When I posted THIS thread, I thought that we were just getting a good laugh about a topic that currently is far from serious. But as I've read on other forums, some are actually using this information as a justification for the eradication of homosexuality.

My biggest fear is not that we have the technology to do these things, but that we have an ignorant populace that is more than ready to create themselves a perfect designer baby free of flaws. Free of challenge. Problem is, the individual, the child, does not determine what is preferable. That's the parents. Before the child is born the parents have punched the buttons for a blond haired, blue eyed little angel who would grow up to be hotter than George Clooney, smarter than Einstein, and more athletic than Bo Jackson.

Of course that child would not be gay. Is the child better off? I think that's subjective. But honestly I'm frightened that with the evangelical push in this country coupled with our desire for easy solutions, we'd simply commit what amounts to genocide.

__________________

Well, since we have the people out there that think it is a "choice" to be gay.... then you will never get rid of homosexuals, because anyone can just "choose" to be gay, right??? /sarcasm...... so if homosexuality is a "choice", there is no need to design a baby so they are not a homosexual, because they might "choose" to be gay later....therefore wasting millions of dollars designing a baby...

I see your confusion, yag... you are trying to logically explain a position that was not arrived at logically by the people who hold it.

People who are disgusted or morally offended by the existence of gay people do not CARE what it takes to make us go away, so long as we GO AWAY.

Whatever it takes. If laws can be passed to make us go away, if denying us rights helps their cause, if discrimination, intimidation, violence, and murder are needed to make the scary gay people go away, it's OK. It's all for the "greater good" of them not having to deal with gay people.

And so, if man "playing God" in the womb is what it takes, or even if that only MIGHT help, they have no problem with that, even though it appears that their god might have a problem with it.

Logic is not the strong suit of the true homophobe.

What logic is there that would support homosexuality as a human condition that shouldn't be "cured"? "True homophobia" is a fear of homosexual people. Thinking the there is something amiss with someone who isn't heterosexual is the only "logical" conclusion any human can come to. And that ain't homophobic.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Just because it fits your fuzzy logic doesn't mean that it isn't a natural part of the human condition. Compare it to anything you wish, but it has yet to be established that homosexuality is a 'disease' so therefore no 'cure' is needed.

This thread is about the perversion of science in an effort to create what we want in a child. The ethical considerations are profound.

__________________

Well even if that is the case, I seriously doubt a hetero couple will check the "gay' box when they design their child. With open abortion, we already have the choice to choose gender and decide against many major birth defects. So we already have some selection.

But for a hetero couple to choose "gay" would be like a black couple trying to have an Asian child. I don't think that'll happen.

"Fuzzy" is a generous description of any logic that supports homosexuality as a human "variation". Because there is little if any tangible evidence to support such a theory.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Gosh fx, through half this article you make minor sense and the you go and screw it up at the end. Typical...

1) You are correct that people will make choices based upon what they find perfect. Since everyones concept is different then of course there will be small variation but general traits would be the same.

2) You are correct that most heterosexual people would not choose for their child to be gay. A sad but true part of the general heterosexual bias against homosexuals.

3) Then you go off the deep end again. Must be something coating those nerve endings blocking sense from your receptors. There is plenty of evidence to show that homosexuality is a human variation. While YOU have a personal bias against it, that does not make it any less natural. You choose not to like the variation. Fine. There are thousands of different ways that humans are varied and you pick this one to throw a fit about. Perhaps if you would have spent more time doing your research instead of ranting an raving about homosexuality, you would see that it has been with us since the beginning of recorded history, just as there have been dark skinned individuals. If it wasn't part of nature, if it was just a fad, then it would have died out. If it were a typical genetic flaw, then it wouldn't continue because homosexuals don't reproduce right? So homosexuals would have died out thousands of years ago. This goes to show that it's a part of the human system just as much as skin color.

__________________

I'm waiting on you to present some of that evidence. Men have been showing an attraction to children and other species for just as long. And any reason you just gave above would fit them too. There are many human maladies that have withstood the test of time. We don't consider them "normal". Why don't YOU do a bit of research, because I haven't done "research", but I also have not read anything that indicates to me that homosexuality is any more "normal" that some other paraphilias or fetishes that we don't socially accept. And that's no more a "rant" than that totally purposeless 3'rd paragraph above.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Just because we don't accept certain traits, doesn't mean that they aren't natural. A failing in your understanding. Beyond that, you have yet to show the negative impact of homosexuality. I can show the negative impact of 'paraphilias', but homosexuality is not classified as a paraphillia.

So I'll give you your proof when you give me mine. Dear FX, what proof do you have that homosexuality will harm society or the individual.

__________________

What is the true negative aspect of necrophilia from a biologic standpoint? Dead is pretty much dead. You decompose and grass grows on ya. There's no negative there. The family might not "like" it. But biologically, there's no real harm in it.

What's the harm in golden showers? Peeing on each other has no negative really. It's just pee.

What more harm to animals is sex than slaughter. We are omnivorous....

But really, that's placing the sex as the determining factor. I think the fact that there is no real "why" to homosexuality points to it's disorder. And the fact that there are "other" partner urges, not to mention total gender misapplication, point even more to the fact that the human/mammalian/animal sexual psyche is just prone to defect.

Not to mention the coincidence that paraphilia and sexual dysfunction is general is more prevalent in men, just like homosexuality, points to something being "amiss".

But you know what, this ain't the thread for this discussion. So unless to want to derail your own thread, make up a new one and link me to it. I'll gladly banter with ya.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)