How would you feel if your child was gay

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
How do you tell if a child, say 5yo is gay ?
When half of the adults that say they are gay aren't sure ?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Originally posted by: Modelworks
How do you tell if a child, say 5yo is gay ?
When half of the adults that say they are gay aren't sure ?

If you "arent sure" if you are gay, you are gay.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: Modelworks
How do you tell if a child, say 5yo is gay ?
When half of the adults that say they are gay aren't sure ?

If you try to drown him and he floats, he's a gay.

If he drowns, he's not a gay.
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
117
116
I'd be indifferent, because it's none of my business, though I'd probably end up being more supportive since I know there are a tonne of asshats out there that would treat him/her like shit. :disgust:

KT
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,504
12
56
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I would first find out where they got this whole idea of being gay, then whatever source that is, they'd be forbidden from. If it's a group of friends, they could no longer hang out with those friends, if it was the internet, I'd apply some serious web filters or just dissallow them altogether.

From there, in a loving matter, explain and drill through them the fact that it's not correct to be this way, and send them to Bible school, counseling, anything that can help them out to repair their life style. This would not be easy though specially if the child is rebelious about it. But sometimes they just need to be led in the right directions. it's like trying to get a child to get off drugs.
This is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read here. I am seriously hoping you are being sarcastic, but just in case you really believe what you've typed I have something to tell you. People do not chose to be homosexual. Why would someone WANT to be homosexual with the intolerance and shunning they would have to put up with? No one would.

You can't talk someone out of being homosexual. You can't beat it out of them. You can't hope they will outgrow it. You can't show them love and change their feelings. If any of that influences them they are just living in denial.

Homosexuality is not anything like a drug addiction. Good gawd, to compare the two is just plain dumb.




Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
whatever makes them happy will make me happy

Put it in your butt?
:confused:
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,885
1,099
126
For me, I would be upset but I would get over it and love him still.

My wife is chinese - I suspect for her it would result in a disowning.
 
Jan 18, 2001
14,465
1
0
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

I would say religion in general. Dont for get that Mr. Immadinnerjacket told a group of US students that gays "dont exist" in his country. You get stoned to death in the muslim world.

Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
3
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

I would say religion in general. Dont for get that Mr. Immadinnerjacket told a group of US students that gays "dont exist" in his country. You get stoned to death in the muslim world.

Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.

Double standards are fun.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
It's your child. Why would them being gay matter in the slightest bit?

I'm serious. For those who talk shit about throwing them out of the house (which is all talk, by the way), etc., why? You afraid of what others are gonna think?
It seems today that most parents are much more concerned about what strangers think of their kids than how their kids percieve themselves.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Platypus
lol.. there's a large whooshing sound somewhere in this thread.

The sound of K1052 throwing his gay children off a cliff, right?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Platypus
lol.. there's a large whooshing sound somewhere in this thread.

The sound of K1052 throwing his gay children off a cliff, right?

They were told that the Golden Girls await them at the bottom. So, yeah, the girlish shouts of joy on the way down are quite noisy.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.

"Sometimes men love other men"
WOW! That was difficult!
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
It's your child. Why would them being gay matter in the slightest bit?

I'm serious. For those who talk shit about throwing them out of the house (which is all talk, by the way), etc., why? You afraid of what others are gonna think?
It seems today that most parents are much more concerned about what strangers think of their kids than how their kids percieve themselves.

It's only become that way because we've changed through the course of hundreds of years to be almost polar opposites from what values we used to have. (This has NOTHING to do with religion, btw. one of the few things I won't blame on religion ;))

In history, most societies placed family up at the top of importance. Patriarchy and the family structure was important.

And whereas now society fears what there kids are doing and how others will perceive their kids and thus the family, it used to be kids were afraid of how society would perceive their family because of them. Kids didn't want to bring shame to the family, so they tried hard to do right by their family/social standards.

