Homosexual gene is discovered. Baby is expected...would you get the fetus tested?

Hmm...

Many in the gay community believe that they were born gay. Let's suppose that scientist were able to pinpoint the gene in the DNA and could test for it very early in a pregnancy much the same way they are able to test for defects, sex, etc.

Would you get your baby tested? Would you let the rest of your family know the results?

I think I would want to know. I don't know what the hell would happen after I found out and I don't think I could tell anybody if the results were not to my liking.

Sheesh..tough question.

[Spec2 Girl]

No, I wouldn’t get the baby tested. I would just wait and see what happened as the baby grew up. Regardless of sexual preference, it wouldn’t matter to me, it would still be loved the same.

[MBTN]

I don't think people are born gay. They choose it. I, personally, think it's a terrible choice... Man and women only.:o

[DMC12]

I do not want children...

If they discovered a genetic disparity that causes GAYness, then that just proves that it is a disease. I'd have the kid tested. If he had the disease I'd take him out to pasture.

Originally posted by MBTN
I don't think people are born gay. They choose it. I, personally, think it's a terrible choice... Man and women only.:o

Timeout. Press pause. Hold ya horses. This is not a debate about whether or not people are born gay...its a questions consisting of ifs. IF it was pinpointed in a gene. IF you could find out early. WOULD ya find out?

I know many people have opinions they would like to share with the masses, but it simply can't be addressed in this thread without getting out of hand or downright ig'nent.

[Gonthrax]

I don't know whether or not I would have my baby tested. But I am quite sure that TRUE homosexuality is the result of some genetic dissorder, after all, if a geneticaly perfict human is born, all of his basic primal instincts tell him one thing. Proliferation of the species, your brain tells you what it likes by releasing dopemine. When you eat, you like it because it lets you survive. When you have sex with a woman, you like it because it lets you pass your genetic seed down the line. Haveing sex with a man does nothing to further the survial of the species and therefore the brain should not tell the body that it likes it. If the brain does this, there is somthing wrong in the genetic code somewere, and the genetic code is decided upon conception.

[higgimonster]

This is an excelent question. I am completely accepting of homosexuals but this question made me really wonder how I would feel if my child was homosexual. I honestly don't know what decision I would make if the time came but right now I would like to think that I would not test for the gene. (off topic: I am not a fan of testing unborn children for genetic information except for very basic things such as sex and if there is anything that could complex the pregnancy. I don't want people to be classified by their genes. Tangent complete)

Gonthrax,

When you eat, you like it because it lets you survive. When you have sex with a woman, you like it because it lets you pass your genetic seed down the line. Haveing sex with a man does nothing to further the survial of the species and therefore the brain should not tell the body that it likes it. If the brain does this, there is somthing wrong in the genetic code somewere, and the genetic code is decided upon conception.

I see where you are coming from but I don't completely agree. If you are gay the only enjoyment from sex is the supeficial physical aspect. That only makes up a small portion of the total joy in sex. The most enjoyable part of sex is being able to share it with someone you love. And love is not gender bound.

Our basic desire to "further the survival of the species" is almost nonexistence as far as a sexual desire. Now our desire to reproduce is more psychological in nature. People feel the need to have children, especially women, so that they may pass a peice of themselves on through their child.

Thanks Sham365 for the excelent question.

[Gonthrax]

Originally posted by higgimonster

I see where you are coming from but I don't completely agree. If you are gay the only enjoyment from sex is the supeficial physical aspect. That only makes up a small portion of the total joy in sex. The most enjoyable part of sex is being able to share it with someone you love. And love is not gender bound.

Our basic desire to "further the survival of the species" is almost nonexistence as far as a sexual desire. Now our desire to reproduce is more psychological in nature. People feel the need to have children, especially women, so that they may pass a peice of themselves on through their child.

Thanks Sham365 for the excelent question.

Ok, good point but I ask this. How does the brain know what love is? Why does the brain love? I think that this is simply a way to set in motion "mating dance" as you will that is desplayed in many many other animals. All of this is so that the species will not die out. Sex between a man and a woman is here for a reason, to keep out species from dying out. If any one can tell me how sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is keeping our species from dying out please do tell Now I do beleave that there are two types of homosexual, there are the ones who ever sense they first started thinking about sex knew that they wanted to be with the same sex(this is the kind I am talking about), and there is the kind who only after many years of a straight life "discovered" that they were gay. Now the second type I beleave is a purly psychological one. Who, through whatever, for whatever reason, decided that this is the way they "should" be.

On a liner note, I've decided that I would have my child tested but I wouldn't act as though I had to it untill they displayed a sexual prefference, but atleast I would know beforehand and would be able to make preperations to make their life more comfortable when they decide to share it with me.

[V.S.]

if there was scientific proof for homosexuality being genetic, I think it would quickly get a lot more accepted, and there would be much less "shame" in finding out. Parental curiosity would surely rule, just like gender is now. And from the kids point of view, knowing what you're "supposed to" be early on would surely help, wouldn't it?

