Gay football fan

[Spy Bee]

Fucking right. I don't want to think about my son sucking cock.

[Spy Bee]

That was a joke by the way. It's a tricky one. I mean, my first answer (and probably final one) is no. But when I explore why, it's because I don't want to interfere with nature,l with what that soul is meant to be. But you could extend that to all sorts of parameters.

 

I'll say no, but I have no idea where the line is on this kind of stuff.

[Chuck Fadanoid]

I genuinely wouldn't give two fucks if my son was gay or not, I'm not just saying that to claim any kind of moral high ground. At the end of the day, I'd want to give my son (when and if I have one) the opportunity do precisely whatever he wants; whether that means using any money I earn to give him what he wants and needs or being completely supportive if he wants to 'putt from the rough'.

 

 

 

 

westderbian = morality hero.

[Section_31]

I think I would.

 

You have to weigh up the relative qualities of life on offer for each 'path' the unborn son could take, and at the present time, I'd suggest a straight man would have a far easier time living in the world than a gay man would. Not to mention things like having his own kids - although I realise there are ways and means around that.

[RoboRiise]

If your 12-week old foetus (for argument's sake) was revealed on a scan to be developing a type of brain structure that would mean it was going to be homosexual and the doctor said to your missus "Take this tablet - it contains a hormone that will make sure your baby develops into a heterosexual", would you want her to take it or not? (Make assumptions that the tablet is 100% effective and safe with absolutely no side-efects)

 

I use the word 'your' in it's broad sense as I'm throwing it out generally.

 

On the advice of an imaginary doctor, would I encourage my imaginary wife to take an anti-gay baby pill in order to prevent my imaginary baby from becoming a gay imaginary baby? I imagine not.

[Chuck Fadanoid]

I think I would.

 

You have to weigh up the relative qualities of life on offer for each 'path' the unborn son could take, and at the present time, I'd suggest a straight man would have a far easier time living in the world than a gay man would. Not to mention things like having his own kids - although I realise there are ways and means around that.

 

Fair point, but where would it end if we continued to modify fetus' according to how they would benefit most in life? We'd end up with a whole world full of Fernando Torres clones - which would ironically make me feel more at ease with having a son who dates men.

[23_Carra_Gold]

I was on the bus into town yesterday and their was a huge parade through the street celebrating Gay Pride. The bus was held up in traffic for 10 minutes and then we had to get out and walk. So all in all their march cost me about half an hour. I amn't homophobic or anything but is their really a need to be going around at 3 o clock on a Saturday afternoon dressed in drag and waving a flag to say "I'm gay woo" when it costs ME time?? I mean I don't have a march to say "I like women woo". On the other hand it could have been a march protesting against the fact paedophilia was made legal and I think I would have been equally as peeved.

 

I'm Needlessparadeaphobic

[stringvest]

That was a joke by the way. It's a tricky one. I mean, my first answer (and probably final one) is no. But when I explore why, it's because I don't want to interfere with nature,l with what that soul is meant to be. But you could extend that to all sorts of parameters.

 

I'll say no, but I have no idea where the line is on this kind of stuff.

 

Adam, if you came out as gay, we'd all get behind you, make no mistake on that.

[mars]

The reason it can be deemed offensive is that if homosexuality is seen as a developmental disorder then more than likely, people will seek ways to prevent it from happening and in, effect, it will be an extermination/eradication of homosexuality. It opens up huge ethical questions.

 

The whole question of "designer babies" opens up ethical nightmares. I hope that at some point in the future sexual orientation is no more important than handedness, but suspect you are correct and that some groups with strongly held views will seek prevention.

 

(hold on, mars - you wouldn't worry about swapping a left hander to a right hander, would you? And you said that "sexual orientation is no more important than handedness", so aren't you stuffed logically speaking? Bugger)

 

It's complicated. Anyway, I'd only be worried if they detected "gingerness".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a joke, ok - a joke.

[mattyq]

Ha ha, have you seen the tags?

SpyBee's son sucks cock had me in stiches

[Spy Bee]

I don't have a son, but if I ever do I will be sure to let him know what is expected of him.