Homosexuality and Teens Having Sex

[Jello Biafra]

Take for example, Downs Syndrome - TONS of fetuses are aborted in the womb after they are diagnosed as having the disorder. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this...hell I'd do it myself. However, it's an example on the other end of the spectrum where parents who intended to have a child decide to return it, or refuse to buy it when they find out it is going to be different than they intended. I'm not sure what the stance of those who feel turning a kid out of the house for teh ghey is 'fickle' is on this case.

A fetus is not morally equivalent to a living human being.

[Mourro]

The topic is lost... xD

[Sdaeriji]

They stated that as long as the sex is consensual, it's acceptable. Logically, if incest is consensual, then they would believe it's okay, even if they might find it to be icky. If there's no logical reason to reject it, then there's no reason to reject it.

Incest and homosexuality aren't really comparable though, since incest is usually coercive. A sexual/romantic relationship between a parent and child or an older and younger sibling is not much different from a relationship between a teacher and a student or a boss and an employee.

The only two incestuous relationships I ever heard about were consensual and involved siblings. A teacher and a student is horrible if we are talking about a teacher and a child student. I do not see a problem with a professor and a college or grad student though. In that situation we are dealing with adults. I do not see how loving your teacher or student would make you less able to teach them or be taught by them. Heck, my wife and I teach each other stuff all of the time.
A boss and an employee is also fine assuming that we are talking about adults. I do not see how loving your boss or employee will interfere with your job duties.

It's the disparity in authority -- generally, in any situation where one individual holds power over another, relationships are not usually considered acceptable (unprofessional in the workplace and the school, abusive in the family). If your boss propositions you, and you refuse, he could fire you, or lower your pay, or exact retribution for your slight in numerous other ways. And you will generally be aware of this, and may consent despite not actually desiring the sexual encounter simply so that you will not suffer any negative consequences from refusing -- consent under coercion, which is basically not consent at all. Obviously, this has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

You haven't answered my question btw.

What question have I not answered? Also, the fact that someone has power over another does not mean that someone will abuse it. I am as opposed to sexual harassment as anyone can be. However, I do not see a problem with power that is not abused and love existing between professors and students and employees and bosses.

That's great, but unfortunately for all of us we don't all live in Mr. Rogers Kingdom of Make Believe. We live in the real world, where people are not all the shining paragons of virtue you are, where people DO use their positions of power unfairly to their advantage, where bosses DO proposition their employees and DO punish them for refusing, et cetera et cetera.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Your idea of discipline is not 'fair'. Fair would be something that considers all parties, but you only seem to care about your selfish need for everything to go the way you want it to go.

What do you mean? I agree that fairness considers all parties. What selfishness exists when a boss treats his employee-lover the same as his other employees in terms of job expectations, discipline, etc?

[Glorious Freedonia]

They stated that as long as the sex is consensual, it's acceptable. Logically, if incest is consensual, then they would believe it's okay, even if they might find it to be icky. If there's no logical reason to reject it, then there's no reason to reject it.

Incest and homosexuality aren't really comparable though, since incest is usually coercive. A sexual/romantic relationship between a parent and child or an older and younger sibling is not much different from a relationship between a teacher and a student or a boss and an employee.

The only two incestuous relationships I ever heard about were consensual and involved siblings. A teacher and a student is horrible if we are talking about a teacher and a child student. I do not see a problem with a professor and a college or grad student though. In that situation we are dealing with adults. I do not see how loving your teacher or student would make you less able to teach them or be taught by them. Heck, my wife and I teach each other stuff all of the time.
A boss and an employee is also fine assuming that we are talking about adults. I do not see how loving your boss or employee will interfere with your job duties.

It's the disparity in authority -- generally, in any situation where one individual holds power over another, relationships are not usually considered acceptable (unprofessional in the workplace and the school, abusive in the family). If your boss propositions you, and you refuse, he could fire you, or lower your pay, or exact retribution for your slight in numerous other ways. And you will generally be aware of this, and may consent despite not actually desiring the sexual encounter simply so that you will not suffer any negative consequences from refusing -- consent under coercion, which is basically not consent at all. Obviously, this has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

You haven't answered my question btw.