[Jay!]

Originally posted by FTO Girl
No, I wouldn’t get the baby tested. I would just wait and see what happened as the baby grew up. Regardless of sexual preference, it wouldn’t matter to me, it would still be loved the same.

Same here.

But, I do have something to add to this last bit of debate. I have a vague, underdeveloped theory that homosexuality may be a weird bit of population control on Nature's (or God, or whatever...) part. I don't know if it could be related to overpopulation, or what; like I said, its an underdeveloped theory, but I thought it was interesting.

[Gonthrax]

Originally posted by jay@af
But, I do have something to add to this last bit of debate. I have a vague, underdeveloped theory that homosexuality may be a weird bit of population control on Nature's (or God, or whatever...) part. I don't know if it could be related to overpopulation, or what; like I said, its an underdeveloped theory, but I thought it was interesting.

Hmmmm interesting theory Jay, it makes sense, seeing as either homosexuality has been on the rise or more people are willing to divulge their sexual preference.

[Moppie]

If homosexuality is a gentic defect becasue its caused by certian gene, then so is Hetrosexuality, and having 5 fingers.

A genetic defect is a defect in the gene sequencing, or make up, or number. Not in what genes we have.


Anyway, I wouldn't, I believe who we are is as much based on out inate make up, as it is on evironmetal effects.
By knowing if your child was gay or not, you might be compelled into ecouraging it, and messing up thier normal sexual development. If thier going to be gay, then it will happen on its own, in its own way. and the child would be best raised as a child.

[taranaki]

I have 2 children....I try to take a hands off approach as much as possible to allow them to develop their own characters.The idea of killing children because they don't meet your expectations is totally abhorrent to me.Idon't need anything from my children...so I am not really that interested in what they might become,unless it makes them unhappy.And that is a bridge to cross if we ever get there....not a potential risk to be eliminated before birth.Even if my kids grow up to be perfectly mainstream (I despise the term normal when used to indicate heterosexual-there is no right/wrong answer to sexuality)they will face a multitude of challenges in their lives.But to resolve those challenges they must first be allowed to reach them.

[Gonthrax]

Originally posted by Moppie
If homosexuality is a gentic defect becasue its caused by certian gene, then so is Hetrosexuality, and having 5 fingers.

But it is because of genetics that we have 5 fingers. So is our drive to mate.

Originally posted by Moppie
A genetic defect is a defect in the gene sequencing, or make up, or number. Not in what genes we have.

I know, but if your talking about Jays post, just because it is termed a defect, doesn't mean that it isn't a planned mutation.

[texan]

Gonthrax- Planned mutation is an oxymoron. Moreover, the point Moppie was making is that any and all human traits are mutations, if you believe in the purity of evolutionary theory. Clearly not all of these are immediately obvious in terms of their beneficial nature to the furtherance of our species, which is the question at hand in most respects (think sickle cell and you'll get the idea). To label something as a genetic "defect" means that it directly and negatively affects an organism's ability to survive, successfully mate, and produce fertile offspring (in the confines of Darwin's ideal). Homosexualty, if it were purely genetic, would surely have died out or at least dropped off in frequency if this were true, yet it seems over the ages that homosexuality is indeed pervasive in all cultures throughout all of recorded human history. So either it is purely genetic and NOT seriously harmful to a human's ability to hand down it's genetic code, OR it is not a solely genetic trait at all. Either way, the labeling of it as a genetic defect is presumptuous at best, and more than likely just plain wrong. If it were such a serious defect in terms of reproductive ability surely the many thousand years of homo sapiens sapien development would have very nearly wiped such a trait out.

Further, love is something entirely separate from reproduction. We love our parents yet it is not directly beneficial to reproduction, so in such confines as evolution love must provide some other useful benefits besides the urge for reproduction. And of course it does, in that we are social creatures. Love is something that bonds us to other people, which is absolutely necessary to our emotional and spiritual well being. Love also rarely causes us to reproduce (whether intentionally or much more often by accident), that is covered amply by lust. Lust is a natural human reaction to meeting attractive members of (usually) the opposite sex in an attempt to get us in bed with them, love is something which strengthens human ties for the benefit of other survival instincts.

Lastly, sexual pleasure is anything but a genetic trait helping to implement our species survival. If it were, I suppose you could state that masturbation is at once abhorrent and a genetically useless exercise, in that it wastes our potential for reproduction on pure self satisfaction. In that respect masturbation should be seen as much more a problem than homosexuality, for although gays and lesbians might have the sexual partner chosen unwisely (in terms of reproduction), at least they've chosen a partner and therefore are on the right track. So the next time you handle yourself remember that nothing is more out of line with your ideal of "perfect" genetics, and nothing is more counter productive in terms of furthering our species and your own genetic code.