So, we need more gay people to have kids...

[Kadagar_AV]

Link in Swedish (http://www.aftonbladet.se/wendela/barn/article7261860.ab)

So, a study that begun in the 80's show that children of the oh so horrible gays, the menace to society, yadda yadda seem to be great parents.

The study was made on Lesbians, and check-ups on the kids have been made when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old.

What was measured was things like depression, anxiety, violence and social ability, using the Child Behavior Checklist.

These children actually came out with, in average, BETTER results compared to children from heterosexual homes.

Must be rubbish being a redneck or American Taliban now, no? ;)

Reasons why these children are better off seem to be that their conception was very much planned, as contrary to how heterosexuals usually do it (broken condom on the prom anyone?)

Also, the horrible gays seem to be somewhat older and more mature when conceiving, all in all leading to a more stable home situation.

And as a PS: This study was made in the US, I would believe the results would have been even better in a more open minded country, where the assumption of this being a problem doesn't even exist to begin with (except among some backwater fringe groups).

*puts on my flameproof jacket*

[Beskar]

Or just allow homosexuals to adopt. Then those "oh so broken condom" incidents, end up with parents that love them.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's fairly obvious that people who really want to have kids will raise them better than the average.

[rory_20_uk]

Lesbians probably will have chosen to have children and to care for them. The hetro populace will have the dross who has them without thinking.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Used to be against it but I grew up, got np with it anymore

[Gregoshi]

How is it that broken condom pregnancies never happen to gays? Is there a conspiracy against heterosexuals? :inquisitive:

[Kadagar_AV]

Used to be against it but I grew up, got np with it anymore

*gasp!* I was hoping you would join in with the Talibans on this issue :)

Well done mate, not many people dare to challenge their own beliefs, and even less change them :)

[Kralizec]

Here's an article in English:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html?hpt=T2

[Kadagar_AV]

Here's an article in English:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html?hpt=T2

Thanks mate :)

[Fragony]

*gasp!* I was hoping you would join in with the Talibans on this issue :)

Well done mate, not many people dare to challenge their own beliefs, and even less change them :)

No believe or ideoligy involved I just thought it wasn't a very good idea, mom/dad thing, best for kid all that. Been shown wrong a few time (and never right)

[Vladimir]

Link in Swedish (http://www.aftonbladet.se/wendela/barn/article7261860.ab)

So, a study that begun in the 80's show that children of the oh so horrible gays, the menace to society, yadda yadda seem to be great parents.

The study was made on Lesbians, and check-ups on the kids have been made when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old.

What was measured was things like depression, anxiety, violence and social ability, using the Child Behavior Checklist.

These children actually came out with, in average, BETTER results compared to children from heterosexual homes.

Must be rubbish being a redneck or American Taliban now, no? ;)

Reasons why these children are better off seem to be that their conception was very much planned, as contrary to how heterosexuals usually do it (broken condom on the prom anyone?)

Also, the horrible gays seem to be somewhat older and more mature when conceiving, all in all leading to a more stable home situation.

And as a PS: This study was made in the US, I would believe the results would have been even better in a more open minded country, where the assumption of this being a problem doesn't even exist to begin with (except among some backwater fringe groups).

*puts on my flameproof jacket*

So the issue is not that gays are better parents but that couples should wait until they are older and more mature before having children.

[spmetla]

I don't agree with their lifestyle but if they can raise kids and do a better job of it than average heterosexual couples then let them do so without any hindrance.

[Kadagar_AV]

So the issue is not that gays are better parents but that couples should wait until they are older and more mature before having children.

I guess you could read it like that. It is not what I myself would deem as the correct way of reading it, mind you, but I guess you could, in theory.

One would, perhaps, rather assume that this article very much argued against people arguing that gay people should not raise children.

If you re-read the article some, I think you might find that the question of age is more like a side note when you look at the picture at large.

[Fragony]

I don't agree with their lifestyle but if they can raise kids and do a better job of it than average heterosexual couples then let them do so without any hindrance.

There's a rub there, because being a homosexual still isn't easy, and having a kid pretty naturally has more meaning (acceptance) to them then it has with a normal couple, so I don't doubt they will be very loving parents or at least will avoid letting down. But how different will it be when it is normal when homosexuals raise kids, acceptance is no longer an issue, they are human beings after all and humans have flaws. Wouldn't it normalize, let's look again in 10 or 20 years.

[Beskar]

I guess you could read it like that. It is not what I myself would deem as the correct way of reading it, mind you, but I guess you could, in theory.

One would, perhaps, rather assume that this article very much argued against people arguing that gay people should not raise children.

If you re-read the article some, I think you might find that the question of age is more like a side note when you look at the picture at large.

It is two-fold really. Vladimir is completely correct in his point, that is pretty much the reason why they on average are better. As due to the very nature of being homosexual, you have to have a serious sit-down and talk about it and actively choose to have kids or raise a child as your own flesh on blood. Compared to you mentioning about the "oh so broken condom" incident. This statistics also show if that the homosexual parents are better than the average, then there is no reason to be against homosexual parents adopting, for example.

Though, I really dislike it when Lesbians for incidence, try to decieve people in having sex with them so they can have a child. They do this by basically going out to nightclubs, etc, flauting their booty, then having random sex with males, in attempts to get pregnant.

[Kadagar_AV]

It is two-fold really. Vladimir is completely correct in his point, that is pretty much the reason why they on average are better. As due to the very nature of being homosexual, you have to have a serious sit-down and talk about it and actively choose to have kids or raise a child as your own flesh on blood. Compared to you mentioning about the "oh so broken condom" incident. This statistics also show if that the homosexual parents are better than the average, then there is no reason to be against homosexual parents adopting, for example.

Though, I really dislike it when Lesbians for incidence, try to decieve people in having sex with them so they can have a child. They do this by basically going out to nightclubs, etc, flauting their booty, then having random sex with males, in attempts to get pregnant.

Indeed. That is just horrible. Having one girl to unmentionable stuff while the other simultaneously do unmentionable stuff... Yuck yuck yuck!

Smart guys of course bring a condom when playing "hide the Willie" with strangers :)
*or at the very least do an air assault instead of trying to get his forces behind the enemy lines*


As to Vladimirs point... As much as he was right about the side note, he missed the larger topic at hand, that there is nothing saying homosexuals would be worse parents. Dont get me wrong, I know you got it :)

[Beskar]

Indeed. That is just horrible. Having one girl to unmentionable stuff while the other simultaneously do unmentionable stuff... Yuck yuck yuck!

Smart guys of course bring a condom when playing "hide the Willie" with strangers :)
*or at the very least do an air assault instead of trying to get his forces behind the enemy lines*


You successfully left me in a bemused state on whether you are attempting to do a joke with me, or trying to do a joke at my expense.