What question have I not answered? Also, the fact that someone has power over another does not mean that someone will abuse it. I am as opposed to sexual harassment as anyone can be. However, I do not see a problem with power that is not abused and love existing between professors and students and employees and bosses.

That's great, but unfortunately for all of us we don't all live in Mr. Rogers Kingdom of Make Believe. We live in the real world, where people are not all the shining paragons of virtue you are, where people DO use their positions of power unfairly to their advantage, where bosses DO proposition their employees and DO punish them for refusing, et cetera et cetera.

I know that my efforts to be a good man make me different than many other people. I hope that I have been successful and that I will continue to be successful as I go through my life. So, if we have a decent person like me in a position of power, how am I causing any trouble when I do not abuse my power? Is your fear that there are not enough good people out there to command positions of authority? If that is the case than the market may drive people to act in a good manner not for the sake of their own souls but for the sake of their pocketbooks.

[Bottle]

Your idea of discipline is not 'fair'. Fair would be something that considers all parties, but you only seem to care about your selfish need for everything to go the way you want it to go.

What do you mean? I agree that fairness considers all parties. What selfishness exists when a boss treats his employee-lover the same as his other employees in terms of job expectations, discipline, etc?

Well, for one thing he's being profoundly selfish by ignoring the fact that his lover's accomplishments will always be viewed as questionable by anybody who knows about their relationship. Even if, somehow, that boss is the one-in-a-billion type who is actually capable of fucking somebody after hours and not letting it impact their interactions while on the job, nobody is going to believe that is the case.

But, frankly, I've never met a single person who could separate relationships in the way you're describing. I've met piles and piles and piles and PILES of people who claimed to be capable of doing that, and all of them were a laughingstock because everyone else could plainly see how wrong they were.

[Mourro]

Your idea of discipline is not 'fair'. Fair would be something that considers all parties, but you only seem to care about your selfish need for everything to go the way you want it to go.

What do you mean? I agree that fairness considers all parties. What selfishness exists when a boss treats his employee-lover the same as his other employees in terms of job expectations, discipline, etc?

I was still on the subject of homosexuality in relation to your faith, but never mind, the thread seems to have spun off on a tangent.

[Glorious Freedonia]

They stated that as long as the sex is consensual, it's acceptable. Logically, if incest is consensual, then they would believe it's okay, even if they might find it to be icky. If there's no logical reason to reject it, then there's no reason to reject it.

Incest and homosexuality aren't really comparable though, since incest is usually coercive. A sexual/romantic relationship between a parent and child or an older and younger sibling is not much different from a relationship between a teacher and a student or a boss and an employee.

There are incestuous relationships that don't involve a unbalanced power dynamic. Twins or cousins wouldn't necessarily be comparable to teacher/student or employer/employee.

True. One would have to judge on a case-by-case basis (and iirc until fairly recently in most places marrying your cousin was legal, although I suspect that's changed). There's no biblical prohibition of incest anyway, though, so GF can't exactly make a case involving it.

Deuteronomy and Leviticus both have prohibitions against incestuous relationships. The list is not exhaustive of every possible relationship because some relationships were probably just too obviously bad.

Oh, I see(!), the list is not exhaustive! Therefore you could basically tell us anything is wrong and we're obliged to believe it(!)

The fact that you do not get the fact that it is wrong for dad and daughter to make sweet love is revolting. I do not see why I need to tell you this it is self evident.

I'm not even talking about incest. My point is on 'homosexuality' -_-;

You and your sort have been claiming that consensual sex is fine whether it be between gay men or siblings or mom and son or whatever. My point is that sexual wickedness is horrible and must not be tolerated by society or by the families that make up society.

[Flameswroth]

Take for example, Downs Syndrome - TONS of fetuses are aborted in the womb after they are diagnosed as having the disorder. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this...hell I'd do it myself. However, it's an example on the other end of the spectrum where parents who intended to have a child decide to return it, or refuse to buy it when they find out it is going to be different than they intended. I'm not sure what the stance of those who feel turning a kid out of the house for teh ghey is 'fickle' is on this case.

