31 December 2006

One question... to be answered honestly

At the risk of stirring up a hornets nest, I'd like to know what percentage of heterosexual parents would be truly happy to find out that their son or daughter was homosexual... c'mon now, fess up.

--- I'm thinkin' the answer is... zip... zero... as in none.

That, of course, is only my hetero-biased opinion. Any otherwise oriented persons are welcome to jump in here... not literally, if you please.

The divergent opinions on this matter is what makes this research pretty significant to sundry and all.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual.

Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.
The salient fact here is that if everyone on the planet woke up tomorrow and found they were magically transformed into practising homosexuals... the human race, IVF notwithstanding, would be effectively doomed to extinction.

So you have to ask yourself, what's up with all the individuals and organisations out there who are militantly lobbying to wipe out any perception that being heterosexual is "the norm" in human society?

I say, be who you are... but accept the reality.

The fact is... enough deviation from the putative norm would erase human beings from this planet, for a couple of million years.

Not that that would be a complete disaster.

h/t to SDA

**********

UPDATE: The not so intellectual Empire Strikes back

The person who bills himself as "Canadian Cynic" is so shy he has to post here anonymously, before putting up a frothing personal attack at his own version of myblahg.
Hetero-bias my arse. You can't go two minutes without thinking about "the cock."
Wow, that just blows away my commentary about extinction.

I'm in good company though. He next turns his razor-sharp wit and prodigious vocabulary on Small Dead Animals and AGWN, with a tour-de-force entitled, "Kate, you ignorant slut."

**********

Another vituperative little Bobby McClelland wannabe... it's so cute seeing them struggle to get up and talk.

Next time though, maybe try it without pounding back so many beers. Happy New Year.

Technorati Tags: , ,


20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Honest answers to that question would be hard to come by publicly.

John said...

I'll have to say I would be dismayed and dissappointed if I found that my daughter (now a toddler) was a lesbian. I would still love her but I could not help being upset.

Neo Conservative said...

i have one child, a pre-adolescent son and can't ever imagine, for ANY reason, not loving him fiercely... but truth be told, i would be filled with a lingering sadness if he were to come to me with the news that he was homosexual.

that could still happen, i suppose... and it isn't often i choose to confront the possibility.

on tv, it's all cool and impossibly stylish to be gay. even when you're being picked on you're a sort of hero.

the flip side of the coin isn't a dimension that's acknowledged by the "will & grace" crowd... or the naked men on the parade float shooting water guns into the crowd on "gay pride" day.

no apologies for how i feel... the kneejerk labelling of people as "homophobes" by the "gay activist industry" is just as ignorant as the hateful placards of religious zealots... objectively, they are identical.

everybody loses on this one.

JJ said...

I would be very devasted to learn that my child was gay. Being "gay" is not a state of being, such as being black, or being a man or a woman. This is what the gay community and the Liberal party would like us to believe. That somehow, those who are gay, have a gene that causes this condition of "gayness". I strongly believe that it is a life-style choice. No gene has yet been discovered that is unique to the gay man or woman. They like to be identified with other "minority groups" such as the black community, or Native Americans, or women. The gay community is not ethnic in nature, it is not genderless, it is not an oppressed group either financially or politically. It is not an oppressed minority group. Many people who once engaged in the gay lifestyle, have proved that it is a lifestyle choice by renouncing their former lifestyle.
Ultimately, the gay movement will not survive more than a generation or two. The seeds of their own destruction are embedded by their inability to procreate, among other things. But in the meantime, the movement will destroy countless lives, especially the lives of children.

Anonymous said...

Hetero-bias my arse. You can't go two minutes without thinking about "the cock."

Maybe you should direct your burning question to...your parents.

Anonymous said...

The blacks suffered under slavery and it was not great to be a black. The Jews suffered in Nazi Germany and it was not good to be a Jew.
Gays continue to suffer in our society so who would 'want' this for their child.
Parents are protective so they would not want to subject their children to the pain of bigotry. As society matures and become more accepting more parents will be able to rest easy when they discover they have a gay child.

