[abbaZaba]

explain to me the rationale behind preferring their child to be gay

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by climber 

The point is if you would impose your values/prejudices. As in your option (a).

At least two are imposing your values, probably all three. We're all going to impose our views on our kids either passively or actively; picking a touchy issue just makes the reponses less relevant.

What this kind of poll says about its creator... thats a bit more interesting.

[Doofy]

I'd quite like them to be completely asexual. That way, they won't want to throw any wild parties to impress whoever it is that they would normally be trying to impress.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by Timo 

I'm not sure what the OP's intent is. For now anyway, we cannot choose a child's sexual orientation, and the idea we could is morally repugnant.

Pressing the question begs a larger one, that is, if I were magically able to do such a thing, there are any number of other things I would do instead, magically.

nope, we can't choose our children's orientation, yet some parents are more than capable of screwing their children's perception up enough that even they don't know what they want

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Marden would have cut and pasted your reply.

Oh, and how do you know who I'm talking about?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

explain to me the rationale behind preferring their child to be gay

That now makes 3 of us who have asked some form of that question.

[Peter]

as long as they're happy...

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

explain to me the rationale behind preferring their child to be gay

What difference would it make really?

[Dakar²]

A bit more difficult to pass your genes on.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

A bit more difficult to pass your genes on.

You mean passing the child's genes on. Which could be accomplished by artificial insemination/surrogate mother. Should work nicely as a decent number of gay women will want to have kids as will a good number of gay men.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

You mean passing the child's genes on.

Yes

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Which could be accomplished by artificial insemination/surrogate mother.

Hence, "Bit more difficult"

[abbaZaba]

yeah. it'll be a great society when we're all choosing to have artificial ensemenation as a way of reproducing.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

A bit more difficult to pass your genes on.

That is not everyones goal in life.

[Face Ache]

I think I'd prefer my child to be straight, yet I'd flip a coin anyway.

Being in Australia, it's more important that your kid is good at sport. We can get over gayness, but if you can't throw a ball... "faggot!"

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

At least two are imposing your values, probably all three. We're all going to impose our views on our kids either passively or actively; picking a touchy issue just makes the reponses less relevant.

What this kind of poll says about its creator... thats a bit more interesting.

You won't like what I have to say. But I think after a while you'll come to recognize that what I would say is probably the best answer.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Oh, and how do you know who I'm talking about?

I'm a Lurky Loo.

[Dark Helmet]

I'm really impressed that 40% here wouldn't mind a gay child.

[dcmacdaddy]

"flip a coin" as in let whatever happens happens. (Although I think Oisin said this more elegantly.)

If/when I have kids and they are born healthy with no complications then that is all I could really ask for. Besides, who cares if a kid is gay or straight: What matters to me is do they grow up healthy, emotionally stable, kind, and thoughtful. This question makes me think of the parents who try to re-live their lives through their children trying to mold them into the person they wanted to be. Life doesn't work that way and parents who do this usually f*ck up the kid. Just be glad you've got a healthy kid and forget about minor things like sexual orientation. Sheesh!

[wolfen]

I'd want a kid who isn't the least bit interested in sex.

Yes, such people exist.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

You won't like what I have to say. But I think after a while you'll come to recognize that what I would say is probably the best answer.

Now this just screams marden.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Why would anyone pick gay or straight? You'll either (a) Impose your prejudices on the child or (b) Pretend to make a rational choice. Neither is very attractive when you weigh the options.

Originally Posted by climber 

The point is if you would impose your values/prejudices. As in your option (a).

Question: Do you want your child to be open minded?

[Kevin]

I would never purposely make a child gay. I wouldn't want life be any harder on him or her that it has to be.

[Atheist]

As a gay man intending on having children... I certainly hope they are straight. But that's not for my benefit... it's for theirs. I don't care how you look at it... life is easier for straight people. Would you want your child to be deaf or blind? No... of course not. You want them to have every advantage possible to lead a productive and happy life. Being gay in this world is a handicap. I don't know why everyone has trouble with this question.