A fetus is not morally equivalent to a living human being.

Oh goddamn it, that's not the way I wanted to go at all. Please don't go that way.

The point was that a fetus, who is NOT a living human I GET that, can be diagnosed in the womb with certain attributes that result in the parents deciding to cancel that and never have the child to begin with. These could be parents who wanted to have a child from the get go, and made this fetus on purpose with the intent of growing it into a child, but then decided not to later.

To some, that could be considered fickle, but it wouldn't be considered wrong and that's an extreme case. It's like seeing your car being put together, noticing they're using wooden screws and deciding not to buy it. So, the two are not synonymous, and saying something is fickle is not really too compelling an argument in saying it is wrong (at least to me).

It presents an interesting scenario though...IF genetic markers, accurate to 90%+, indicated that a fetus would grow up to have homosexual desires, would aborting it be 'fickle', or just dandy since the fetus isn't a person?

The topic is lost... xD

Like a kid in Costco.

[Jello Biafra]

Your idea of discipline is not 'fair'. Fair would be something that considers all parties, but you only seem to care about your selfish need for everything to go the way you want it to go.

What do you mean? I agree that fairness considers all parties. What selfishness exists when a boss treats his employee-lover the same as his other employees in terms of job expectations, discipline, etc?

I was still on the subject of homosexuality in relation to your faith, but never mind, the thread seems to have spun off on a tangent.

I think both tangents are still going, so keep trying.

Oh goddamn it, that's not the way I wanted to go at all. Please don't go that way.

I get that you're trying to make analogies, but it's difficult because the counter argument to those analogies is that you're not picking good ones. I suppose you would have to use an analogy of something that is morally comparable to a living human being. Most people would agree that there's no such thing, so making an analogy is difficult.

The point was that a fetus, who is NOT a living human I GET that, can be diagnosed in the womb with certain attributes that result in the parents deciding to cancel that and never have the child to begin with. These could be parents who wanted to have a child from the get go, and made this fetus on purpose with the intent of growing it into a child, but then decided not to later.

To some, that could be considered fickle, but it wouldn't be considered wrong and that's an extreme case. It's like seeing your car being put together, noticing they're using wooden screws and deciding not to buy it. So, the two are not synonymous, and saying something is fickle is not really too compelling an argument in saying it is wrong (at least to me).

It presents an interesting scenario though...IF genetic markers, accurate to 90%+, indicated that a fetus would grow up to have homosexual desires, would aborting it be 'fickle', or just dandy since the fetus isn't a person?

It would be fucked up, for the same reason that aborting a left-handed fetus would be, but exponentially less so than disowning or abandoning a gay child.

[Sdaeriji]

I know that my efforts to be a good man make me different than many other people. I hope that I have been successful and that I will continue to be successful as I go through my life. So, if we have a decent person like me in a position of power, how am I causing any trouble when I do not abuse my power? Is your fear that there are not enough good people out there to command positions of authority? If that is the case than the market may drive people to act in a good manner not for the sake of their own souls but for the sake of their pocketbooks.

Apparently sarcasm eludes you, but I don't think you're as great a person as you think I think you are. I'm fairly certain you're the kind of person who would abuse your power and not understand why it was wrong.

[Mourro]

They stated that as long as the sex is consensual, it's acceptable. Logically, if incest is consensual, then they would believe it's okay, even if they might find it to be icky. If there's no logical reason to reject it, then there's no reason to reject it.

Incest and homosexuality aren't really comparable though, since incest is usually coercive. A sexual/romantic relationship between a parent and child or an older and younger sibling is not much different from a relationship between a teacher and a student or a boss and an employee.

There are incestuous relationships that don't involve a unbalanced power dynamic. Twins or cousins wouldn't necessarily be comparable to teacher/student or employer/employee.