Though, you forget the lines like "I am on the pill." or they supply a broken condom.

Haven't had it happened personally to myself, but I know quite a number of incidents where both straight and lesbians have done this.

[Kadagar_AV]

You successfully left me in a bemused state on whether you are attempting to do a joke with me, or trying to do a joke at my expense.

Though, you forget the lines like "I am on the pill." or they supply a broken condom.

Haven't had it happened personally to myself, but I know quite a number of incidents where both straight and lesbians have done this.

Why could it not just have been a joke, without it being personal? :)

And as to the common quotes, smart guys bring their own condom, and attach it themselves. I know I do.
*except this one time with this polish girl who were extremely dexterous with her tongue and lips, making the process of rubbering up quite a joy*

[PanzerJaeger]

Haven't had it happened personally to myself, but I know quite a number of incidents where both straight and lesbians have done this.

You know of quite a few incidents of guys being decieved into concieving children with lesbians? I didn't know it was such a problem.

[Vladimir]

*except this one time with this polish girl who were extremely dexterous with her tongue and lips, making the process of rubbering up quite a joy*

Eww. Don't need to hear about Kadagar getting "rubbered up." Just admit the impaler is right. I got that name for a reason, you know.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

[Kadagar_AV]

Eww. Don't need to hear about Kadagar getting "rubbered up." Just admit the impaler is right. I got that name for a reason, you know.

I of course talked about her skills in making balloon animals out of rubber. With her mouth. Dont share your filthy imagination!! ;)

And very much right you are, I do NOT want to mess with the impaler ;)



Side note: interesting to see how long it took for the thread to divulge in lesbian fantasies. I am of course part to blame! We seriously need more girls on this board :/

[Kadagar_AV]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, I think you misread if you take it as homosexuals being better parents. Given that, as the article say, they are generally more mature. The MAIN POINT would be that Taliban arguments about homosexuals being invalid as parents because of religious or arcane moral beliefs is, well, wrong.

[Fragony]

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, I think you misread if you take it as homosexuals being better parents. Given that, as the article say, they are generally more mature. The MAIN POINT would be that Taliban arguments about homosexuals being invalid as parents because of religious or arcane moral beliefs is, well, wrong.

SF is right, at least I agree with him so he must be right, these numbers are pretty meaningless because there isn't a level playing field.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That wasn't the thrust of the English language piece. I admit to getting only 10-15% of the Swedish version, so I can't comment there.

As to equal levels/values:

It is a hallmark of laboratory research that, in order to make a claim of causality, the research design must eliminate other possible sources that explain the observed differences in the dependent variable under examination so as to isolate the independent variable as the source of said differences. This ideal is rarely perfectly achieved, but does stand as the model for research. Correlational data can point out independent variables that MAY prove to have causal implications, but of itself can only assert that certain variables correlate with one another and that there is some relationship between them. That relationship may or may not be directly causal.

If the sexuality of the parents is irrelevant to the psychological health and development of a child, that would tend to support your position. Prima facie, that would seem to be the case given these results. Certainly in issue worthy of further study.

"religious or arcane" moral beliefs?

Did you mean "archaic" as in out-dated or old-fashioned? "Arcane" refers to something that is magical, mysterious, or requires some kind of secret knowledge. Public morality can't be any of those.

[TinCow]

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

It's part of the equation to the extent that the argument is that homosexuals can be good parents. It is not part of the equation to the extent that it is used as proof that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals. To make the latter conclusion, it is necessary to compare families where the only difference is sexual orientation. The proper heterosexual comparison family would be something like a pair of early-30s professionals who adopt or use IVF, instead of conceiving naturally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's part of the equation to the extent that the argument is that homosexuals can be good parents. It is not part of the equation to the extent that it is used as proof that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals. To make the latter conclusion, it is necessary to compare families where the only difference is sexual orientation. The proper heterosexual comparison family would be something like a pair of early-30s professionals who adopt or use IVF, instead of conceiving naturally.

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

[Fragony]

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

At least award me a silver for saying exactly the same

[Beskar]

You know of quite a few incidents of guys being decieved into concieving children with lesbians? I didn't know it was such a problem.

Well, both lesbians and heterosexual females who felt like they wanted children. I oppose it due to the morality of it.

It is a rare problem, but I know a couple of people who has had it happen to them. One of them was a distant non-blood related cousin, to make his situation worse, something like 12 guys had to be DNA tested to determine the father.

[Kadagar_AV]

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

I agree, fully.

Test is clearly not "fair" as the playing field is not fair. I might, however, stress one point. And this is an important one! It is not fair, because... think about it... Gay people need to do a logical decision and as well work towards getting children, whereas heterosexuals can dumbfundle in the backseat and get the same result.

As you see, the playing field is not equal, nor will it ever be. So to disregard this research because of it, seems rather unfair.

I can of course agree that the inequality diminishes the results somewhat, however, please do remember that you weight this against the Redneck/Taliban idea of "them gays should not have kids".

Against that argument, this research should have some sort of value, no?

So again, an absolute GOLD STAR for noticing that the research is not that easy to use in a comparative way. However, looking at the larger picture at hand, I hope you will concede that this research at the very much ripped the Talibans of their claim?

Or am I being silly here?

PS: Archaic, not arcane... Thanks for correcting me, tricky business this language thing :(

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree, fully.

Test is clearly not "fair" as the playing field is not fair. I might, however, stress one point. And this is an important one! It is not fair, because... think about it... Gay people need to do a logical decision and as well work towards getting children, whereas heterosexuals can dumbfundle in the backseat and get the same result.

As you see, the playing field is not equal, nor will it ever be. So to disregard this research because of it, seems rather unfair.(

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

[Kadagar_AV]

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

I agree, that is why atheism should spread more, so we get more people taking responsibility.

Or were you one of those Christians holding on to that silly belief that christianity has a somewhat good impact on sexual morals? I am just joking of course, I am sure you are an educated man and well read up (you are aware of, say, teenage pregnancy rates among Christians compared to atheists?).

But maybe we should leave religion out of this, to not turn it into a flame fest.



So what was your point, to make it clear, mate?

You want us all to live in celibacy until marriage, and gays not to have kids, unless they marry (which they should not be allowed to do? Kind of a catch 22 you got going for you there. Or?)

Anyway, you might want to elaborate on your point, I am afraid I didn't quite get your views on homosexuality and children.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

You couldn't prove that either. People tend to over-ascribe explanative power to survey instruments and correlational studies. They are useful tools but have their limitations. It is feasible to pound in a nail with a shovel -- but you're much more likely to screw it up instead. Try a hammer. Each tool has its place in the kit.