[CreepDogg]

NEW RULE: If you try to choose your child's sexual orientation, you don't get to have children.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Question: Do you want your child to be open minded?

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. I doubt you will find any instance where I hinted at that. My point was that this thread was really about if you would impose your beliefs on your kids. I think I made it clear that was against such an idea. In fact I found it insulting.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

NEW RULE: If you try to choose your child's sexual orientation, you don't get to have children.

NEW RULE: People who propose stupid new rules have to dye their hair purple.

CRAP!!!

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Now this just screams marden.

And the wind cries, "Mary!"

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

As a gay man intending on having children... I certainly hope they are straight. But that's not for my benefit... it's for theirs. I don't care how you look at it... life is easier for straight people. Would you want your child to be deaf or blind? No... of course not. You want them to have every advantage possible to lead a productive and happy life. Being gay in this world is a handicap. I don't know why everyone has trouble with this question.

Quoted for emphasis.

The secret of McDonalds and KFC and Apple Computers and Budget Car Rental and every other franchise is the ability to achieve a successful formula and then replicate it.

Over thousands of years we have come to know what makes the best societies. Strong, loving, two parent, heterosexual families. That is the franchise secret formula. Anything that veers from that formula is experimenting with what we know works.

Why do scientists working with California Condor chicks use hand puppets which look like adult Condors to emulate the parent's behavior and upbringing? Because that chick has to learn what it takes to become a successful California Condor parent one day and if the chick doesn't learn to become a parent from a parental surrogate role model then the entire species will eventually be jeopardized.

Gays are wonderful and terrible people and everything in between, just like straights. But the best that a Gay person in a wonderfully loving, stable and committed Gay marriage can give a child is a Gay experience. And are all the Gay parenting examples that a child is exposed to going to give that child what he or she needs to be the happiest, healthiest future parent? Will Gay marriages provide everything that this young person will need to know when it comes to how to choose a mate and how to court and what a date is supposed to be like and how to deal with a spouse of the opposite gender -- let's remember we are trying to make sure the child becomes a good parent one day -- and all of the other little things that really are different and not transferable from the Gay parenting ideal to the Heterosexual parenting ideal?

We all recognize Gay people as being no different than Straight people who just want to be happy. But by introducing this new element to the production cycle of family building we are tinkering with a tried and proven formula. And what makes us want to do it? Because humans whether they be Straight or Gay, have parental urges. And in the campaign to secure equal rights for Gays I can support all of them except Gay marriage because having the urge to be a good parent is just not enough to reliably produce the best offspring which will go on to become parents who will produce offspring and become society's building blocks of tomorrow.

The results of our tinkering with the tried and true formula will take 40 years or more to fully recognize. But we would have ignored that reality for the sake of helping to satisfy Gay people's parental urges.

Not one responsible, loving Gay person I know or have known would ever knowingly do anything to harm a child. On the contrary, they would do what they thought was BEST for a child and would even endure great sacrifice for the sake of an innocent child. But even THAT isn't enough to help give a heterosexual child the best chances to make it in life as a heterosexual spouse and parent.

The last grand experiment involving the family was the introduction of welfare to help dependent children. It was a well intentioned idea that helped save hundreds of thousands of lives and prevented great pain among the most vulnerable among our society. The poor, the uneducated, the unmarried young single mother.

The government said that to take care of these children and to try to work at the same time is an unreasonable expectation and so in order to allow the mother to raise the child or children and for the children to have a reasonable expectation to become happy, healthy and well adjusted adults and contributing members of society, the government will give these mothers a stipend each month to cover their living expenses. But if there is an able bodied man (father or not) in the household who can get a job then these monthly stipends will be discontinued.

And everything seemed reasonable.

And over 40 years or so we have come to harvest the seeds that were first sewn back then.