True. One would have to judge on a case-by-case basis (and iirc until fairly recently in most places marrying your cousin was legal, although I suspect that's changed). There's no biblical prohibition of incest anyway, though, so GF can't exactly make a case involving it.

Deuteronomy and Leviticus both have prohibitions against incestuous relationships. The list is not exhaustive of every possible relationship because some relationships were probably just too obviously bad.

Oh, I see(!), the list is not exhaustive! Therefore you could basically tell us anything is wrong and we're obliged to believe it(!)

The fact that you do not get the fact that it is wrong for dad and daughter to make sweet love is revolting. I do not see why I need to tell you this it is self evident.

I'm not even talking about incest. My point is on 'homosexuality' -_-;

You and your sort have been claiming that consensual sex is fine whether it be between gay men or siblings or mom and son or whatever. My point is that sexual wickedness is horrible and must not be tolerated by society or by the families that make up society.

My 'sort'? You mean the sort who don't discriminate based on somebody's sexual orientation? And that's just it, consensual sex between gay men is fine, because they both consent!! What does it have to do with any other third person? It's 'wicked' and 'horrible' to prevent people doing what feels natural to them. They don't need religious lords sticking their noses in and trying to conduct people's lives. Churches and synagogues should be open for the people, not on the people. Stop trying to impose your aggressive views on harmless people.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Your idea of discipline is not 'fair'. Fair would be something that considers all parties, but you only seem to care about your selfish need for everything to go the way you want it to go.

What do you mean? I agree that fairness considers all parties. What selfishness exists when a boss treats his employee-lover the same as his other employees in terms of job expectations, discipline, etc?

Well, for one thing he's being profoundly selfish by ignoring the fact that his lover's accomplishments will always be viewed as questionable by anybody who knows about their relationship. Even if, somehow, that boss is the one-in-a-billion type who is actually capable of fucking somebody after hours and not letting it impact their interactions while on the job, nobody is going to believe that is the case.

But, frankly, I've never met a single person who could separate relationships in the way you're describing. I've met piles and piles and piles and PILES of people who claimed to be capable of doing that, and all of them were a laughingstock because everyone else could plainly see how wrong they were.

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it. The boss should then do something about it. If the boss-employee relationship hurts the stockholders we have a problem. I am not convinced that the shareholders will be hurt by their romance but if it happens, I admit that there would be a problem.
But there are no shareholders in education. We have the professor who wants to teach and we have the student who wants to be taught. There is no way that romance can interfere with that. In fact, it can help. Lovers spend time together doing things that are not X-rated. Perhaps they might discuss a reading assignment or some research project. How does that negatively impact either one of them in their roles as teacher and student?

Edit: I do not think that a good worker who is obviously a good worker will be seen as a bad worker by his peers because the boss is his lover.

[Glorious Freedonia]

They stated that as long as the sex is consensual, it's acceptable. Logically, if incest is consensual, then they would believe it's okay, even if they might find it to be icky. If there's no logical reason to reject it, then there's no reason to reject it.

Incest and homosexuality aren't really comparable though, since incest is usually coercive. A sexual/romantic relationship between a parent and child or an older and younger sibling is not much different from a relationship between a teacher and a student or a boss and an employee.

There are incestuous relationships that don't involve a unbalanced power dynamic. Twins or cousins wouldn't necessarily be comparable to teacher/student or employer/employee.

True. One would have to judge on a case-by-case basis (and iirc until fairly recently in most places marrying your cousin was legal, although I suspect that's changed). There's no biblical prohibition of incest anyway, though, so GF can't exactly make a case involving it.

Deuteronomy and Leviticus both have prohibitions against incestuous relationships. The list is not exhaustive of every possible relationship because some relationships were probably just too obviously bad.

Oh, I see(!), the list is not exhaustive! Therefore you could basically tell us anything is wrong and we're obliged to believe it(!)

The fact that you do not get the fact that it is wrong for dad and daughter to make sweet love is revolting. I do not see why I need to tell you this it is self evident.