Neo Conservative said...

anon said... "As society matures and become more accepting more parents will be able to rest easy when they discover they have a gay child."

that may possibly be true... but if science offered a way to ensure that your child would not be born gay... would you avail yourself of the technology, or just roll the dice and live with the result?

that, i think, is the question here.
*

Anonymous said...

Another vituperative little Bobby McClelland wannabe... it's so cute seeing them struggle to get up and talk.

How novel. Banal haughtiness passing as wit.

*sigh*. They really need to start teaching humour in Bible School.

Mike said...

Did it ever occur to you that many parents wouldn't care? I for one, do not. I'll love my kids no matter what. There are plenty of actual parents of of actual gay people that also don't care.

Me alone means that your "zip...zero...as in none" has been proven false. I'll be asking the actual parents of gay folks will elicit even more proof.

Your "experts" are no such thing...they are bible-based pseudo-scientists and snake oil salesmen.

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon, observed in nearly all mammal species. This means that it provides some evolutionary advantage, or it would have died out in mammals long ago.

"The salient fact here is that if everyone on the planet woke up tomorrow and found they were magically transformed into practising homosexuals... the human race, IVF notwithstanding, would be effectively doomed to extinction."

And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle. The salient fact is that neither is likely to happen - homosexuality occurs in about 2% of the population and would never reach levels of 100% (unless you are concerned for yourself, of course).

Remember, the same thing can happen if suddenly there were no men or no women born from here on in. Again, it will never happen.

I'm sure your "experts" can can develop a patch to prevent "Gingers" from being born too. That doesn't mean we should advocate genocide for an entire population of humans, does it? I mean so far you have provided no evidence that homosexuals are so dangerous they should be eradicated as a class of humans.

I hope your answer is no.

Neo Conservative said...

Mike said... "Me alone means that your "zip...zero...as in none" has been proven false. I'll be asking the actual parents of gay folks will elicit even more proof."

***

Sorry Mike, the question was, "What percentage of heterosexual parents would be truly happy to find out that their son or daughter was homosexual?"

So tell us Mike, how would you be celebrating the news? Maybe throw a big coming-out party? Does you life-partner have an opinion? Bear in mind, you don't get extra credit for loving your own children.

Your other flourish... "advocate genocide for an entire population of humans" is likewise your own creation... see Mikey, critical thought doesn't mean setting up your own straw man, just so you can knock him down. That's cheating.

I see where you boast on your blog of belonging to "The Skeptics Society, which takes science and critical thinking to the extreme." You say, "Expect a lot of links to their sources and their data."

Gee, I hope you didn't splurge on a lifetime membership... no links, no sources and no data in your claims of "genocidal eradication" and parental celebration of homosexuality.

But hey, scream on bro... and maybe post some more pictures of the cool dude on the motorcycle. I'm sure you'll eventually get a few nibbles.
*

Neo Conservative said...

anony-mouse wrote... "*sigh*. They really need to start teaching humour in Bible School."

***

I've been enjoying all the comments labeling me a dour "bible thumper"... so much so that I haven't, until now, felt the need to correct the misperception.

Once upon a time, I was raised Roman Catholic... but consider myself totally unallied with any organised religion.

I was married at city hall and my son has seen the inside of a church perhaps once or twice... when we were invited to someone elses wedding.

I'm guessing I'm less religious than the clueless commentator above.

But please, don't let that stop all the zany leftbot theories... you guys crack me up

*

Anonymous said...

Don't put "dour little bible thumper" in quotes if no one actually said that. You're not quoting anyone.

Not-CC Anonymous...Devoted to dragging the Right into the Age of Literacy.

Mike said...

Neo,

"Sorry Mike, the question was, "What percentage of heterosexual parents would be truly happy to find out that their son or daughter was homosexual?""

To which you had answered "zip...zero...as in none". Meaning even a single person being happy or even indifferent is a greater than 0 percentage. Pedantic, yes, but mathematically correct. Perhaps you could provide evidence that is IS zero.

