Would you be okay if your child came out as LGBT? (ethics, marriages)

[Workin_Hard]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

My friend had to run away from home upon coming out because his parents threatened to send him for conversion therapy. They scared him so badly that he hasn't spoken to either of his parents for the better part of two decades. Its worth noting my friend was adopted. I find it incredibly sad that two people who so wanted a child of their own that they jumped through hoops and paid a ton of money for him would rather write him off than accept that he is gay.

So at least his parents cared enough to attempt to get help for him, yet he was so conditioned by his peer group that this was a bad thing that he chose instead to run away.

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Then why do two straight parents have a gay child?

I'm not displaying intolerance. I'm displaying knowledge.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

Because sometimes nature produces defects. It used to be that a species was strengthened when only the strongest or superior were the survivors. Now, humanity nurturers and encourages the defective to survive and even reproduce.

And how should society handle these 'defects'?

[Workin_Hard]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

And how should society handle these 'defects'?

Certainly not by redefining what normal is.

[nycnyc11209]

Would u have relations with your twin?
NO! ITS UNNATRUAL
Male DNA is closer to Male DNA. So is female..its like having relations w/ urself = nasty& wrong

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by nycnyc11209

Would u have relations with your twin?
NO! ITS UNNATRUAL
Male DNA is closer to Male DNA. So is female..its like having relations w/ urself = nasty& wrong

Well, there's a perspective we haven't had before...it's interesting to learn where some minds go.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

Two homosexual parents can easily train their child to be a homosexual...Just as two non homosexual parents could..They do it by simple conditioning

Perhaps it would clarify what you mean if you were to adumbrate what such a program would look like.

It might also be useful to present a sample set of children brought up by heterosexual parents and children brought up by homosexual parents.......... and see if the claim of conditioning bears out. Is there a significant disparity to be seen between the rates children of the former come out as homosexual, and the same rates for the latter? There would/should be if your thesis has any weight.

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

If the activity is harmful..And generally the LGBT lifestyle when practiced safely ..Generally is not harmful

I am not sure what an "LGBT lifestyle" actually is though. Their "lifestyle" appears to be identical to mine in every single way other than the MINOR detail that their selection pool of sexual and romantic partners is different.

But as you said yourself it is NOT harmful generally, so generally we should have no issue with it.

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

I've known and dealt with a lot of LGBT folks...I would say most of them have their fair share of psych issues

And I have known and dealth with a lot of them too and not ONE of them appears to have any issues. So it seems your comment tells us nothing at all about LGBT people, and everything about using a single sampling point when viewing a data set. Something I would strongly advise against, were I to harbor any expectation you might listen.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

Because sometimes nature produces defects.

We can not assume it IS a "defect" though. MANY species on this planet have found ways to evolve "non reproducing individuals". And the strength of that species goes UP because of them, not down. HOW those individuals arise differs between species.... some are sterile..... some are genderless..... some are asexual..... so it would be just as valid a hypothesis to suggest homosexuality is just another manifestation of something we already know exists, and is BENEFICIAL in nature.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

It used to be that a species was strengthened when only the strongest or superior were the survivors.

That is not what evolution says at all no. A species is strengthened by improving the quantity of their genes that create successive generations. Being "strong" or "superior" is not required. One can be inferior in every way and STILL manage to be more evolution successful. Alas the media sound bite of "Survival of the fittest" has misled many a lay man into a false impression of what Natural Selection actually entails.

Successfully transferring ones genes into successive generations is the measure we use of success in evolution. Not being the "strongest" (whatever that even means in context).

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

Now, humanity nurturers and encourages the defective to survive and even reproduce.

And is it not great that we are not a slave to evolution any more? That we have evolved to the point that we can shirk off the shackles of the evolutionary precepts that produced us. A world where someone does not have to lose their life merely for being, say, diabetic or blind of deaf. A world where a great mind like stephen hawking can live a long and productive life because our technology can overcome the detriments of the hand genetics dealt him. You seem to hark wistfully to a time where real live individuals would have their lives ended by fate when now we can protect and save them and bring them to the heights of their potential.

I am glad I live in this world and not yours or the one you hanker for. I truely am.

To a nature red in tooth and claw,
A more noble path I lay before.

Originally Posted by nycnyc11209

Would u have relations with your twin? NO! ITS UNNATRUAL

The vast majority of what humans do is "unnatural" so what is your point? Do you think it natural to cook your food? Post on this electronic forum? Use cars or planes? Buy things with money? Treat diseases with antibiotics or antivirals? Education in schools? Watch Television? Play computer games?

The list goes on, it is huge, very little of what we do is "natural". What do you think "natural" even means, because homosexuality, and even pedophilia, are "natural" in that they arise in many species. We are not a slave to what is "natural". We do not have to think "natural=good" or "unnatural=bad".

Originally Posted by nycnyc11209

Male DNA is closer to Male DNA. So is female..its like having relations w/ urself = nasty& wrong

DNA is NOT gendered. There is no such thing as Male DNA. With a few tiny and minor exceptions the geneome of a male and a female are essentially identical.

Real question is why are you posting this exact post AGAIN given you already made it on the thread before and you then wholesale ignored all the rebuttals of it. Is "assert, ignore, repeat" your MO of choice generally?

[Mightyqueen801]

^tl;aq (too long;ain't quotin')...

But great post.

What is the quote from?

ETA, OK, Tennyson, in part.

[Norne]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

And is it not great that we are not a slave to evolution any more? That we have evolved to the point that we can shirk off the shackles of the evolutionary precepts that produced us. A world where someone does not have to lose their life merely for being, say, diabetic or blind of deaf. A world where a great mind like stephen hawking can live a long and productive life because our technology can overcome the detriments of the hand genetics dealt him. You seem to hark wistfully to a time where real live individuals would have their lives ended by fate when now we can protect and save them and bring them to the heights of their potential.

I am glad I live in this world and not yours or the one you hanker for. I truely am.

To a nature red in tooth and claw,
A more noble path I lay before.

It is great for an individual, who is in the end but one little link in the great chain of life. The modern world seems to be all about the individual and his little self. But in the long run is a dead end for the entire species.

[Norne]

Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers

A lot (if not most) parents are at least somewhat unsupportive, and while I understand that it takes time to adjust expectations, it's sad when relationships become strained due to a child coming out. Although some people may feel that sticking to their principles is more important, and if they love their child, maybe they feel that helping them leave the LGBT lifestyle is best.

What does everyone think here?

I do not quite get how it can happen at all that a child has to "come out" to his parents as a teenager or even a young adult. If the parents are good parents and are involved in their kid's life, would they not notice which way that kid gravitates early in his life or at least with the onset of puberty? In this case no "coming out" would be necessary.

[tipsywicket]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Oh I don't believe what I want. I believe what the evidence and research states. Homosexuality naturally occurs. Fact.

So does cannibalism. So does hyper-masturbation. So does rape. So does incest and pedophilia. Cats will eat their kittens if they are weak or sickly. Dogs hump inanimate objects. What is your point, that humans that engage in these activities should be embraced because they are engaging in activities proven to be "natural" by the animal kingdom?