Kad:

It does NOT automatically mean that the archaic or strict moralist positions are wrong (though I believe they are). It does SUGGEST that such positions, on this issue, aren't accurate and sets up the basis for a study that COULD give you the proof you seek. TinCow is very much correct about the kind of setup that would be needed to make that claim.

Frags:

Didn't see your post. I'm disinclined to award stars or balloons simply because someone agrees with me (unless you also thereby DISagree with Banquo or CA -- I'll give you a star just for tweaking them a touch....:laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Teh gays can do what they want in their own private sphere, I'm not so sure I like children being brought into it. Because as you all know, the nuclear family has existed throughout all of human history.

tbh, my only argument is that it just doesn't seem right. Certainly, I'm sure many homosexual couples would do a better job that these chavs that churn out babies to live off the benefits, but I still think there's no substitute for the traditional nuclear family. Not that I'm one of these crazy pro-family people either, ideas like family holidays etc really creep me out, seems like a little cult or something. :uhoh:

Also, I suspect that homophobia may be a perfectly natural reaction, wheras toleration is more something that has to be socially engineered. This is based of the purely anecdotal evidence that the more 'uneducated' people I know are very much homophobic (whether religious or not), but in the more educated environment of university, you would get castrated for saying anything remotely homophobic. But it makes sense really, it's natural to not like what's different, hence homophobia is natural.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh my, where to begin with this one.


Teh gays can do what they want in their own private sphere

... but they should not be allowed to show their love to the world? You, for some reason, think you have a say in who people love and not? What would give you this right, I might ask?



I'm not so sure I like children being brought into it. Because as you all know, the nuclear family has existed throughout all of human history.

Source? Gay relationships has been very highly esteemed in some time periods. And your comment about bringing children into "it" is just tasteless, borderline hateful. You think gay children will have gay kids, or what? That they will somehow make them gay?


tbh, my only argument is that it just doesn't seem right.

That does indeed seem to be your only argument, and a tasteless one at that.


Certainly, I'm sure many homosexual couples would do a better job that these chavs that churn out babies to live off the benefits, but I still think there's no substitute for the traditional nuclear family.

So how about adoption? Better a child starve to death than being adopted by "Teh Gays"? And by the way, the research I posted clearly shows that there is a substitute to the nuclear family that seems to be working, so what was your point again?

Not that I'm one of these crazy pro-family people either, ideas like family holidays etc really creep me out, seems like a little cult or something. :uhoh:

It is hard for me to reply to this. Forum guidelines clearly dictate that I should attack your statement, not you as a person. But when you as a statement bring in craziness in relation to yourself those guidelines seem to be very grey of colour indeed. I think I will just leave it.


Also, I suspect that homophobia may be a perfectly natural reaction, wheras toleration is more something that has to be socially engineered. This is based of the purely anecdotal evidence that the more 'uneducated' people I know are very much homophobic (whether religious or not), but in the more educated environment of university, you would get castrated for saying anything remotely homophobic. But it makes sense really, it's natural to not like what's different, hence homophobia is natural

I dont quite get you here?

This means that you are aware that homophobia is more common among religious people and [removed] less educated persons, or did I misread you?

[Rhyfelwyr]

... but they should not be allowed to show their love to the world? You, for some reason, think you have a say in who people love and not? What would give you this right, I might ask?

Eh? I'm a libertarian, they can do whatever they like.


Source? Gay relationships has been very highly esteemed in some time periods. And your comment about bringing children into "it" is just tasteless, borderline hateful. You think gay children will have gay kids, or what? That they will somehow make them gay?

I was joking with the nuclear family bit, which I think was obvious, I know it only really developed from the 17th century, for economic reasons more than anything else. And I'm not sure what you think I am saying with bringing children into "it", I simply am simply questioning how ideal it is for a child to be brought up by two parents of the same sex. Single mums for example tend to say how they wish their children could have a male rolemodel.


That does indeed seem to be your only argument, and a tasteless one at that.

Oh don't give me that "tasteless" moral outrage crap, I thought given the fact you were willing to step out of the box a bit on issues with race etc might at least have meant you would spare me that.


So how about adoption? Better a child starve to death than being adopted by "Teh Gays"? And by the way, the research I posted clearly shows that there is a substitute to the nuclear family that seems to be working, so what was your point again?

Seems like you're trying to put words in my mouth, as I said many homosexual couples do a better job than their straight counterparts. I just think that the old nuclear family is the best when both parents are functioning properly. Would you get so mad if I said being raised by your grandparents isn't so ideal? Or a nanny if your parents are always at work or whatever?


It is hard for me to reply to this. Forum guidelines clearly dictate that I should attack your statement, not you as a person. But when you as a statement bring in craziness in relation to yourself those guidelines seem to be very grey of colour indeed. I think I will just leave it.

Well it's not really relevant to the thread but that's just what I think, I'm a very paranoid person when it comes to being made to conform etc. You really telling me some of these happy-clappy do-everything-together families aren't creepy as hell. It's just because they often tend to be evangelical, and I was arguing for the nuclear family, I thought you might think I was one of those nutters. I'm just a different kind of nutter. :mad:


I dont quite get you here?

This means that you are aware that homophobia is more common among religious people and less educated persons, or did I misread you?

Indeed it is. People seem to be naturally homophobic before it is educated out of them. Religious is not a factor, education (class even?) seems to be the key. All working-class people I know (the kind of people where I live) are homophobic, whereas people at private school I went to for a while, and university, are definitely not.

[Kadagar_AV]

said stuff

I think what got me started was the mentioning of them being "allowed" to do it in their private sphere. Does not sound very libertarian to me.

With that said, I do see your point. I do not accept some of your points (or even like them), however, the points were we disagree seem to be more about world view than anything else, thus a further debate between us seems kind of pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I know you are quite reasonable really. I also respect a lot of what you say. Just that our world views are so different that we wont solve this topic without going hideously off topic first ;)

So let us postpone this debate until later, when we sorted some other stuff (like my depraved life leading straight to hell and your anal-retentive religious views) *note, said with a BIG smiley*

PS: I much liked your second post. I can see quite a difference between that and some early posts you did. Is HoreTore holding a gun to your head? ;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

These children actually came out with, in average, BETTER results compared to children from heterosexual homes.

Must be rubbish being a redneck or American Taliban now, no? ;)Lesbians make great parents.

Me, I think a lot of children would be better off without a father. Many fathers destabilise families by being a nasty brute. Many more are present but absent. Two mothers would be a blessing for many a family.