I'm not even talking about incest. My point is on 'homosexuality' -_-;

You and your sort have been claiming that consensual sex is fine whether it be between gay men or siblings or mom and son or whatever. My point is that sexual wickedness is horrible and must not be tolerated by society or by the families that make up society.

My 'sort'? You mean the sort who don't discriminate based on somebody's sexual orientation? And that's just it, consensual sex between gay men is fine, because they both consent!! What does it have to do with any other third person? It's 'wicked' and 'horrible' to prevent people doing what feels natural to them. They don't need religious lords sticking their noses in and trying to conduct people's lives. Churches and synagogues should be open for the people, not on the people. Stop trying to impose your aggressive views on harmless people.

As much as I find the term "God Hates Fags" to be rather crude. It is much more correct than the idea that male homosexual sex is not sinful.

[Sdaeriji]

Your idea of discipline is not 'fair'. Fair would be something that considers all parties, but you only seem to care about your selfish need for everything to go the way you want it to go.

What do you mean? I agree that fairness considers all parties. What selfishness exists when a boss treats his employee-lover the same as his other employees in terms of job expectations, discipline, etc?

Well, for one thing he's being profoundly selfish by ignoring the fact that his lover's accomplishments will always be viewed as questionable by anybody who knows about their relationship. Even if, somehow, that boss is the one-in-a-billion type who is actually capable of fucking somebody after hours and not letting it impact their interactions while on the job, nobody is going to believe that is the case.

But, frankly, I've never met a single person who could separate relationships in the way you're describing. I've met piles and piles and piles and PILES of people who claimed to be capable of doing that, and all of them were a laughingstock because everyone else could plainly see how wrong they were.

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it. The boss should then do something about it. If the boss-employee relationship hurts the stockholders we have a problem. I am not convinced that the shareholders will be hurt by their romance but if it happens, I admit that there would be a problem.
But there are no shareholders in education. We have the professor who wants to teach and we have the student who wants to be taught. There is no way that romance can interfere with that. In fact, it can help. Lovers spend time together doing things that are not X-rated. Perhaps they might discuss a reading assignment or some research project. How does that negatively impact either one of them in their roles as teacher and student?

And what of all the students who aren't sleeping with the professor? When do they get all that extra one-on-one time that the one student is getting?

You seem to think that there are only the two people to consider in an office romance.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Your idea of discipline is not 'fair'. Fair would be something that considers all parties, but you only seem to care about your selfish need for everything to go the way you want it to go.

What do you mean? I agree that fairness considers all parties. What selfishness exists when a boss treats his employee-lover the same as his other employees in terms of job expectations, discipline, etc?

Well, for one thing he's being profoundly selfish by ignoring the fact that his lover's accomplishments will always be viewed as questionable by anybody who knows about their relationship. Even if, somehow, that boss is the one-in-a-billion type who is actually capable of fucking somebody after hours and not letting it impact their interactions while on the job, nobody is going to believe that is the case.

But, frankly, I've never met a single person who could separate relationships in the way you're describing. I've met piles and piles and piles and PILES of people who claimed to be capable of doing that, and all of them were a laughingstock because everyone else could plainly see how wrong they were.

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it. The boss should then do something about it. If the boss-employee relationship hurts the stockholders we have a problem. I am not convinced that the shareholders will be hurt by their romance but if it happens, I admit that there would be a problem.
But there are no shareholders in education. We have the professor who wants to teach and we have the student who wants to be taught. There is no way that romance can interfere with that. In fact, it can help. Lovers spend time together doing things that are not X-rated. Perhaps they might discuss a reading assignment or some research project. How does that negatively impact either one of them in their roles as teacher and student?

And what of all the students who aren't sleeping with the professor? When do they get all that extra one-on-one time that the one student is getting?

You seem to think that there are only the two people to consider in an office romance.

Who cares? Students are not competing against each other. They are simply trying to learn. Even if they are competing with each other, getting extra teaching time is probably something that is available to the others. When I was in college I took advantage of the fact that my profs (I never slept with one btw) had time in their schedules for students to come and meet with them outside of class to get extra help.