Kids these days seem to not give a shit about how they are viewed and thus how their parents are viewed. It's such bullshit and has been leading to major problems in youth across the country. And while pisspoor parenting is to blame, the kids' having no respect and reveling in rebellion is horrible. Because all the best parenting in the world can't stop a child from rebelling, his own mistakes will do him in and get him to change... or a removal of parenting and throwing their kids into some kind of obedience program, but that's not parenting, that's giving up and having others take care of your problems. But then again, what are you to do when your kids have absolutely no respect for family and beating them doesn't do anything but feed that rebel fire? And beating is going out the window too, what with all these kids threatening - and actually following through with - civil suits and whatnot for their parents punishing them with force. I for one argue we've grown way too soft, and I for one WILL spank my kids. Damn soft hippies.
Time outs do NOT work, especially since the kids will probably be able to talk themselves out of it after 5 minutes. :p

hmm, ranted a bit there.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

I would say religion in general. Dont for get that Mr. Immadinnerjacket told a group of US students that gays "dont exist" in his country. You get stoned to death in the muslim world.

Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.

As in my last post, while I love blaming religion for most things wrong with society, I think this supersedes religion...
the idea of homosexuality only being socially wrong because of religion is, imho, bullshit.
The idea of life is that well... you make babies so that your lineage continues. Being gay means, well... no babies in your future. I doubt any society in history ever accepted full-on homosexuality, because that meant you no longer cared about the natural need to have children.
Again, in some societies, bi-sexuality seemed to be accepted, but I still don't know a lot of the reasoning. But even these people had wives and children, just had something else on the side...
 
Jan 18, 2001
14,465
1
0
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

I would say religion in general. Dont for get that Mr. Immadinnerjacket told a group of US students that gays "dont exist" in his country. You get stoned to death in the muslim world.

Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.

As in my last post, while I love blaming religion for most things wrong with society, I think this supersedes religion...
the idea of homosexuality only being socially wrong because of religion is, imho, bullshit.
The idea of life is that well... you make babies so that your lineage continues. Being gay means, well... no babies in your future. I doubt any society in history ever accepted full-on homosexuality, because that meant you no longer cared about the natural need to have children.
Again, in some societies, bi-sexuality seemed to be accepted, but I still don't know a lot of the reasoning. But even these people had wives and children, just had something else on the side...

1) yes agreed, religion rather than bible is a better term. also I agree that religion only accounts for some of the stigma... and that some stigma would be likely regardless of the influence of religion.

2) The evolutionary arguement implied by desketor doesn't hold water with me. Mostly because we don't know what made early humans successful and we don't know the genetic underpinnings of homosexual behavior. We do know that its possible to induce homosexual orientation in mice with in utero exposure to certain hormones (link) but we don't know why or how homosexual behavior in populations would or wouldn't be advantagous. I could imagine several ways in which having some non-competing males in the tribal line up would be very advantageous, assuming that the hetero and homo males were related... As long as some of the tribe reproduces, then the adaption is beneficial. I know I'm making a few leaps here, but I'll leave it to others to tell me how wrong I am.

 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

I would say religion in general. Dont for get that Mr. Immadinnerjacket told a group of US students that gays "dont exist" in his country. You get stoned to death in the muslim world.

Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.

As in my last post, while I love blaming religion for most things wrong with society, I think this supersedes religion...
the idea of homosexuality only being socially wrong because of religion is, imho, bullshit.
The idea of life is that well... you make babies so that your lineage continues. Being gay means, well... no babies in your future. I doubt any society in history ever accepted full-on homosexuality, because that meant you no longer cared about the natural need to have children.
Again, in some societies, bi-sexuality seemed to be accepted, but I still don't know a lot of the reasoning. But even these people had wives and children, just had something else on the side...

1) yes agreed, religion rather than bible is a better term. also I agree that religion only accounts for some of the stigma... and that some stigma would be likely regardless of the influence of religion.

2) The evolutionary arguement implied by desketor doesn't hold water with me. Mostly because we don't know what made early humans successful and we don't know the genetic underpinnings of homosexual behavior. We do know that its possible to induce homosexual orientation in mice with in utero exposure to certain hormones (link) but we don't know why or how homosexual behavior in populations would or wouldn't be advantagous. I could imagine several ways in which having some non-competing males in the tribal line up would be very advantageous, assuming that the hetero and homo males were related... As long as some of the tribe reproduces, then the adaption is beneficial. I know I'm making a few leaps here, but I'll leave it to others to tell me how wrong I am.

leaps? yeah that's about what I got out of that.
It's not about evolution, it's about species survival. Sure, it's a moot point now because the world will easily go on and continue to grow in population even if a large percentage stops reproducing due to homosexuality.
But seriously? There is absolutely no way having homosexual males would be advantageous at all to a tribe. If the straight men die in tribal conflict, what... are the homosexual men going to cry with the women and then the tribe dies off?
I don't want to make some kind of debate out of this, I just want to know how you came to that massive leap. More competing males is always more beneficial than less.