As for the Taliban a state has little say over two lesbians getting pregnant. A state can, however, prevent adoption by a homosexual couple. Guess what? Several American states pioneered it, legalising gay adoption well before - yes, I'm afraid I'm doing it again - Sweden did. Also, going by state populations on either side of the Atlantic that allow adoption, as of yet, a larger percentage of American than European gays are allowed to adopt. The score is Redneck Taliban - Europeans 2-1.

Gay adoption was pioneered in several US states in the 1990s. Following their example, several European states followed suit. For example Sweden, which overcame its Redneck Taliban opposition in 2002. No European state has allowed it for more than a decade.


The liberal European Northwest allows gay adoption, together with Spain, which saw some surprisingly liberal legislation passed this last decade:

https://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2164/570pxgayadoptionmapeuro.png



In America, gay adoption is allowed in the liberal Westcoast, Midwest, Northeast. And in most of those provinces north of the US border, what's it called again :

https://img541.imageshack.us/img541/3597/604pxgayadoptionmapnort.png

Purple: gay adoption allowed
Pink: somewhat
Grey: not allowed
Red: prohibited by law


Taking population distribution in account, it looks like a much larger percentage of American than EU gays can adopt.

Which means Europe is lagging! The theocracies of Italy, Poland and Ireland won't allow it anytime soon. The East and Southeast won't either. But I am very disappointed in central Europe.

[Vladimir]

Lesbians...

Oh snap!

Another victory for the French.

[Kadagar_AV]

Louis, first of all, I am way more European than Swedish. So the Swedish punches really does not distract me much.

Yes some states in the US were ahead of Sweden in acknowledging gay adoption, on paper. Would you have been spent some time in Sweden in the earlier years though, you would have seen that gay people still could adopt from the 60's or so. Official law and unofficial law is not always the same, as you well know. The Swedish gay movement was more about having the official ability than the actual ability. There is some state in the US that STILL has the law dictating that a man must walk in front of the car waving a red flag if a woman drives. That does not however mean I flame America about it, as the law is obsolete and just happen to have stayed intact as it doesnt hurt anyone, get the point?

And I am not saying that Sweden is some perfect country, mind you, there are reason why I do not live there!


History aside.

Let us forget about the past, and look at Sweden NOW, compared to the US now... Gay people in Sweden can adopt, get married, serve openly in the army.... In how many US states is that ok, dude?

Touché mon ami :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree, that is why atheism should spread more, so we get more people taking responsibility.

My experience is that taking responsibility is more a matter of character than belief.


Or were you one of those Christians holding on to that silly belief that christianity has a somewhat good impact on sexual morals? I am just joking of course, I am sure you are an educated man and well read up (you are aware of, say, teenage pregnancy rates among Christians compared to atheists?).

Sincere Christian morality does have a good impact on sexual morality, insincere mouthing of society's mores does not. I am aware of the statistical reality in America, but I am also aware that it is a particularly American phenomenon, not repeated to the same degree elsewhere in the developed world.

Did you know that most teenage pregnancies in Britain are poor people?


But maybe we should leave religion out of this, to not turn it into a flame fest.

Maybe we should, but you brought it up.


So what was your point, to make it clear, mate?

You want us all to live in celibacy until marriage, and gays not to have kids, unless they marry (which they should not be allowed to do? Kind of a catch 22 you got going for you there. Or?)

Anyway, you might want to elaborate on your point, I am afraid I didn't quite get your views on homosexuality and children.

My point was very simple: This data can be used to support a variety of conclusions, only one of which supports homosexual parents over heterosexuals. What if I were to produce a data set demonstrating that parents who remained abstinant produced better children than those who jumped into bed with anything that moved?

At the end of the day, if you don't have sex you can't get pregnant. So if you have sex and get pregnant don't come crying to me, or pretend you aren't responsible.

[Kadagar_AV]

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, No matter the fun it would bring me, I will leave the religious debate aside. Sorry for bringing it up.. :no:

As to your second point... Let's skip the "who is BETTER" point altogether, shall we? And focus on my main point, that gays are valid parents.

I think some people got stuck on "who is best", and lost the main point...

Are you arguing that gays are not valid? Or are you not? With the research at hand :juggle2:

[Megas Methuselah]

I don't mind gay people adopting kids (no more than other couples), provided said kids have access to their culture of birth.

Otherwise, it's genocide.

[Beskar]

Teh gays can do what they want in their own private sphere, I'm not so sure I like children being brought into it. Because as you all know, the nuclear family has existed throughout all of human history.

I thought they existed since August 1945?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, No matter the fun it would bring me, I will leave the religious debate aside. Sorry for bringing it up.. :no:

I doubt you would derive anything other than brief enjoyment out of debating religion with me, I'm really a very boring and technical theologian.


As to your second point... Let's skip the "who is BETTER" point altogether, shall we? And focus on my main point, that gays are valid parents.

I think some people got stuck on "who is best", and lost the main point...

Are you arguing that gays are not valid? Or are you not? With the research at hand :juggle2:

Well, all you've really demonstrated is that well prepared homosexual parents are better than unprepared heterosexual ones, which is why I countered with well prepared heterosexual parents. The problem with your point, in my view, is that it lies in a lack of care/sexuality morality/whatever you want to call it, on the part of heterosexuals in their sexual activity. As it is not possible for homosexcuals to accidently concience, expect with large amounts of alchohol, this is never a problem for them.

So I can use your data to push an ultra-conservative agenda in which we burn the promiscuous at the stake for everyone's benefit.

If you want me to say homosexuals don't make bad parents, yes ok, and? At the end of the day that doesn't argue for well prepared and adjusted homosexual couples being as good as well prepared and adjusted heterosexual ones, because no one will dare do the research.

We can't leave aside the "better" part of the argument because that is the crux of the issue. What is best for our children?

It should really be the driving force behind our society, and sadly often isn't.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't get me wrong, I know you are quite reasonable really. I also respect a lot of what you say. Just that our world views are so different that we wont solve this topic without going hideously off topic first ;)

So let us postpone this debate until later, when we sorted some other stuff (like my depraved life leading straight to hell and your anal-retentive religious views) *note, said with a BIG smiley*

I respect your views to, in particular it's refreshing to see someone that can think for themselves without the knee-jerk liberal-left/right-wing reactions. :bow:

Plus it's funny how we agree on little, less ideological things, like the thread on the attractiveness of different races.

But with different cultures I suppose... we end up with these big debates...


PS: I much liked your second post. I can see quite a difference between that and some early posts you did. Is HoreTore holding a gun to your head? ;)

I think I'm becoming all boring and moderate in my old age...

The main reason really is, as I said in another thread recently, I guess with being in the more 'tolerant' environment and having actually seen gay people, I realise they maybe aren't really all rapists/paedophiles/prostitutes/whatever like I used to think they were. At first, I really didn't believe the guys here when they said they weren't.