You seem to act like life is a perfectly fair game where we are all competing against each other. Often, it is much more lonely than that. It is about each of us trying to be the best that we can be. We try to be good not to be better than the other guy but simply to be the best that we can be. That is certainly the case with education if you are going about it right.

[Mourro]

They stated that as long as the sex is consensual, it's acceptable. Logically, if incest is consensual, then they would believe it's okay, even if they might find it to be icky. If there's no logical reason to reject it, then there's no reason to reject it.

Incest and homosexuality aren't really comparable though, since incest is usually coercive. A sexual/romantic relationship between a parent and child or an older and younger sibling is not much different from a relationship between a teacher and a student or a boss and an employee.

There are incestuous relationships that don't involve a unbalanced power dynamic. Twins or cousins wouldn't necessarily be comparable to teacher/student or employer/employee.

True. One would have to judge on a case-by-case basis (and iirc until fairly recently in most places marrying your cousin was legal, although I suspect that's changed). There's no biblical prohibition of incest anyway, though, so GF can't exactly make a case involving it.

Deuteronomy and Leviticus both have prohibitions against incestuous relationships. The list is not exhaustive of every possible relationship because some relationships were probably just too obviously bad.

Oh, I see(!), the list is not exhaustive! Therefore you could basically tell us anything is wrong and we're obliged to believe it(!)

The fact that you do not get the fact that it is wrong for dad and daughter to make sweet love is revolting. I do not see why I need to tell you this it is self evident.

I'm not even talking about incest. My point is on 'homosexuality' -_-;

You and your sort have been claiming that consensual sex is fine whether it be between gay men or siblings or mom and son or whatever. My point is that sexual wickedness is horrible and must not be tolerated by society or by the families that make up society.

My 'sort'? You mean the sort who don't discriminate based on somebody's sexual orientation? And that's just it, consensual sex between gay men is fine, because they both consent!! What does it have to do with any other third person? It's 'wicked' and 'horrible' to prevent people doing what feels natural to them. They don't need religious lords sticking their noses in and trying to conduct people's lives. Churches and synagogues should be open for the people, not on the people. Stop trying to impose your aggressive views on harmless people.

As much as I find the term "God Hates Fags" to be rather crude. It is much more correct than the idea that male homosexual sex is not sinful.

If 'God' wants to hate me, he can. I live a very happy life, where I work hard for what I have and I cherish my partner, friends, family and treat most people I meet with the utmost respect they deserve. I pay my taxes, I have no criminal record, I teach, I put food on the table and I suffer pain and experience joy like anybody else. I do all the things considered 'good' that Christians and Jews might do (though I am not 'religious'), yet if 'God' still decides to despise me and send me to 'Hell' for the simple fact that I love a man and not a woman, then he may go ahead. What a tragic God he is who accepts the people he apparently created conditionally, thus I maintain this religion is set out to control me and not to liberate me.

[Ifreann]

To some, that could be considered fickle, but it wouldn't be considered wrong and that's an extreme case. It's like seeing your car being put together, noticing they're using wooden screws and deciding not to buy it. So, the two are not synonymous, and saying something is fickle is not really too compelling an argument in saying it is wrong (at least to me).

Whether it's fickle or not isn't really the issue. You've compared disowning a son to returning faulty products. A dress, a car, most people don't have any great attachment to these things. They're products, they've been created to fulfil a given need or want. A child is another human being, one you've hopefully been caring for their entire life. I don't understand how you can go from loving someone to cutting them out of your life entirely because of which gender they're attracted to.

[Czardas]

What question have I not answered?

You never gave a full response to my original question (in what way does homosexuality harm society), only stating that it was a "biblical crime." And no, the bible doesn't give me any more information about what harmful things it does. I checked.

[Sdaeriji]

Who cares? Students are not competing against each other. They are simply trying to learn. Even if they are competing with each other, getting extra teaching time is probably something that is available to the others. When I was in college I took advantage of the fact that my profs (I never slept with one btw) had time in their schedules for students to come and meet with them outside of class to get extra help.

