[WeatherOp]

EDIT : You know something? This gives a whole new spin on that old "First son for the military, second son for the priesthood" thing.

I thought it was, first son gets the beatings, second son is spoiled, third son is totally babied.

[TrashMan]

The question is how we define undesirable or negative traits. Personally I think that we as a society shouldn't legislate that - that should be the decision of the mother. If a deeply socially conservative family decides not to have a gay child, well.. that child probably would have been miserable anyways. At the same time, how will that family ever come to accept homosexuals if they can prevent themselves from ever having the chance to know and love one?

The moral ramifications are mind-boggling. As a gay dude, it would have been easier for me if I'd been born straight, but would I be a better person? I doubt it. But then again, I don't consider homosexuality a negative trait, and many people do.

Not developing normal is a undesirable trait. Likea 6th finger...notting inherently dangerous or unadvantageous, but I'd bet you'd like to get rid of it if you had it.

[Flipside]

'Normal' is a personal definition though, isn't it, a 6th finger could be useful, there are lots of people who are 'abnormal' who wouldn't do a thing about it even if they could.

Homosexuality is only really a problem for non-homosexuals, it would be nice if someone who truly hated being homosexual could do something about it, but that should be their choice because they want to be heterosexual, not societies choice because they aren't 'normal'.

If it became choice, I don't think many would choose to change, you'd have to force people to do it, and you HAVE to stop and think about motives when you start forcing people to do things.

[Scuddie]

Most of the homosexual people I know personally (2), wish they were straight.  The other guy frankly doesnt care.  You cant really say homosexuality is only a real problem for non homosexuals.

[Flipside]

It is though, the most common reason for homosexuals hating their sexuality is because of the reaction they get from non-homosexuals. That's not their choice, it's being pushed by people who don't have the same sexuality.

[karajorma]

Lets put it this way. If every straight person in the world thought homosexuals were great, how many of them would still want to change?

That's your number of homosexuals unhappy with being homosexual as opposed to being unhappy because of societies attitude to homosexuality.

[TrashMan]

'Normal' is a personal definition though, isn't it, a 6th finger could be useful, there are lots of people who are 'abnormal' who wouldn't do a thing about it even if they could.

By that logic everyone on this planet is normal...

[Flipside]

Don't you think that, by their own definition, they are?

Edit: Let me put it this way, you post on this Forum. There are people in the world who would think that you're 'wierd' for posting on the Internet and having online friends who you talk to, and enjoying Video Games. They'll draw a mental picture of some guy living on Gatorade and using a bucket as a toilet sitting in his parents' basement. To you, it's normal, you know you aren't like that, you're just a nromal person who is also a computer-fan, a Homosexual is a normal person who is also Gay, it's not the truth that hurts, it's the Stereotypes.

[TrashMan]

That still doens't mean they are "normal"...

Reality is what is, not what people think it is...alltough people have to think something and belive at least some of it is true or they will go bonkers.

How would you deal with crazy people then?
I'm sure none of them thinks they are crazy for themselvs...especially the bigegst nut cases that think they are Napoleon or somone else.

[Flipside]

Homosexuals are not crazy, mental illness is a whole other ball game, we are talking about things that do not effect the persons ability to interact with the rest of society, beyond societies own phobias, at least.

What's more important, the 6th finger, or the person attached to it? Are we to dictate to this person whether they should be happy or not to have a 6th finger by genetically altering them before birth? It's easy to say 'They'd be happier if we 'fixed' them' when there's no possible way on earth you are ever going to know whether they would have been happier or not, that would simply be making excuses to match your own opinion, not theirs.

Edit: In effect, when people say 'They'd have a better life if we could make sure they weren't gay before they were born', what they usually mean is 'We'd have a better life if we made sure they weren't gay before they were born.'. Now, I'll admit, they might have a better life, but only because of societies current attitude towards homosexuality, look back at Greece or Sparta, and genetics or not they had a more casual attitude towards it, and it was practised openly.

[Scuddie]

I think societies own phobias is that of difference from the mainstream.  However, if every different part of our society didn't have its own specific culture, I bet things would be more relaxed.  Does a gay person in and of himself piss me off?  No.  Does a gay person who marches in the gay pride parade, has an obnoxious demeanor, flaunts his gay persona around like a flag, and claims that he's proud to be gay?  Hell ****ing yes!  It is this kind of attitude that make most of today's generation intolerant of homosexuality.  Things like being proud to be gay, black, feminist, democrat, etc is just as bad as being proud to be straight, white, chauvinist, republican, etc. 

* Scuddie counts the minutes before he's called a homophobic bigoted sexist right winger

[Flipside]

I think the whole 'Gay Pride' movement is a reaction to societies attitude, much the same as all other kind of 'Pride'' movements. If society was perfectly accepting of homosexual behaviour, you'd probably find that after a while, 'Gay Pride' and the whole 'flaunting' aspect of it would mostly vanish. The ONLY reason it happens is because it annoys people and because they know there are people who don't 'approve' of them, it's revenge, in a way.

[Polpolion]

I think the whole 'Gay Pride' movement is a reaction to societies attitude, much the same as all other kind of 'Pride'' movements. If society was perfectly accepting of homosexual behaviour, you'd probably find that after a while, 'Gay Pride' and the whole 'flaunting' aspect of it would mostly vanish. The ONLY reason it happens is because it annoys people and because they know there are people who don't 'approve' of them, it's revenge, in a way.

gay pride = spite?

EDIT: Hmm... not quite.