Don't hate on me too much for it though, even in my old posts I'm a moderate compared to people in RL. My old best friend went to some pretty crazy Baptist church and said he hopes all gay people will burn in hell, another guy (not really religious) says things like he wants to line them up and shoot them.

Looking back that's pretty shocking stuff and way out of touch with what you see for the enlightened minds on this forum, but really this is what things are like outside the world of the educated elite.

[Vladimir]

Louis, first of all, I am way more European than Swedish. So the Swedish punches really does not distract me much.

Yes some states in the US were ahead of Sweden in acknowledging gay adoption, on paper. Would you have been spent some time in Sweden in the earlier years though, you would have seen that gay people still could adopt from the 60's or so. Official law and unofficial law is not always the same, as you well know. The Swedish gay movement was more about having the official ability than the actual ability. There is some state in the US that STILL has the law dictating that a man must walk in front of the car waving a red flag if a woman drives. That does not however mean I flame America about it, as the law is obsolete and just happen to have stayed intact as it doesnt hurt anyone, get the point?

And I am not saying that Sweden is some perfect country, mind you, there are reason why I do not live there!


History aside.

Let us forget about the past, and look at Sweden NOW, compared to the US now... Gay people in Sweden can adopt, get married, serve openly in the army.... In how many US states is that ok, dude?

Touché mon ami :)

Wait, hold on. Are you bragging that Sweeden is gayer than the U.S.? I'm not one to judge so if you want to hang your hat on that, than so be it.

[Strike For The South]

Me, I think a lot of children would be better off without a father. Many fathers destabilise families by being a nasty brute. Many more are present but absent. Two mothers would be a blessing for many a family.
]

This is a stupid statement....I hope you are focused on nasty French sex because if not I am angry sad and pissed off

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't hate on me too much for it though, even in my old posts I'm a moderate compared to people in RL. My old best friend went to some pretty crazy Baptist church and said he hopes all gay people will burn in hell, another guy (not really religious) says things like he wants to line them up and shoot them.

Looking back that's pretty shocking stuff and way out of touch with what you see for the enlightened minds on this forum, but really this is what things are like outside the world of the educated elite.

I've never understood hatred of gays, a lot of it coming from people I otherwise agree with politically. It has no basis in rational thought, much like antisemitism. I blame deep seeded religious influences.

Actually, I guess you could blame the Jews for writing the Torah that has been the basis of homophobia for millenia. :grin:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

But is that at all what the research is about? I didn't think anyone was trying to show that homosexuals are inherently better parents by virtue of being homosexual. It seems like the correlation is what's important here--because the argument has been about not allowing them children. It doesn't matter if they are good parents for some reason unrelated to their sexuality, what matters is that they are good parents.

[HoreTore]

You successfully left me in a bemused state on whether you are attempting to do a joke with me, or trying to do a joke at my expense.

Though, you forget the lines like "I am on the pill." or they supply a broken condom.

Haven't had it happened personally to myself, but I know quite a number of incidents where both straight and lesbians have done this.

"On the pill? Hah! I'm still putting on my rubber, thankyouverymuch.

You have your own condom? What a coincidence; so do I! Let's go with mine, shall we?"

That's my mode of operation. I strongly suggest that everyone else adopts it too. Condoms need to be treated properly. You can treat it properly yourself, but you have no garantuee that the other won't leave it in the sun or something else that'll ruin it.

I went along with "I'm on the pill" once. The result was that I was nervous for the next 9 months. Not going down that road ever again, I tell you....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've never understood hatred of gays, a lot of it coming from people I otherwise agree with politically. It has no basis in rational thought, much like antisemitism. I blame deep seeded religious influences.

Actually, I guess you could blame the Jews for writing the Torah that has been the basis of homophobia for millenia. :grin:

I think it has more to do people being insecure about their homosexuality. Homophobia is almost always directed at same-sex homosexuals.


"On the pill? Hah! I'm still putting on my rubber, thankyouverymuch.

You have your own condom? What a coincidence; so do I! Let's go with mine, shall we?"

That's my mode of operation. I strongly suggest that everyone else adopts it too. Condoms need to be treated properly. You can treat it properly yourself, but you have no garantuee that the other won't leave it in the sun or something else that'll ruin it.

I went along with "I'm on the pill" once. The result was that I was nervous for the next 9 months. Not going down that road ever again, I tell you....

You have issues, really.

Anyway, pregnancy is hardly the most negative outcome of having sex, it's probably the least serious if anything.

[edyzmedieval]

No one doubting their better parents, I would expect so to be honest.

It's just the idea of the child asking at home "Why do I have two daddies and no mommy like everyone else?" frightens me greatly. Especially when the child grows enough to realise he's been conceived in a test tube or forgotten by his biological parents.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No one doubting their better parents, I would expect so to be honest.

Why is that?

[edyzmedieval]

People who really want children and go at great odds to "get" one are more prepared and they really desire one, so they're much more attentive than the average person with his child.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think it has more to do people being insecure about their homosexuality. Homophobia is almost always directed at same-sex homosexuals.

That would take one heck of a coincidence since homophobia seems to be more a cultural thing than down to individual beliefs. So all the chavs are really just insecure in their sexuality? And everyone in Redneckistan? And places like Africa as well (Uganda in particular, I have a very funny video I might post)? But somehow everyone that lives in tolerant places like Sweden, or middle-class southern England, isnt'?

Plus, people that are generally 'intolerant' tend to be the ones that are homophobic. From personal experience, sectarianism tends to be the main source of intolerant sentiments, followed by homosexuality, then a bit of racism but not much really. So are these people really just insecure in their religion or their skin colour and that's why they don't like Catholics/blacks?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That would take one heck of a coincidence since homophobia seems to be more a cultural thing than down to individual beliefs. So all the chavs are really just insecure in their sexuality? And everyone in Redneckistan? And places like Africa as well (Uganda in particular, I have a very funny video I might post)? But somehow everyone that lives in tolerant places like Sweden, or middle-class southern England, isnt'?

Plus, people that are generally 'intolerant' tend to be the ones that are homophobic. From personal experience, sectarianism tends to be the main source of intolerant sentiments, followed by homosexuality, then a bit of racism but not much really. So are these people really just insecure in their religion or their skin colour and that's why they don't like Catholics/blacks?

we're just more repressed in Europe. People are just a prejudiced, they just hide it better, and because we have greater education we are better at hiding our prejudices or choosing socially acceptable ones.

Take the fashion in anti-religious prejudice among the intelligencia, for example, it's just as ugly as homophobia or racism (and lays many of the same charges, such as inherrent stupidity or moral degeneracy).

Look at the way Kadagar responded to my posts, for example.


