateman]

Originally Posted by Oftencold

I always find myself slightly bemused by the concept of the love of freedom bought at the expense of another person's life. But, leave that in shadow for the moment.

It's all about how you define a person. But you knew that and just wanted to make a smartass remark.

I submit that since most elective abortions take place for the convenience of the parents, and since the attending philosophy perforce greatly devalues the worth of any particular conception, it simply stands to reason that in light of my posited test, most people comfortable with casual abortion, would simply forgo the bother and dispose of such embryos.

And why would they not? Again, casual abortion is usually about convenience, or the avoidance of problems. Even in our supposedly enlightened times, and even in the most liberal of locales, a gay child would present certain problems, that an abortion could easily remedy before they happened.

Your logic is flawed and jumps all over the place. Let me help you with it. I'll walk you through step by step.

1. Your primary assertion is that most elective abortions take place for the convenience of the parents. I reject this assertion because of its inaccuracy. Most elective abortions take place for the convenience of the mother, not the "parents" because the mother is the one making the decision about her body. Half the time men don't even know that there was a pregnancy, and even if they did, they're not the decision making constituent of the party.

2. Your secondary assertion, that parents who would abort a baby for convenience would abort a gay baby for being gay, is without merit. Parents who are going to abort a baby out of convenience are generally not looking at factors such as handedness, sexual orientation, eye color, or any other basic feature. They are looking at external factors. The cost of raising a child, their present ability to meet those costs, the time it takes to raise a child, their present ability to meet the time requirements, the potential medical bills for the child, the ability to provide coverage for those costs. Frankly, the convenience factor is generally not about the child or the difficulty the child would have, it's about the parents and the difficulty that the parents would have. The majority of people who believe abortion is a rational option also believe that homosexuality is a valid expression of the human state. So they would not likely view homosexuality as a burden or a great difficulty for THEM. So the assertion that a child would be on the "chopping block" so to speak because it had the gay gene, is a bit absurd when you look at the constituent you have selected.
3. Even if there are parents who have elected to terminate a child because the child has the gay gene, those parents would be extremely rare, and frankly that sort of thing would likely be against medical ethics as a form of genetic engineering. To get an abortion, for the most part, you have to have a valid reason. "I can't raise a baby." is generally considered to be valid. "This kid is going to have blonde hair." generally isn't. I don't think the AMA is going to get on board with genetic engineering / selective breeding sort of programs, which is kinda what your suggesting by the premise of the question.

So no, I don't see any rational logical reason as to why homosexuals will move from being pro-choice to being pro-life unless there is a clear abuse of the system as I lined out in section three, and disputed the likelihood of in sections 1 and 2.

[Oftencold]

Originally Posted by dabateman

It's all about how you define a person. But you knew that and just wanted to make a smartass remark . . ..

You know, I feel much the same way when people tell me about how they twist and distort the ancient concept of marriage to imagine that it could apply to two people of the same gender. Go figure!

I guess then that he who whines the loudest, engages the most judges and legislators and pitches the biggest fit gets to define common terms?

[dabateman]

Originally Posted by Oftencold

You know, I feel much the same way when people tell me about how they twist and distort the ancient concept of marriage to imagine that it could apply to two people of the same gender. Go figure!

Right, you should be damned angry with all those crazy heterosexual people who have changed marriage from some sort of property exchange to offload a daughter that wasn't going to inherit your land anyway, into something that's based upon mutual affection.

I mean once you stopped having marriage being predominately arranged and nothing more than legal rape sessions and forced female servitude, the whole thing just went down hill from there.

I tell you what, when straight people go back to the "ancient concept" of marriage, then your logic would have some merit. Until then, it's merely the ramblings of a man who uses his own twisted logic to justify untenable positions.

I guess then that he who whines the loudest, engages the most judges and legislators and pitches the biggest fit gets to define common terms?

Society defines common terms. Not individuals who wish to are desperately trying to squeeze the language into a point that cannot reasonably be made.

[Oftencold]

Originally Posted by dabateman

Right, you should be damned angry with all those crazy heterosexual people who have changed marriage from some sort of property exchange to offload a daughter that wasn't going to inherit your land anyway, into something that's based upon mutual affection.