However, I do also want to restate that my previous post had absolutely nothing to do with religion, but rather social standards and, well basically just pure nature - animals breed. Animals breed with opposite sex to produce offspring. It's a simple as that. Very few animals have ever shown homosexual behavior, and I don't recall any actually attempting to mate, rather, what I've read was always strictly attachment and bonding, as if taking friendship to a whole different level.
So... it's completely unnatural to want to ditch your instinct to mate with the opposite sex. However, humanity seems not to care about nature and instincts and this is where I begin to blame religion. Marriages, morals, sins, yada yada... good inventions for starting a successful and long-lasting civilization, but it should only last so long, and shouldn't trump observed science.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

I would say religion in general. Dont for get that Mr. Immadinnerjacket told a group of US students that gays "dont exist" in his country. You get stoned to death in the muslim world.

Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.

As in my last post, while I love blaming religion for most things wrong with society, I think this supersedes religion...
the idea of homosexuality only being socially wrong because of religion is, imho, bullshit.
The idea of life is that well... you make babies so that your lineage continues. Being gay means, well... no babies in your future. I doubt any society in history ever accepted full-on homosexuality, because that meant you no longer cared about the natural need to have children.
Again, in some societies, bi-sexuality seemed to be accepted, but I still don't know a lot of the reasoning. But even these people had wives and children, just had something else on the side...

1) yes agreed, religion rather than bible is a better term. also I agree that religion only accounts for some of the stigma... and that some stigma would be likely regardless of the influence of religion.

2) The evolutionary arguement implied by desketor doesn't hold water with me. Mostly because we don't know what made early humans successful and we don't know the genetic underpinnings of homosexual behavior. We do know that its possible to induce homosexual orientation in mice with in utero exposure to certain hormones (link) but we don't know why or how homosexual behavior in populations would or wouldn't be advantagous. I could imagine several ways in which having some non-competing males in the tribal line up would be very advantageous, assuming that the hetero and homo males were related... As long as some of the tribe reproduces, then the adaption is beneficial. I know I'm making a few leaps here, but I'll leave it to others to tell me how wrong I am.

Bonobos, which live in Matriarchal societies, often exhibit homosexual behavior, including oral sex and masturbation. They've always been this way, and they continue to procreate.

...hasn't seemed to be detrimental to the success of their species at all. Hell, pretty much any higher mammal that we know has been observed to exhibit homosexual habits. It's clearly not bad in an evolutionary sense...
 

SpunkyJones

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2004
5,090
1
81
Originally posted by: waggy
i would prefer if they were not gay. but wouldnt stop me from loving them and supporting whatever lifestyle (long as its legal!) they choose.

Sums it up for me pretty much.
 
Jan 18, 2001
14,465
1
0
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
The biggest proponents of the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' are people who are homosexual themselves but have 'chosen' to repress their sexuality and lie to everyone and themselves. IMO, these people will often despise openly gay people because they themselves have sacrificed so much to not live gay lifestyles. Unfortunately, so many people think that homosexuality is so wrong (thanks bible) that they end up rewarding people with these views and endorsing their political and social agendas.

I would say religion in general. Dont for get that Mr. Immadinnerjacket told a group of US students that gays "dont exist" in his country. You get stoned to death in the muslim world.

Im about as far from religious as it gets, but two dudes kissing still doesnt look right. I wouldnt want my son to have to deal with seeing that until he was old enough to be explained everything.

As in my last post, while I love blaming religion for most things wrong with society, I think this supersedes religion...
the idea of homosexuality only being socially wrong because of religion is, imho, bullshit.
The idea of life is that well... you make babies so that your lineage continues. Being gay means, well... no babies in your future. I doubt any society in history ever accepted full-on homosexuality, because that meant you no longer cared about the natural need to have children.
Again, in some societies, bi-sexuality seemed to be accepted, but I still don't know a lot of the reasoning. But even these people had wives and children, just had something else on the side...