People who really want children and go at great odds to "get" one are more prepared and they really desire one, so they're much more attentive than the average person with his child.

None of which is inherently about homosexuality.

[Beskar]

No one doubting their better parents, I would expect so to be honest.

It's just the idea of the child asking at home "Why do I have two daddies and no mommy like everyone else?" frightens me greatly. Especially when the child grows enough to realise he's been conceived in a test tube or forgotten by his biological parents.

Then again, the same issue is with adoption happens anyway, or even single-mothers/fathers.

I know one couple which adopted which since the very beginning mentioned they are in a loving family who chose to have them, not handing the fact they were even adopted in the first place.

Being honest, the whole "I was adopted, I need to find my real parents" is a complete lark anyway. A parent is the person who loves you, takes care of you, and raises you. It isn't who's sexual part created you.

[Beskar]

Anyway, pregnancy is hardly the most negative outcome of having sex, it's probably the least serious if anything.

That is really incorrect. Pregnancy is the most serious, what is more serious than that, is Pregnancy and HIV at the sametime.

[KukriKhan]

"So, we need more gay people to have kids..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html?hpt=T2

So, specifically, we need more lesbian people to have kids.

One more step down the apparently inevitable road of male irrelevance.

You fellas in your teens and early 20's might want to start working on finding and developing skills that our eventual overlords (women) will find useful... or entertaining.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is really incorrect. Pregnancy is the most serious, what is more serious than that, is Pregnancy and HIV at the sametime.

I probably have a different perspective to you, the way I look at it pregnancy is more an inconvenience with a definate upside. Every other consequence is some form of increasingly serious disease with no upside.


"So, we need more gay people to have kids..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html?hpt=T2

So, specifically, we need more lesbian people to have kids.

One more step down the apparently inevitable road of male irrelevance.

You fellas in your teens and early 20's might want to start working on finding and developing skills that our eventual overlords (women) will find useful... or entertaining.

I write poetry.

[HoreTore]

You have issues, really.

Anyway, pregnancy is hardly the most negative outcome of having sex, it's probably the least serious if anything.

Uhm..... I have "issues" because I don't want to knock someone up or get an std....? Care to explain?

[Reenk Roink]

"So, we need more gay people to have kids..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html?hpt=T2

So, specifically, we need more lesbian people to have kids.

One more step down the apparently inevitable road of male irrelevance.

You fellas in your teens and early 20's might want to start working on finding and developing skills that our eventual overlords (women) will find useful... or entertaining.

ShambleS had the best quote ever about this:


Hell I wouldnt Mind Lesbian parents my self...
It would Dedfinatly Boost your Street cred if your male..
All ya freinds would wanna have Sleep overs.

Him and Tribesman gone make the Backroom 50% worse, wish they'd toned it down when it mattered. :sad: :disappointed:

As do we.

[Strike For The South]

Men are not becoming irrelavant, we are voulntarily turning in what it means to be a man

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm..... I have "issues" because I don't want to knock someone up or get an std....? Care to explain?

Your obsession with the condom as some sort of Holy Shield against trouble is not very healthy.

[Centurion1]

OLol I would rather be adopted by a upper middle class hetero family than an upper middle class homosexual family. Not because they would be worse parents, au contrare I. Can't imagine the ribbing said child would get from other children.

Eventually because of social engineering such issues will become moot.

I bet kadagar expected me as a athlete, catholic, male, american, teenager, conservative to be like, "no the gayz are evilz"

Once again false as a good looking (well not hideous) popular male I am very comfortable with my sexuality. I have a couple gay friends one who is open about it and another who has only told a few of us.

[Kadagar_AV]

OLol I would rather be adopted by a upper middle class hetero family than an upper middle class homosexual family. Not because they would be worse parents, au contrare I. Can't imagine the ribbing said child would get from other children.

Eventually because of social engineering such issues will become moot.

I bet kadagar expected me as a athlete, catholic, male, american, teenager, conservative to be like, "no the gayz are evilz"

Once again false as a good looking (well not hideous) popular male I am very comfortable with my sexuality. I have a couple gay friends one who is open about it and another who has only told a few of us.



Not really. You obviously have the technical skills required to get out on the internet, and somehow you adopted a will to further your cognitive skills by participating in debates on said net.

With that background, I would be more surprised if you were a gay basher :)


A friend of mine (American) had a fantastic quote about it: I am not saying all gay haters are stupid rednecks, but all stupid rednecks are gay haters.

[HoreTore]

Your obsession with the condom as some sort of Holy Shield against trouble is not very healthy.

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

And I know how to use one. So yeah, it really is my holy shield against making babies, and it makes the pope mad as well! Score!!

[TinCow]

One more step down the apparently inevitable road of male irrelevance.

You fellas in your teens and early 20's might want to start working on finding and developing skills that our eventual overlords (women) will find useful... or entertaining.

Wait... there was a time when they weren't our overlords?

[Azathoth]

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

And I know how to use one. So yeah, it really is my holy shield against making babies, and it makes the pope mad as well! Score!!

Not true. Some of them may be damaged before they ever make it onto the user's penis. No method of birth control is 100% effective, not even sterilization. Well, except maybe most surgical abortion procedures.


I went along with "I'm on the pill" once. The result was that I was nervous for the next 9 months. Not going down that road ever again, I tell you....


9 months? Wouldn't it be 1 or 2 months?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Interesting article. One amidst a sea of articles that suggest better outcomes for married heterosexual couples. The english article makes a mention of how the study was funded solely by gay and lesbian groups., that's interesting as I'm sure you would disregard studies done by "christian family groups" as biased to the extreme, a-priori.

[Viking]

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

If something went wrong during production, it could be 0% effective.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

And I know how to use one. So yeah, it really is my holy shield against making babies, and it makes the pope mad as well! Score!!

I refer you to my honourable friends below. The only 100% effective birth-control is no sexual contact, i.e. no heavy petting.

(Yes kids, that includes ear sex).


Not true. Some of them may be damaged before they ever make it onto the user's penis. No method of birth control is 100% effective, not even sterilization. Well, except maybe most surgical abortion procedures.

Thank you.


9 months? Wouldn't it be 1 or 2 months?

I would think three or four at the outside, but then if she was a one-night stand you never see again then you should have cold sweats for 18 years until you're no longer liable for child support. Provided, that is, that the prospect of having children terrifies you that much.


If something went wrong during production, it could be 0% effective.

Thank you.


Interesting article. One amidst a sea of articles that suggest better outcomes for married heterosexual couples. The english article makes a mention of how the study was funded solely by gay and lesbian groups., that's interesting as I'm sure you would disregard studies done by "christian family groups" as biased to the extreme, a-priori.