I mean once you stopped having marriage being predominately arranged and nothing more than legal rape sessions and forced female servitude, the whole thing just went down hill from there.

I tell you what, when straight people go back to the "ancient concept" of marriage, then your logic would have some merit. Until then, it's merely the ramblings of a man who uses his own twisted logic to justify untenable positions.



Society defines common terms. Not individuals who wish to are desperately trying to squeeze the language into a point that cannot reasonably be made.

You really, really need to read some history sometime, and think about what you're reading, Most people for the last thousand years or so were working class people who had little or nothing to bequeath anyway. And land for the sake of the Elysian Fields? In Europe and later America, Almost no one outside of the Aristocracy, State Church and Nobility had title to land for most of that time.

So property concerns for the bulk of the population hardly would have entered into it. You're making the common mistake of thinking that history is primarily the chronicles of the wealthy and powerful, always a small minority.

And finally consider the mountains of professional and folk music, poetry and art dedicated to the idea of romantic, natural, heterosexual love produced in the Western World in that time. Someone obviously thought that boys and girls fell in love and got married. And they thought that right and proper.

Mutual affection did enter into most of those marriages. Why should it not have?

[dabateman]

Originally Posted by Oftencold

You really, really need to read some history sometime, and think about what you're reading, Most people for the last thousand years or so were working class people who had little or nothing to bequeath anyway. And land for the sake of the Elysian Fields? In Europe and later America, Almost no one outside of the Aristocracy, State Church and Nobility had title to land for most of that time.

So property concerns for the bulk of the population hardly would have entered into it. You're making the common mistake of thinking that history is primarily the chronicles of the wealthy and powerful, always a small minority.

And finally consider the mountains of professional and folk music, poetry and art dedicated to the idea of romantic, natural, heterosexual love produced in the Western World in that time. Someone obviously thought that boys and girls fell in love and got married. And they thought that right and proper.

Mutual affection did enter into most of those marriages. Why should it not have?

Actually, let's talk about the massive mistake. You have opted to selectively look at a period of marriage instead of marriage as a whole, and you're trying to suggest that one point of view (specifically yours) is correct. I hate to be the one to inform you, but that's just not the case.

1. Marriage predates recorded history.
2. Marriage traditions/motivations/rules varied from society to society.
3. The concept of modern marriage (two people consenting out of love and affection to spend their lives together and form a family unit) is foreign to virtually every form of marriage you want to discuss.
4. Most people for the last thousand years that got married did so to protect property. If you didn't have property, you didn't go through the expense of getting married. Marriage, for those people, was a mutual assent not recognized by law. It might have been blessed by some church, but then again so is gay marriage.
5. History does chronicle the wealthy and powerful because it is the victors that write the history. But even beyond that, it is the wealthy and powerful that most influence the laws. Those laws, at the time you're referencing, were certainly pro-marriage IF you're exchanging property. Otherwise, there was no point to marriage as a legal contract.
6. You seem to conflate the legal ideas of marriage with the religious ideas of marriage and the social ideas of marriage. I understand that this is easy to do considering the level of inter-related issues that developed over the past 1000 years, but really they must be examined separately, especially for the period of time you reference.
7. The idea of marriage has shifted over time in all aspects because society has changed. Blame that on straight people.

But you're getting off topic to avoid the real issue which is your logical failures to appropriately link pro-choice homosexuals transitioning to pro-life homosexuals because of a "gay gene". Perhaps once you've mastered that logic we can move on to something more complicated like marriage.

[Oftencold]

Originally Posted by dabateman

. . .
7. The idea of marriage has shifted over time in all aspects because society has changed. Blame that on straight people.
. . ..

And yet, never seems to have included same-sex marriage. Child marriage, marriage to the dead, multiple marriage, temporary marriage, but never same sex marriage. Oh, you may be able to find some obscure example to the contrary in some nearly forgotten backwater in some troubled country, for some brief period, but I think that will be the bizarre exception that illustrates the normal pan-cultural expectation that marriage is designed strictly for heterosexual partners.

Don't you feel just a twinge of awkwardness at tramping about demanding admittance to someone else's customs?