[Scuddie]

I dont think so.  It's human nature to make yourself look like an idiot by trying to prove yourself while you are the minority.  When anything racially controversial hits, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP make fools of themselves...  Unless the person in question is white.  When the dems took over house and senate, Nancy Pelosi showed her true nut-job colors by going on and on about it for a month and a half.  Lifetime and NOW (For you non-americans:  Women's television and National Organization for Women) base their entire existence around empowering women, even though women are now more powerful than men in the real world.  When Ellen Degeneris 'came out', she allowed herself and the media to get wrapped up around it in what seemed to be forever.  However, the one thing Ellen did that everyone else did not is that she was announcing and acknowledging it, and not pushing it.  That is why she is the better person, even though she isnt very funny.

Oh, by the way.  All the black people keep calling me white, when they should be calling me anglo american...  See how stupid that sounds?

[Nuclear1]

I think the whole 'Gay Pride' movement is a reaction to societies attitude, much the same as all other kind of 'Pride'' movements. If society was perfectly accepting of homosexual behaviour, you'd probably find that after a while, 'Gay Pride' and the whole 'flaunting' aspect of it would mostly vanish. The ONLY reason it happens is because it annoys people and because they know there are people who don't 'approve' of them, it's revenge, in a way.

gay pride = spite?

EDIT: Hmm... not quite.

While not all gay pride is spite, a lot of it can be.  If one takes up the gay pride out of anger at the straight community, then, yes, it becomes a symbol of spite less than a symbol of unity.  

I personally agree with Scuddie.  More "pride" parades/organizations irritate the living hell out of me, especially when nationalism is involved.  Note, by "nationalism", I refer less to 4th of July or other national holiday parades than I refer to Gay Pride marches, White Nationalist rallies, or other ethnic/lifestyle/gender groupings.  I don't mind honoring your specific heritages, but saying your group is somehow superior to others is just wrong.  The unfortunate part is, minority rallies like this tend to get a lot more sympathy than when, say, whites, heterosexuals, Americans, or Christians rally (in which case, they're more often than not referred to as racists or bigots).

To summarize, the world would be a whole lot better if each national group, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender shoved their pride and just came to terms with each other.  Hopeful?  Yes.  Practical?  Unfortunately, no.

EDIT:  Everything Scuddie just posted makes pretty good sense too.  For every great push for minority rights and equality, organizations like NOW, the NAACP, and other minority-rights organizations and their prominent members gloat about it or hang it over the majority's heads for decades on end.

[Flipside]

It's not so much 'Spite' as the fact that, because society is usually so unaccepting of Homosexuality, once a chance comes along to openly accept that you are homosexual, some people get totally carried away.

In the case of politicians, they are often simply using the popularity generated by their comments for exposure, Jesse Jackson et al may be nuts, but you know who they are. That's more a case of Politics than true feeling, I think you'll find, if you're being offered too little, ask for too much, and what you'll get will be somewhere in the middle, and politicians are expert attention seekers. The NAACP and NOW etc also play on popular misconception and rumour, just as there are members of the gay community who will deliberately go out of their way to present themselves as a 'stereotypical' gay in Gay Pride Festivals etc, in many ways, it's a call for attention to what they have to say, some people find it offensive, but at least they are listening, even if it's only to decide it is offensive.

Edit: And yes, as Nuclear says, there are people out there who are genuinely angry, often these are the ones who have had to hide their homosexuality the longest, even from themselves, when they finally do come out, they do so somwhat extravagantly. And yes, the elimination of the need for 'Pride' would be great, but unlikely.

[Agent_Koopa]

You know, if I had the choice to eliminate a sixth finger from my unborn child, I would totally do it. A sixth finger can do nothing but hurt their chances at a job, lower their self-esteem, and make them more likely to hate people and become a serial killer. I'm not saying all deformed people are serial killers, but you get my point.

Also, I have a rhetorical question. What constitutes personhood? Is it the fact that they are physically separate from the person from whose flesh they came? Or is it their mind? Their personality? Their memories? Their soul, if I may be permitted? A final-stage fetus is no different from a newborn baby in physiology, nor is it different in terms of its conscious mind (barring the fact that the baby has just experienced a rather traumatic event). So, is a person their body or is a person their personality/mind/soul? (Excuse my choice of words here; "soul" is simply meant to sum up "personality" and "memories" and "choices" and "thoughts" and "et cetera".) If a fetus has no rights as a human, and I agree that it should not, given that it cannot make decisions, and such, then why is a baby? (That's right, I went there.) I even go so far as to suggest that why we refer to a baby as being a person and a fetus as not being a person is because of the instincts that have been instilled in us through thousands of years of evolution. We protect the baby. Cavemen never needed to protect a fetus.



Now, if that doesn't put us in the debate forum, I don't know what will.

[Flipside]

Well, strictly speaking, a 6th finger would be a physical disability if it was a problem actually manipulating objects etc. As for the self-esteem, once again, that would be because people would attack them for the difference, not really because the finger itself has an effect on the person.

The thing is, the richest person on the planet is an arrogant git with no sense of humour, he's also a homosexual, Gays can be just as arrogant, rude and selfish as Heterosexuals, and there is nothing that a Heterosexual can do that a Homosexual cannot do just as well without any special help or equipment., the only real 'disability' that a gay person has is other peoples attitude towards their sexuality.

As for the Foetus thing, I'll have to politely step aside on that, I avoid getting involved in those particular debates

[Scuddie]

The only real 'disability' that a gay person has is other peoples attitude towards their sexuality.

That, and not being able to reproduce (Turkey basters are not natural ).

[Flipside]

Actually, to be technical, gays are perfectly capable of reproducing, they merely choose not to