You seem to act like life is a perfectly fair game where we are all competing against each other. Often, it is much more lonely than that. It is about each of us trying to be the best that we can be. We try to be good not to be better than the other guy but simply to be the best that we can be. That is certainly the case with education if you are going about it right.

The other students care, obviously. They're paying the same amount of money as the student who's fucking the teacher, but they're getting less education. The student who's fucking the teacher has an advantage over the other students when it comes to tests and quizzes and the material in general. There's also the likelihood that the professor will grade the student more advantageously just because the professor likes that student more (hence the fucking). There is an enormous difference between a student who visits the professor at every single office hour to get a leg up on the test (an advantage all students share) and a student who gets a quiz cram session following some midnight fellatio (an advantage not all students share). You're being deliberately obtuse to avoid recognizing this very transparent disparity.

You're fooling yourself if you think college isn't a competition. It's a competition with yourself to get as high grades as you can, and it's a competition between students for prospective future employment. And the concept behind it is that it is inherently fair, and all determinations made based upon it are made solely based on their intellectual abilities, and nothing more. You're naive to think that you're not constantly competing against your co-workers, as well. You may think that you have a mutually beneficial relationship, and you probably do, but always keep in mind that your boss will only have so much money to give out in raises, only so many opportunities to promote, and is always on the look out for new talent. To treat it as anything other than a competition is a disservice.

Since most intelligent adults recognize these truths, and since most intelligent adults are morally opposed to discrimination, people as a rule generally decide to institute rules, either formal laws or formal corporate policies, to mitigate or eliminate any potential disadvantageous situations that may arise. Recognizing the power disparity between employee and boss, and the potential for abuse, most intelligent adults decide it is inappropriate for romantic or sexual relations to occur between those people.

[Dempublicents1]

And to throw out a child because they "did not turn out the way you wanted" is fickle. It means you had no love for the child to begin with. It's as fickle as throwing out a left-handed child because you wanted a right-handed one, because the mainstream is right-handed so it's not unreasonable to expect a right-handed child.

Sure it is. It's as fickle as returning the red dress shirt you got because it doesn't look as good as you wanted and you'd rather have a black one. I don't see anything bad about that though; if it isn't what you wanted, you get rid of it or fix it.

Some people are more fickle than others, obviously; some might be alright with keeping the red shirt for future use, and only toss it once they've outgrown it. I'm just not sure where you draw the line between fickle being a "bad thing" and fickle just being normal.

Human beings are not objects to be picked up and discarded.

Take for example, Downs Syndrome - TONS of fetuses are aborted in the womb after they are diagnosed as having the disorder. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this...hell I'd do it myself. However, it's an example on the other end of the spectrum where parents who intended to have a child decide to return it, or refuse to buy it when they find out it is going to be different than they intended. I'm not sure what the stance of those who feel turning a kid out of the house for teh ghey is 'fickle' is on this case.

If someone chose not to have a child because that child was going to be gay, I'd think that was rather disgusting. But it would still be quite different from choosing to abandon the child you already have and have been raising for years because they turn out to be gay.

Similarly, a child that becomes an addict, bringing drugs and danger to the house. Is it fickle to say, "Well I didn't intend for my son to be like this, I'm going to toss him out?" Some might say it is, yes. But I think that 'some' would be fewer than those who oppose casting out the gay.

If you're tossing them out because you didn't want them to be that way, yes. If you're reluctantly tossing them out because they are endangering you and the rest of your family, that's another story.

The point I'm making is that many of the things we decide to do can be considered 'fickle' if the motivator is based purely on a personal view of a situation. I think the scale of where 'fickle' becomes a bad thing, rather than the norm, varies from person to person. In my personal case, 'fickle' is okay right up to something as trivial as a child's sexuality. Whether or not any individual thinks that such a mantra negates the ability to be a good parent is irrelevant, up until such time that they can pass legislation that somehow ensures that such people cannot have children...and I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.

We can't keep such a person from breeding, but I think it would be appropriate to remove any other children from that parent's care at the point that they got rid of a child for something like having the "wrong" sexual orientation.