Which is why I made the point that this study could actually be used to argue for "traditional" conservative family values and abstinence, rather than homosexuality.

[Beskar]

Which is why I made the point that this study could actually be used to argue for "traditional" conservative family values and abstinence, rather than homosexuality.

"What is the effect of constant spanking and corperal punishment on children?"

"Why it is best for Children never to be heard, only seen?"

[Ser Clegane]

Which is why I made the point that this study could actually be used to argue for "traditional" conservative family values and abstinence, rather than homosexuality.

Well, it certainly should not be used as an argument "for" homosexuality. But it probably illustrates that there does not seem to be actual justification for not allowing gay people to have/adopt children.
Why apply different standards to homosexual people? There are obviously enough heterosexual people who are not most suitable to raise children, yet it goes without saying that it is part of their personal freedom to have children.
With regard to adoption - just apply the same standards to all potential parents - regardless of their sexuality. If there is no proof that homosexual parents have a negative effect on the development of a child, it should not be a criteria for the decision.

[Hosakawa Tito]

If it wasn't for straight people, there'd be no gay people.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If it wasn't for straight people, there'd be no gay people.

....and for his next performance, The Amazing Hosa will need the services of one hen's egg and one chicken. May we have a volunteer from the audience?

[Beskar]

Actually, in the past, everyone was just like rabbits. They would simply enter any hole they came across.

So to suggest they were actually heterosexual is incorrect. They were simply "sexual".

heterosexuality and homosexuality are merely social constructs, in reality, they don't actually exist. While there is a biological preference for males and females coupling due to reproduction, there isn't really much else there.

[Azathoth]

Actually, in the past, everyone was just like rabbits. They would simply enter any hole they came across.

So to suggest they were actually heterosexual is incorrect. They were simply "sexual".

heterosexuality and homosexuality are merely social constructs, in reality, they don't actually exist. While there is a biological preference for males and females coupling due to reproduction, there isn't really much else there.

Hygiene.

[Centurion1]

Let me elaborate on hosas comment, 5000 years ago after adam and eve were properly married and went to consumnate their marriage it was a good thing they were both heterosexual.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think what hosa is trying to say is, 5000 years ago after adam and eve were properly married and went to consumnate their marriage it was a good thing they were both heterosexual.

Hard to tell when it comes to fictional characters (as some see it). For all we know, Adam might have "been" with Eve just to procreate, while really he much preferred intercourse with, say, sheeps or pigs. Or maybe he was as gay as they get, just that he didn't have anyone to experiment with? All of humanity's sexual traits must have existed in Adam, as he was the very first male. So with that reasoning, he might as well have been with most things that move, as well as quite some immovable objects, if you look at the sexual diversity that exists today.

I don't remember the Bible being very specific about it.

I might very well be wrong though, has there been bible studies about it?

:clown:

[Beskar]

Hygiene.

This comment is relevant how?

Is heterosexual intercourse clean and homosexual intercourse dirty? Afterall, in both cases, it can involve anal, and mouth contact to lower-body parts. So if it is that, it is merely a bigoted view which isn't respective of the facts.

[Kadagar_AV]

This comment is relevant how?

Is heterosexual intercourse clean and homosexual intercourse dirty? Afterall, in both cases, it can involve anal, and mouth contact to lower-body parts. So if it is that, it is merely a bigoted view which isn't respective of the facts.

What he said.

Bad style Azathoth.

Also very little relevance to the topic at hand.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, it certainly should not be used as an argument "for" homosexuality. But it probably illustrates that there does not seem to be actual justification for not allowing gay people to have/adopt children.
Why apply different standards to homosexual people? There are obviously enough heterosexual people who are not most suitable to raise children, yet it goes without saying that it is part of their personal freedom to have children.
With regard to adoption - just apply the same standards to all potential parents - regardless of their sexuality. If there is no proof that homosexual parents have a negative effect on the development of a child, it should not be a criteria for the decision.

Well, all you have to do is raise the bar and demonstrate that heterosexual couples are even "better" at raising children provided they are in a stable and functional relationship. This probably wouldn't be hard to prove, as the children of a homosexual couple will have more difficulty fitting in at school etc. (I'd also like to see how a girl raised by two women deals with men in a social/socio-sexual way, but that's another topic).

Then you just say that marriage promotes stable hetero relationships and you've created a situationw where you brand everyone but your chosen group as sub-standard parents. It's called manipulating data, and I think this study has tried to do it already; just in a different direction.


Actually, in the past, everyone was just like rabbits. They would simply enter any hole they came across.

So to suggest they were actually heterosexual is incorrect. They were simply "sexual".

heterosexuality and homosexuality are merely social constructs, in reality, they don't actually exist. While there is a biological preference for males and females coupling due to reproduction, there isn't really much else there.

This isn't remotely true, every written-historical society placed boundaries on sexuality, and we have no idea what pre-historical societies did.

[Ser Clegane]

Well, all you have to do is raise the bar and demonstrate that heterosexual couples are even "better" at raising children provided they are in a stable and functional relationship. This probably wouldn't be hard to prove, as the children of a homosexual couple will have more difficulty fitting in at school etc. (I'd also like to see how a girl raised by two women deals with men in a social/socio-sexual way, but that's another topic).

Then you just say that marriage promotes stable hetero relationships and you've created a situationw where you brand everyone but your chosen group as sub-standard parents. It's called manipulating data, and I think this study has tried to do it already; just in a different direction.

And would you then use this to argue that heteros who are not in a stable relationship should not be allowed to have/raise children?

Because that is the point that I was trying to make. While you can argue that the study is flawed and does not prove that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexual parents, I think you will have some difficulties to deny that homosexual couples are at least as suitable as parents a many heterosexual couples (or singly parents) who we would consider to deny them their right to have children.

[Centurion1]

You would seriously comment on my statement kadagar

[Beskar]

This isn't remotely true, every written-historical society placed boundaries on sexuality, and we have no idea what pre-historical societies did.

I apologise, the men of ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were devote christians who never touched another person, unless it is consumating through marriage.

Or the facts, where they intercourse with everyone, male and female, almost constantly. Homosexuality only became taboo through the institutionalisation of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. Even then, everyone didn't become virtious. I believe even Gibbsons commented on the examples of Christians in Libya, compared with a Pagan sect.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I apologise, the men of ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were devote christians who never touched another person, unless it is consumating through marriage.

Or the facts, where they intercourse with everyone, male and female, almost constantly. Homosexuality only became taboo through the institutionalisation of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. Even then, everyone didn't become virtious. I believe even Gibbsons commented on the examples of Christians in Libya, compared with a Pagan sect.