50 Cent, Ludacris, Snoop, Tupac and others are the Pied Pipers of legions of single parent families which lost their stigma due to welfare. When the father or lover or boy friend wouldn't, couldn't or didn't get a job the welfare mothers would tell them they could stay for the night but they couldn't live with them because it would jeopardize the monthly welfare check.
And so the man left and the single mother family gained social acceptance and with time it came to be thought of as a viable option instead of a functional expedient.

The male children growing up in those households saw the role of males was to fornicate (make booty calls) and leave and sell drugs or learn some other criminal trade and those who did it well gained street cred. And when some creative young men put their experiences and thoughts to music they had a ready audience of millions who had those same experiences and those same thoughts and felt that same pain and that same anger. And then it became popular to look and act and talk and dress like a thug or gangsta. And it wasn't enough to pretend to do it, one had to be the real thing to gain respect.

And so now we have billions of dollars going into perpetuating what is actually the result of a well intentioned social experiment gone awry. But it took almost 40 years to reap this bitter fruit. While we can applaud and celebrate the artistry of these well known and well paid performers we don't usually spend time in the emergency rooms or in the schools or on the streets of the inner city where these banging examples of modern day Dr. Frankenstein go about terrorizing their communities only because they emulated what they saw and experienced while growing up. They didn't have a successful role model's imprint and so as they grew to adulthood instead of having the examples of a loving, hard working and committed MOM & DAD's example deep in their subconscious to help guide them, they had something else.

And we see that something else on TV and in our newspapers.

The idea of Gay marriage does not satisfy the needs of society as much as it satisfies the urges of Gays who want acceptance and who may want to replicate what they have seen growing up, committed, loving relationships. But can they give a child what he or she needs to become functionally sound torch passers for society?

I doubt it.

But there are many people who would say so just as there are many who thought there would be nothing bad to come from welfare.

We can argue about it but the facts wouldn't show themselves for 40 years and instead of worrying about how to help Gays feel better we'll instead be dealing with the monstrous effects that came about from our decisions to permit Gay marriage today while simultaneously debating what new sociological wrinkle which goes against thousands of years of empirical R&D
that we should allow simply because it satisfies a temporary urge or it makes someone feel like they are being fair.

Fairness and urge gratification should not be the standard. We should do what is best to produce happy, healthy, well-adjusted, intelligent, responsible, loving human beings who have all the tools and all the knowledge needed to successfully produce more like him and her self.

If we have lost track of what the ideal might be, why not take a look at the typical Muslim family? There's much to learn there.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

blah blah blah blah blah

Quoted for emphasis.

Oh my. Are you sure you aren't marden? That was the silliest tripe I've ever read.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Your quality of humor reminds me of marden too. Stop it, oh god, stop it.

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Edit: shades of marden for some reason

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Marden would have cut and pasted your reply.

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Now this just screams marden.

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Oh my. Are you sure you aren't marden? That was the silliest tripe I've ever read.

Here we go again.

I think I'll start reporting people that derail with silly marden obsessing.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Over thousands of years we have come to know what makes the best societies. Strong, loving, two parent, heterosexual families. That is the franchise secret formula. Anything that veers from that formula is experimenting with what we know works.

The ability to parent is not dependant on sexual orientation. Only the likelihood of procreation is diminished by that. If a homosexual individual is able to acquire, adopt, or somehow be the biological parent to a child then I would give that child the same odds as a kid raised by heterosexuals to grow up to be a good individual/parent themselves.
In fact it is my belief that what is BEST for a child is to have any parent(s) who takes interest in that child, spends an abundant amount of time involved in their life, stresses the importance of an education, good health, and civic responsibility, and can financially provide the resources to give the child a comfortable lifestyle.
Hell, I wish there were fewer obstacles for gay individuals to be able to adopt. The social service and foster care system sucks and does more harm than good in the long run to society. Placing children into the permanent care of ANY willing, stable, and responsible adult is better then them growing up in the system.