Now you are advocating interference in nature to ensure an entire class of humans is not born. Is that genocide? Well perhaps its over the top, but accurate - you wish to eradicate and entire class of naturally occurring humans. That you want to do it before birth is merely a question of timing. Perhaps I should have called this 'Eugenics'. Is that better?

"So tell us Mike, how would you be celebrating the news? Maybe throw a big coming-out party? Does you life-partner have an opinion? Bear in mind, you don't get extra credit for loving your own children."

Well my wife and I would probably do nothing. Would you celebrate finding out your kids were straight? Of course not. They are what they are. No celebration nor derision needed, only acceptance. As long as they were happy, I would be happy. I definitely wouldn't care.

Now, your premise seems to be that this is needed because homosexuality, despite the evidence that is is a constant and naturally occurring phenomenon (like red hair or blue eyes) is some how so dangerous that it requires the intervention of science to eradicate it. On what evidence do you base this? Your little "if everyone was gay we'd die out" argument is at best fantasy and irrelevant - it has never happened in any species. So how is homosexuality so dangerous that it needs to be "fixed" like this? Remember, you are advocating a radical change to the norm, the burden of proof is on you to show it is dangerous and needed. That being gay is "icky" or something you personally think is wrong doesn't cut it.

What difference would it make to you if 2% of the population were gay, even if you weren't? Really.

I can think of a lot of other things that scientific resources could be used on - cancer, MS etc - rather than this.

Neo Conservative said...

mikey is back... with his straw man.

He states... "Your premise seems to be that this is needed because homosexuality... is some how so dangerous that it requires the intervention of science to eradicate it"

AND... "Perhaps you could provide evidence that is IS zero."

***

Mikey, again... nowhere did I say homosexuality was "dangerous", so I feel absolutely no need to react to YOUR premise.

On the other hand, your assertion that homosexuality is a "class" of people is quite interesting. I hadn't realised that Canadians were divided into classes... that is certainly not the case where I live anyway.

And Mikey... how does one prove a negative. Perhaps you should take this sort of tiresome semantic gymnastics to the next meeting of the "Skeptics Society"... who may appreciate this sort of tedious pseudo-pedantry more than, say... we humble non-Society type individuals.

I'm happy that you seem to be getting so much mileage out of my initial post... but a little disappointed at your flawed reasoning. Still, any thinking is better than no thinking... I hope.

Oh yeah... you still didn't answer the original question.
*

NateDawg said...

I suppose I'd be out of line if I suggested that homosexuality was natures way of exterminating a particular family gene pool?

I mean, being gay is "natural", and "naturally" two gay people can't procreate.

So you can all start calling me mean names now.

Anonymous said...

So you can all start calling me mean names now.

Ok. *ahem*...

With a mug like yours, I'd recommend you stay away from the topic of genetics, if you know what I mean.

Neo Conservative said...

yup... if you don't have a rational argument, you can just call people names... a strategy endorsed by third graders worldwide.

Jason said...

CanadianCrackpot is a known liar and a big fan of derogatory homo-erotic language, so I don't doubt that is/was him. In fact, he doth protest too much, methinks. Too bad Blogger's comments don't let you track IP addresses. It would be easy to tell that it's him with that. Of course, coward that he is, he probably uses a proxy or one of those anonymous websurfing sites.

Neo Conservative said...

Hmmmm.... Canadian Cynic does have some fellow travellers, but there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here...

"Meanwhile, Udo Schuklenk, professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, has warned that this research "brings the terrible possibility of exploitation by homophobic societies. Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example. It is typical of the U.S. to ignore the global context in which this is taking place.""

"Nobody in Scotland seems to be spending much time imagining, say, nuclear technology in the hands of Iran, but in Glasgow they're up in arms about the mullahs getting sheep-straightening technology."
***
**
*

Anonymous said...

Penis's are naturally designed to penetrate anuses.
How can one say 'homosexuality is natural?