WWYD if your child was gay?

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Well, maybe hzl can weigh in on this. I'm curious to see what she has to say since none of us are her all we can do is jump to conclusions about what her intent is/was.

Besides, it's not like she banned him for saying it.

True enough. I just don't like the idea of mods expressing opinions through moderator comments. Mods posting in and moderating threads already makes me uncomfortable enough. The comments should be reserved for explanations of actions, warnings, etc. Anything that doesn't strictly fall under that should be taken up somewhere else, or not expressed by the mod at all.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Yes, I read the posts and I took it as a warning. A subtle warning but yes, that's a warning IMO. I think the italics (which you edited out) make a point that she was concerned with the direction the thread was going.

Well it was a lame warning then, as thinly veiled as it may have been.

Thinly veiled? Shit, if that was a veiled warning then a friggin wool burqa, wrapped in a fire blanket, would have been easier to see through. Hence why I think it was simply a reply, not a warning.

hmm

if she wants to reply to it fine. quote him and reply.

useing her mod powers with the other edits she did yeah it comes off as a threat. not as bad as the other two but still a threat.

 

[Platypus]

get. out. of. this. closed. off. circle.

To the OP, unfortunately I will never have to deal with such a crossroads but if I did I would obviously support them in whatever they chose to do. I think it should be something more parents talk about with their children honestly, it could solve so many years of self loathing and denial in the child.

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

Not really. You can bash people for many reasons here, it just so happens that bashing of minorities is disallowed. Religious folks are in no way a minority.

Neither are homosexuals. Sexual preference shouldn't classify anyone as a minority. Minority designations are classified based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or disability. Last time I checked, how you take it and how you give it in the bedroom doesn't fall into any of these and, therefore, don't make you a minority in the least.

Using the logic placed down by many posters here (whether they are gay or not), then someone who can't get it up (i.e. their attraction lies with) with anyone unless they are dressed in an Indian outfit would warrant them special considerations as "minority". White guys who are more attracted to black women should get special status. Women who are particularly attracted to red-haired guys with the part on the left side should get special status. Many here talk about how it's not a choice but something that one is born with...same thing with my examples above. Why no special provisions for the people I've described here while many feel homosexuals should get special provisions?

Why does a sexual preference mean you get the same status as a black person, agnostic person, Mexican-born U.S. citizen, male/female, old person or disabled person? Sexual preference shouldn't warrant someone be given protections that true minorities receive based on designations laid down that are meant to ensure no one is put at a social or economic disadvantage.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Platypus
get. out. of. this. closed. off. circle.

To the OP, unfortunately I will never have to deal with such a crossroads but if I did I would obviously support them in whatever they chose to do. I think it should be something more parents talk about with their children honestly, it could solve so many years of self loathing and denial in the child.

I agree. But man, you think the "sex talk" is awkward...how 'bout that "are you gay talk"?

 

[MyThirdEye]

I had a similar encounter with my dad the other day about this subject. I was only joking, and told him "Dad...I think I'm gay."

He just took a drink of his coffee and stared at me. I couldn't keep the laughter in.

(not that being gay is bad.)

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

What the fuck? Gay people can't reproduce? Do their respective penises and vaginas fall off once they realize they're gay? Just because gay people choose not to reproduce doesn't mean they can't. How many thousands of children do you think have been born from relationships where the father repressed his true feelings. Do you know how many married men with children solicit gay sex? Your post is mind-fuck retarded and unbelievable.

And why shouldn't straight children be raised by gay people? Being gay is not something you will pick up from being raised in a gay environment. If that were true I'd be a devout catholic and go to church every sunday.. when I'm anything but.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Not really. You can bash people for many reasons here, it just so happens that bashing of minorities is disallowed. Religious folks are in no way a minority.

Neither are homosexuals. Sexual preference shouldn't classify anyone as a minority. Minority designations are classified based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or disability. Last time I checked, how you take it and how you give it in the bedroom doesn't fall into any of these and, therefore, don't make you a minority in the least.

That's just silly. It's an arbitrary list.

Anyway, I think the reason that religion bashing is tolerated and gay bashing is not tolerated here is that religion is ultimately a choice as zysowhatever said. Sexual preference is not, so it is very much comparable to race.

 

[destrekor]

considering much cannot be done, I guess I couldn't do anything except to at least try and convince him/her to reproduce with the opposite sex before settling down with whoever they want. Especially if the one who was gay happened to be my only son. Reason? Family is of the my biggest things, a good strong household, and as such family needs offspring to carry on the family namesake. and the male needs to live up to certain expectations. if he wants to be gay, he's going to need to be the 'manly' type of gay, and not the flamboyant variety. If I were to have a male that ended up being the flamboyant type of gay, I'd love him just the same, but I'd attempt to have another male to properly carry on the name. I hope this doesn't offend anyone, just one of my main beliefs is family needs to be first, among all other concerns. And that means the name must be carried on.
I think that may have started with one of our great forefathers, Benjamin Franklin (who also happens to be an uncle of many 'greats'), of whom came from a very very large family and had a large family himself.