[Flameswroth]

To some, that could be considered fickle, but it wouldn't be considered wrong and that's an extreme case. It's like seeing your car being put together, noticing they're using wooden screws and deciding not to buy it. So, the two are not synonymous, and saying something is fickle is not really too compelling an argument in saying it is wrong (at least to me).

Whether it's fickle or not isn't really the issue. You've compared disowning a son to returning faulty products. A dress, a car, most people don't have any great attachment to these things. They're products, they've been created to fulfill a given need or want. A child is another human being, one you've hopefully been caring for their entire life. I don't understand how you can go from loving someone to cutting them out of your life entirely because of which gender they're attracted to.

I'm sure the 'how' or 'why' can vary significantly depending on the person. Perhaps it strikes a nerve with their own insecurities and seek to oust the source of that discomfort. Perhaps they feel betrayed by the child after teaching them that such inclinations are not appropriate for whatever reason.

But either way, I don't see a reason to draw the distinction making a child so much more special. By that I mean I see no reason why those rules of preference ought not apply.

To me, it is much like the tree my mother planted on her patio when I was young. It was a fruitless plum, and over time it grew into a beautiful tree with purple leaves. She loved to look out the window and see it. However, time revealed it was not a fruitless plum, and after a summer where it was covered in light pink/whitish flowers, it yielded a TON of plums. The result of this was an invasion of birds, who flew about, accidentally dropping the plums and staining the entire back patio purple with spots of white droppings. Despite how pretty the tree was, she cut it down. It wasn't the tree's fault it bore plums, but because it had an effect my mother didn't like, it was removed.

As with my previous analogy, any person who wanted to could pick out a dozen places where they could peel it apart. "The tree's not self-aware" "The fruit had an ill effect, gayness doesn't" "Your mother removed it grudgingly, gays are removed out of preference" and other such arguments. But in the limited scope I am using it, it is an example of an object, loved and cared for, that was removed promptly due to possessing an attribute that was undesired.

And all the things making a young adult different from a tree just make me ask, "So?"

"Your son is a self-aware human!" So? "Your son can love you back!" So? What is so special about that that it prevents it from being subject to the same rules? It's like a child loving salame until the day he's told that it's raw meat kept preserved by the acidic excrement of bacteria. From that day forth the kid cannot stand to even smell salame, but that doesn't make the love he had for it before any less real. He loved it, until he found out what it really was.

[Dempublicents1]

But either way, I don't see a reason to draw the distinction making a child so much more special. By that I mean I see no reason why those rules of preference ought not apply.

So you see no reason that human beings shouldn't be treated like objects that you can pick up and discard on a whim?

All the more reason you should never be a parent.

[Bottle]

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it.

And the boss IS made aware of it...the instant he started fucking an employee, there was a problem, and that's why there are rules against it.

Seriously, do you think corporations have these rules in place out of some kind of quaint moral habit? Of course they don't. They put these rules in place because they've got the same data set I have. The boss will always claim it's not going to be an issue, and it always is, and there's always a mess, and it's always going to cost, so why the hell should anybody put up with it?

When a boss is fucking his subordinate(s), it is a problem, and it interferes with the company's profits. When a professor is fucking his students, it is a problem, and it interferes with the value of the institution and its ability to attract new students. And so on.

[Flameswroth]

But either way, I don't see a reason to draw the distinction making a child so much more special. By that I mean I see no reason why those rules of preference ought not apply.

So you see no reason that human beings shouldn't be treated like objects that you can pick up and discard on a whim?

All the more reason you should never be a parent.

Says you

I should clarify...I don't see a reason conceptually to draw the distinction. In reality, I'm not going to be a one man parent. I'll have my wife to temper my attitude, some 12 to 15 years of being able to talk to and know the kid, and the potential legal efforts required to oust a child in the manner I would intend. Lots of things can change in that time frame, and perhaps in my own, individual world I may rationalize an exception should my child ever be gay.

But from a conceptual standpoint, from my current perspective, I don't see it happening.