1) yes agreed, religion rather than bible is a better term. also I agree that religion only accounts for some of the stigma... and that some stigma would be likely regardless of the influence of religion.

2) The evolutionary arguement implied by desketor doesn't hold water with me. Mostly because we don't know what made early humans successful and we don't know the genetic underpinnings of homosexual behavior. We do know that its possible to induce homosexual orientation in mice with in utero exposure to certain hormones (link) but we don't know why or how homosexual behavior in populations would or wouldn't be advantagous. I could imagine several ways in which having some non-competing males in the tribal line up would be very advantageous, assuming that the hetero and homo males were related... As long as some of the tribe reproduces, then the adaption is beneficial. I know I'm making a few leaps here, but I'll leave it to others to tell me how wrong I am.

leaps? yeah that's about what I got out of that.
It's not about evolution, it's about species survival. Sure, it's a moot point now because the world will easily go on and continue to grow in population even if a large percentage stops reproducing due to homosexuality.
But seriously? There is absolutely no way having homosexual males would be advantageous at all to a tribe. If the straight men die in tribal conflict, what... are the homosexual men going to cry with the women and then the tribe dies off?
I don't want to make some kind of debate out of this, I just want to know how you came to that massive leap. More competing males is always more beneficial than less.

However, I do also want to restate that my previous post had absolutely nothing to do with religion, but rather social standards and, well basically just pure nature - animals breed. Animals breed with opposite sex to produce offspring. It's a simple as that. Very few animals have ever shown homosexual behavior, and I don't recall any actually attempting to mate, rather, what I've read was always strictly attachment and bonding, as if taking friendship to a whole different level.
So... it's completely unnatural to want to ditch your instinct to mate with the opposite sex. However, humanity seems not to care about nature and instincts and this is where I begin to blame religion. Marriages, morals, sins, yada yada... good inventions for starting a successful and long-lasting civilization, but it should only last so long, and shouldn't trump observed science.

'It's not about evolution, it's about species survival.'

evolution is a mechanism for explaining species survival. You used the term species survival, and I equated that to evolution theory. If you mean something else then you'll have spell it out for me.

'There is absolutely no way having homosexual males would be advantageous at all to a tribe.'

While homosexual males wouldn't help the tribe procreate, they could and probably would help the tribe gather resources and stay safe. Furthermore, they would cause less conflict within the tribe by not contending for access to women. If you can't see the advantages in that then please explain yourself.

'Animals breed with opposite sex to produce offspring. It's a simple as that.'

Agreed. The purpose of breeding is to produce offspring, but thats by definition what breeding is.

The point is that we do see homosexual behaviors in multiple species, but don't know exactly why we see it. Many people think its a non-adaptive behavior (b/c you homosexuals don't directly reproduce - assuming they are consistently homosexual) that should reproduce itself. I think that in fact having a gay relative might help a family group as a whole... especially around maximizing a resource/tribe ratio.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
It's not about evolution, it's about species survival. Sure, it's a moot point now because the world will easily go on and continue to grow in population even if a large percentage stops reproducing due to homosexuality. But seriously? There is absolutely no way having homosexual males would be advantageous at all to a tribe. If the straight men die in tribal conflict, what... are the homosexual men going to cry with the women and then the tribe dies off?

There might not be a evolutionary standpoint for homosexuality, but studies have shown its genetic which could mean that it only requires a very small error in DNA that causes homosexuality. DNA is pretty damn accurate, which means that this error is present in a small number of the population, but the relatively large amount of homosexuals probably means its a simple error.


Very few animals have ever shown homosexual behavior, and I don't recall any actually attempting to mate, rather, what I've read was always strictly attachment and bonding, as if taking friendship to a whole different level.

Oh hell no. Plenty of animals demonstrate Homosexual behavior. Our closest relatives, Bonobos, exhibit homosexual behavior (Including Male on Male Penetration.

Penguins have been known to take same sex partners, have sex, and attempt to raise chicks (Of course which wont come).

Animal Homosexuality has been observed in 450 species of animals. Its a far cry to say very few animals have been observed being homosexual
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: effee
if my child was gay...he wouldnt be my child for much longer

Props to you for being a beacon of tolerance and understanding. :thumbsup:

Back at you for not being tolerant and understanding of his beliefs or feelings on the matter.

Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. It's not wrong to hate a bigot.