 

[intogamer]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

What the fuck? Gay people can't reproduce? Do their respective penises and vaginas fall off once they realize they're gay? Just because gay people choose not to reproduce doesn't mean they can't. How many thousands of children do you think have been born from relationships where the father repressed his true feelings. Do you know how many married men with children solicit gay sex? Your post is mind-fuck retarded and unbelievable.

And why shouldn't straight children be raised by gay people? Being gay is not something you will pick up from being raised in a gay environment. If that were true I'd be a devout catholic and go to church every sunday.. when I'm anything but.

People can turn gay then.. as I said before.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Platypus
get. out. of. this. closed. off. circle.

To the OP, unfortunately I will never have to deal with such a crossroads but if I did I would obviously support them in whatever they chose to do. I think it should be something more parents talk about with their children honestly, it could solve so many years of self loathing and denial in the child.

I agree. But man, you think the "sex talk" is awkward...how 'bout that "are you gay talk"?

It is one sentence that can save years and years of negative living. Tack it on the end of the sex talk. Example: "And just so you know, your (father/mother) and I will still love you no matter what if you were gay"

You'd put therapists out of business.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Why does a sexual preference mean you get the same status as a black person, agnostic person, Mexican-born U.S. citizen, male/female, old person or disabled person? Sexual preference shouldn't warrant someone be given protections that true minorities receive based on designations laid down that are meant to ensure no one is put at a social or economic disadvantage.

Why? Because people use it against them to hold them down, that's why. Because this is fucking America, where everyone's supposed to get a fair shake, because we're all created equally. Last I checked, we didn't have people passing laws specifically to keep anybody else from getting married.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

What the fuck? Gay people can't reproduce? Do their respective penises and vaginas fall off once they realize they're gay? Just because gay people choose not to reproduce doesn't mean they can't. How many thousands of children do you think have been born from relationships where the father repressed his true feelings. Do you know how many married men with children solicit gay sex? Your post is mind-fuck retarded and unbelievable.

And why shouldn't straight children be raised by gay people? Being gay is not something you will pick up from being raised in a gay environment. If that were true I'd be a devout catholic and go to church every sunday.. when I'm anything but.

People can turn gay then.. as I said before.

Semantics.

People do NOT turn gay.. they reach a point where they cannot lie to themselves any longer, they cannot hold back the feelings they already had.

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

Uh-oh...someone may be MORE unpopular around threads like this than me.

Good point on the aspect of homosexuality being counter-productive to biological design of the human species. If homosexuals are truly a different species, albeit different in only .000001% of the design of how the homo-sapien was designed, then evolution would take care of that and they'll one day reproduce. Not likely, but it is evolution and stranger things have happened.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Not really. You can bash people for many reasons here, it just so happens that bashing of minorities is disallowed. Religious folks are in no way a minority.

Neither are homosexuals. Sexual preference shouldn't classify anyone as a minority. Minority designations are classified based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or disability. Last time I checked, how you take it and how you give it in the bedroom doesn't fall into any of these and, therefore, don't make you a minority in the least.

That's just silly. It's an arbitrary list.

Anyway, I think the reason that religion bashing is tolerated and gay bashing is not tolerated here is that religion is ultimately a choice as zysowhatever said. Sexual preference is not, so it is very much comparable to race.

Not to mention the fact that the list was revised multiple times. It used to be perfectly acceptable to discriminate along many of those lines and there were real rights lost because of it. Thankfully society eventually came to reason (painfully at times) and I think it will eventually do the same for gays.

 

[intogamer]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

What the fuck? Gay people can't reproduce? Do their respective penises and vaginas fall off once they realize they're gay? Just because gay people choose not to reproduce doesn't mean they can't. How many thousands of children do you think have been born from relationships where the father repressed his true feelings. Do you know how many married men with children solicit gay sex? Your post is mind-fuck retarded and unbelievable.

And why shouldn't straight children be raised by gay people? Being gay is not something you will pick up from being raised in a gay environment. If that were true I'd be a devout catholic and go to church every sunday.. when I'm anything but.

People can turn gay then.. as I said before.

Semantics.

People do NOT turn gay.. they reach a point where they cannot lie to themselves any longer, they cannot hold back the feelings they already had.

Hmmm. So living the lie, includes getting married and having children?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

Not really. You can bash people for many reasons here, it just so happens that bashing of minorities is disallowed. Religious folks are in no way a minority.

Neither are homosexuals. Sexual preference shouldn't classify anyone as a minority. Minority designations are classified based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or disability. Last time I checked, how you take it and how you give it in the bedroom doesn't fall into any of these and, therefore, don't make you a minority in the least.

Using the logic placed down by many posters here (whether they are gay or not), then someone who can't get it up (i.e. their attraction lies with) with anyone unless they are dressed in an Indian outfit would warrant them special considerations as "minority". White guys who are more attracted to black women should get special status. Women who are particularly attracted to red-haired guys with the part on the left side should get special status. Many here talk about how it's not a choice but something that one is born with...same thing with my examples above. Why no special provisions for the people I've described here while many feel homosexuals should get special provisions?