Gay marriage is a related but not entirely intertwined issue.
Extending marital status to homosexual couples should not occur because the state and federal government should have never gotten into the business of sanctioning marriages. I oppose it based on the fact that extending governmental involvement beyond what it is today serves no real benefit and I oppose it for tax and legal reasons. I've covered this to no end before here so do a search if you want me to elaborate.
Now if a gay couple does have a child they should be extended all the parental benefits and privileges the government provides to anyone else. Legislation should be expanded to accommodate legal rights and responsibilities for those two individuals who assume the role of parents to the child. However, all the other legal intricacies normally associated with marriage can be addressed by individual states through the creation of civil unions or existing contract/property law.

Using only examples from the African American community to cite failures in welfare and in single parenting is unfair to those issues. The African American community in the United States suffers from problems rooted far too deep to be explained away by just welfare. The lack of a cohesive cultural identity, poor leadership, and engrained victim mentality goes a far longer way to explain the problems within their community than you just did above.

The welfare system was flawed from the start in that it did not provide a roadmap or sufficient incentives to get out of it. It needs to be rolled back and reinvented. That topic alone is worth a 3 page lecture and I don't have the time.

The issue of single mothers is rather complicated but would be aided by more aggressive prosecution of dead-beat dads. If the ilk of the ACLU sympathizers could be muzzled I'd be all for forced labor camps where such individuals would be put to work to provide for their children if they did not have jobs or failed to live up to their responsibilities. In and of themselves though, single parents are not the problem. But since you made this about gay parenting, I digress.

Homosexuals are no less capable of being good parents than anyone else. They would not necessarily provide what most people would consider a traditional family structure but given that they don't make up more than ten percent of the population they wouldn’t cause a growing atrophic effect either. If there is a problem with a degradation of "family values" its not fair to pin it on the gays. That's society as a whole.
If you look carefully the most successful child rearing cultures are those which stress the importance of the extended family rather than what we know as the nuclear family. It provides redundancies in parenting and provides more bonds for children.

As to the question posed by the OP. If it was a choice through genetic manipulation: no I would not choose to have a gay kid. I'd check that off the "what I hope for list" just as quickly as I would anything else that would make a kid's life harder.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

That is not everyones goal in life.

That's true, but those who don't care usually don't have kids.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I'd want a kid who isn't the least bit interested in sex.

Yes, such people exist.

I think an asexual child would bother me.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

NEW RULE: People who propose stupid new rules have to dye their hair purple.

This place owes me a few new rules then.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

And the wind cries, "Mary!"

This is getting to be like deja vu. Every new response just reinforces the feeling even more.

Edit: Sorry, I should've multi-quoted. Time for some caffeinated Pepsi...

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by climber 

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. I doubt you will find any instance where I hinted at that. My point was that this thread was really about if you would impose your beliefs on your kids. I think I made it clear that was against such an idea. In fact I found it insulting.

I think you missed the point of my question. Wouldn't training your child to be open-minded as you are be imposing some sort of your beliefs on them as well?

[lpkmckenna]

The poll doesn't have enough options.

I'd go for a straight son and a lesbian daughter. That way, I could sleep all of their girlfriends.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

I'm really impressed that 40% here wouldn't mind a gay child.

That wasn't the question. The question was which one you would *choose*. I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I wouldn't choose it. The reality is that being gay causes extra problems that straight people don't face - discrimination and ridicule. Why would I choose that for my child? Being gay has disadvantages and has no advantages.

[Dakar²]

You wanna give your kid an advantage, pick bi. Nothing like walking into a room and being "Oooooh yeaahhhh."

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

The reality is that being gay causes extra problems that straight people don't face - discrimination and ridicule.

Are you seriously saying that straight children never suffer from discrimination and ridicule?

[Dakar²]

reloaded the page 3 times over 5 minutes, didn't show my goddamn post, post again, then it shows up...

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

Are you seriously saying that straight children never suffer from discrimination and ridicule?

A kid is going to get ridiculed no matter what. No need to add another reason to get made fun of (his assertion).

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

A kid is going to get ridiculed no matter what. No need to add another reason to get made fun of (his assertion).

It is not like being gay automatically ads a +1 for teasing and -1 in quality of life.