Why does a sexual preference mean you get the same status as a black person, agnostic person, Mexican-born U.S. citizen, male/female, old person or disabled person? Sexual preference shouldn't warrant someone be given protections that true minorities receive based on designations laid down that are meant to ensure no one is put at a social or economic disadvantage.

What? NakedFrog was saying that religious people are not a minority....numbers-wise. There are not fewer people who are religious than those who are not.

Every example you provided falls into a fetish category, subcategories under what you could say is sexual orientation. Is that person in the indian outfit a boy or girl, and what gender is the person having a relationship with him/her? Using your own argument homosexual orientation should definitely be a protected group because they adhere to a different cicrumstance which leaves them open as targets for discrimination....in almost the exact same ways as gender, race and religion. And by your own argument, if sexual orientation is a choice (which I don't believe it is), then religion most closely resembles that protected situation because since religion is an ideaology, not a physical thing, it can be changed on a whim.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

What the fuck? Gay people can't reproduce? Do their respective penises and vaginas fall off once they realize they're gay? Just because gay people choose not to reproduce doesn't mean they can't. How many thousands of children do you think have been born from relationships where the father repressed his true feelings. Do you know how many married men with children solicit gay sex? Your post is mind-fuck retarded and unbelievable.

And why shouldn't straight children be raised by gay people? Being gay is not something you will pick up from being raised in a gay environment. If that were true I'd be a devout catholic and go to church every sunday.. when I'm anything but.

People can turn gay then.. as I said before.

Semantics.

People do NOT turn gay.. they reach a point where they cannot lie to themselves any longer, they cannot hold back the feelings they already had.

Hmmm. So living the lie, includes getting married and having children?

Yes it can.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: intogamer

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

What the fuck? Gay people can't reproduce? Do their respective penises and vaginas fall off once they realize they're gay? Just because gay people choose not to reproduce doesn't mean they can't. How many thousands of children do you think have been born from relationships where the father repressed his true feelings. Do you know how many married men with children solicit gay sex? Your post is mind-fuck retarded and unbelievable.

And why shouldn't straight children be raised by gay people? Being gay is not something you will pick up from being raised in a gay environment. If that were true I'd be a devout catholic and go to church every sunday.. when I'm anything but.

People can turn gay then.. as I said before.

Semantics.

People do NOT turn gay.. they reach a point where they cannot lie to themselves any longer, they cannot hold back the feelings they already had.

Hmmm. So living the lie, includes getting married and having children?

Uh yeah... most definetly.

Society has made being gay SO evil and SO terrible that people will spend their entire lives miserable and closeted for fear of being belittled or abused.

Fuck.. read the responses about parents wanting to disown/drown/kill their children if they were gay and keep a straight face while you re-ask me the same question.

 

[UncleWai]

The reason moderators are given power to lock a thread is to prevent a flame bait thread from going out of hand. Not only is this thread not locked, the modded messages just made this thread even more flametastic.
I am going to start a new thread:
WWYD if your child was ugly

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: UncleWai
The reason moderators are given power to lock a thread is to prevent a flame bait thread from going out of hand. Not only is this thread not locked, the modded messages just made this thread even more flametastic.
I am going to start a new thread:
WWYD if your child was ugly

well my parents just put a bag over my head growing up. how my kids managed to be cute is beyond me.

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Why does a sexual preference mean you get the same status as a black person, agnostic person, Mexican-born U.S. citizen, male/female, old person or disabled person? Sexual preference shouldn't warrant someone be given protections that true minorities receive based on designations laid down that are meant to ensure no one is put at a social or economic disadvantage.

Why? Because people use it against them to hold them down, that's why. Because this is fucking America, where everyone's supposed to get a fair shake, because we're all created equally. Last I checked, we didn't have people passing laws specifically to keep anybody else from getting married.

Living in American doesn't guarantee you a fair shake and obviously we're all not created equally as per many of the posts here. If we were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You can't tell from a job application if someone is gay. You can't tell from an interview if someone is gay...you can have questions or have an inclination but you can't tell unless the information is divulged. You can't tell when you seat someone at a restaurant if someone is gay...again unless the information is divulged. With regards to race, creed, color, sex, national origin, et al...these are all things that can be surmised from a job application, etc. Therefore, an employer or business-owner can discriminate at leisure without the minorities having adequate protections. Again, how you take and how you give it in the bedroom shouldn't give you status protection.

 

[Platypus]

Will you people shut the fuck up about the moderation on this site?

How many years is it going to take you to realize it will always be inconsistent and you will not agree with the things that happen?

You're like children touching a hot stove and going back again to be sure it's still hot.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: UncleWai
The reason moderators are given power to lock a thread is to prevent a flame bait thread from going out of hand. Not only is this thread not locked, the modded messages just made this thread even more flametastic.
I am going to start a new thread:
WWYD if your child was ugly

well my parents just put a bag over my head growing up. how my kids managed to be cute is beyond me.

My parents weren't that nice. They wouldn't let me have the bag, and just mocked me in public as much as possible, encouraging bystanders to join in.