I for one was NEVER called gay as a kid or even in high school when it was widely assumed.

Even as an adult next to nobody has called me a "fag" or discriminated against me in any way.

Your kid is more likely to get teased more because they have buck teeth, wear glasses etc over being gay.

It also shows that these "better off straight people" that are doing the teasing the are the real problem and not the person who is gay. In fact you have to wonder why these straight folk who apparently have it so good bother discriminating and teasing gays at all. If I had the choice between having a straight child with that discriminatory attitude or a gay child that doesn't do that I would think the gay child is the better choice.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

Are you seriously saying that straight children never suffer from discrimination and ridicule?

In regards to sexual-orientation discrimination and ridicule for being gay, I'd say the odds are near 1,000,000,000:1

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

It is not like being gay automatically ads a +1 for teasing and -1 in quality of life.

Then why do you say essentially the exact opposite later in this post?

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

I for one was NEVER called gay as a kid or even in high school when it was widely assumed.

Even as an adult next to nobody has called me a "fag" or discriminated against me in any way.

Your kid is more likely to get teased more because they have buck teeth, wear glasses etc over being gay.

I am goint to bookmark this post for future reference when you bitch about how "rednecks" have treated you.

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

It also shows that these "better off straight people" that are doing the teasing the are the real problem and not the person who is gay.

What about the gay people who tease the bisexual people?

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

In fact you have to wonder why these straight folk who apparently have it so good bother discriminating and teasing gays at all.

Everyone/group teases and discrimiates. Why add another reason for someone (rightly or wrongly) to do that to your child

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

If I had the choice between having a straight child with that discriminatory attitude or a gay child that doesn't do that I would think the gay child is the better choice.

If I had the choice of an intelligent gay son over an ignorant gay son, I'd chose the intelligent one.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

It is not like being gay automatically ads a +1 for teasing and -1 in quality of life.

I for one was NEVER called gay as a kid or even in high school when it was widely assumed.

Even as an adult next to nobody has called me a "fag" or discriminated against me in any way.

Your kid is more likely to get teased more because they have buck teeth, wear glasses etc over being gay.

It also shows that these "better off straight people" that are doing the teasing the are the real problem and not the person who is gay. In fact you have to wonder why these straight folk who apparently have it so good bother discriminating and teasing gays at all. If I had the choice between having a straight child with that discriminatory attitude or a gay child that doesn't do that I would think the gay child is the better choice.

You also grew up in a place that seems to be a bit more accepting of others.

[Dakar²]

What about a intelligent gay son vs. an ignorant straight one?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

You also grew up in a place that seems to be a bit more accepting of others.

Still that just means the gay people aren't actually the ones with the problem.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

You also grew up in a place that seems to be a bit more accepting of others.

Yeah, I thought of that too. Depressing.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

Your kid is more likely to get teased more because they have buck teeth, wear glasses etc over being gay.

Right, and given a choice, I wouldn't choose buck teeth, either. No one would reasonably choose to cause their child to be teased. If you could get over being offended by something I didn't say, then you might realize that. Kids get teased for many reasons. People are discriminated against for many reasons. Being gay is one of those reasons (not for all people, but the fact is that it does happen regularly). Given the fact that being gay and being straight are otherwise equal, I'll choose the one that doesn't come with an increased risk of being teased or discriminated against. Gays can't get married here. Gays can't get benefits for their partners. There are actual drawbacks to it. The poll is about choosing, and given the drawbacks, I'd choose to avoid them. The poll wasn't about turning your gay child into a straight child or anything of that sort.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the "discriminatory attitude" you've accused me of having. You're already worked up about this subject and so far, I've only said something that can be backed up by statistics and isn't an opinion or a judgment against anyone. If being gay hasn't caused you any additional harm in your life, why are you so defensive?

Besides, I'd probably be more comfortable with my daughter bringing home a girlfriend. The first boyfriend to come through the door is likely to get his ass kicked. I remember being a teenage guy - my daughters don't need to be spending any time around them.