Doesn't fit the facts, Beskar. The Lex Scantinia specifically criminalized sexual interactions between free persons of the same sex, allowing for the death penalty. Military regulations specifically prohibited it and soldiers were executed for same. A number of Attic Greek city-states allowed or encouraged it, but several Ionian Greek city-states proscribed it. Ancient Egypt is more difficult (too few records) but what appears indicates that it was viewed in a rather mixed fashion. Some references seem to laud the behavior, others take pride in having avoided it.

Homosexuality seems to be more broadly accepted by "mature" (some would say fading or decadent) cultures, whereas it is often viewed negatively in developing cultures. No one answer is 100% on track.

[Beskar]

Doesn't fit the facts, Beskar. The Lex Scantinia specifically criminalized sexual interactions between free persons of the same sex, allowing for the death penalty.

It didn't apply to slaves though, so a Master could have his way with his male pretty boy slaves (Which existed). That was also decipted in the HBO series of Rome.

But yes, it was rather hit and miss depending on who and where, but since i am presuming our early ancestors come from "Animals", they would share the same hedonistic traits, as in, they pretty much mated with everyone and everything, such as demonstrated by pets such as dogs and cats. I am arguing that defined heterosexuality and homosexuality came later on.

[PanzerJaeger]

This probably wouldn't be hard to prove, as the children of a homosexual couple will have more difficulty fitting in at school etc.

There is some circular logic going on in this statement.

The children of a homosexual couple will only have trouble fitting into a school full of children who have been taught, either directly or indirectly, that homosexuality is somehow wrong. Does the issue lie with the homosexual couple or the dimwits who instill intolerance in their children?


(I'd also like to see how a girl raised by two women deals with men in a social/socio-sexual way, but that's another topic).

And what of a girl raised by one woman?

[Beskar]

There is some circular logic going on in this statement.

The children of a homosexual couple will only have trouble fitting into a school full of children who have been taught, either directly or indirectly, that homosexuality is somehow wrong. Does the issue lie with the homosexual couple or the dimwits who instill intolerance in their children?

Agreed. I take the view that it is the dimwits who instill the intolerance in their children. Any good parent would educate the child on something they don't understand, in order to promote tolerance. Intolerance breeds in ignorance.

Even if a child initially "doesn't understand" why Timmy has two mothers, it is the parents/teachers job simply to educate them.

This issue occurs in similar subjects, such as adopted children, children in carehomes, etc.

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus, Beskar,

As much as I respect your arguing for what it is worth, it is in fact worth very little.

"Was homosexuality OK in a time where it was OK to have sex with a girl when she bled" - the whole issue is rather irrelevant.



Let us have a look at the issue with more logical eyes, you know logic, the thing we strive for as humans - and let us rephrase: "Who cares who people love, it is their own decision".

Then of course, you can argue that people who love X is not suitable as parent, but if so, you need to back it up.

I for one think that people who "loves" children should not be allowed to have them. I do not however think that a gay couple would do a worse job than, say, a single mother or a dysfunctinal (or even average?) heterosexual couple.

[Hosakawa Tito]

If it wasn't for straight people, there'd be no gay people.


....and for his next performance, The Amazing Hosa will need the services of one hen's egg and one chicken. May we have a volunteer from the audience?


I keep setting them up and Seamus hits them outta the park. Guess I'm a straight man in more ways than one, eh?

Actually, my astute observation~:rolleyes: is atributed to gay pride fatigue. I'm rather tired of all the constant in your face and shouting it from the mountain top coming from some of the cross gender crowd. Apparently some are not as secure with this as all their shouting out would lead one to believe, or they wouldn't even go out of their way to bring it up. My reaction, okay you're gay so uh what's your point? I really don't care who you cuddle up with at night, as long as they're a consenting adult. Being a good parent definitely requires certain skills and personal characteristics, however, sexual orientation isn't one of them.

[Kadagar_AV]

I keep setting them up and Seamus hits them outta the park. Guess I'm a straight man in more ways than one, eh?

Actually, my astute observation~:rolleyes: is atributed to gay pride fatigue. I'm rather tired of all the constant in your face and shouting it from the mountain top coming from some of the cross gender crowd. Apparently some are not as secure with this as all their shouting out would lead one to believe, or they wouldn't even go out of their way to bring it up. My reaction, okay you're gay so uh what's your point? I really don't care who you cuddle up with at night, as long as they're a consenting adult. Being a good parent definitely requires certain skills and personal characteristics, however, sexual orientation isn't one of them.

Kudos for the very last sentence.

As to the rest. If gays would have equal rights, I would also have some issues with the "gay pride". But let's face it, they do have some very real obstacles in their everyday life. I know a guy who was not allowed to visit his boyfriend (for the last 10 years) in hospital because... They were not family. Can you blame him for being on the barricade on gay peoples rights? Or can you blame people who might end up in the same situation, or even have an understanding of it?

"Gay pride fatigue", sure, when they have made their point come across. Until then, I as a very heterosexual being will fully support them. Not because it affects me, but because they are RIGHT.

If you are not a part in the solution, you are a part of the problem, no? Where does that leave you?

[PanzerJaeger]

Actually, my astute observation~:rolleyes: is atributed to gay pride fatigue. I'm rather tired of all the constant in your face and shouting it from the mountain top coming from some of the cross gender crowd. Apparently some are not as secure with this as all their shouting out would lead one to believe, or they wouldn't even go out of their way to bring it up. My reaction, okay you're gay so uh what's your point? I really don't care who you cuddle up with at night, as long as they're a consenting adult. Being a good parent definitely requires certain skills and personal characteristics, however, sexual orientation isn't one of them.

Those uppitty negros in the 60's should have kept quiet, too. Hell, they weren't slaves anymore, and should have been thankful to be allowed to live in the dark recesses of our society.

I do so enjoy the rare occasions where I allow my heart to bleed.

[Centurion1]

Yeah its annoying hosa I agree. So was malcolm x. But the point remains that they do have a reason for the actions.

As for this entire study its so........ like duh. A heterosexual couple adopting or using fertilization processes should be the only comparable factor to the gay couples not billy joe and leeann in 10th grade. So to be perfectly honest this means jack **** to me. We all knew this beforehand no one thinks homosexuals can't love, lol.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah its annoying hosa I agree. So was malcolm x. But the point remains that they do have a reason for the actions.

As for this entire study its so........ like duh. A heterosexual couple adopting or using fertilization processes should be the only comparable factor to the gay couples not billy joe and leeann in 10th grade. So to be perfectly honest this means jack **** to me. We all knew this beforehand no one thinks homosexuals can't love, lol.

Using asterisks much are we?

As I usually say to toddlers and less brained when trying to teach them - use your words. I am of course not implying you would be less brained.

As to the claim that We all knew this beforhand - as you said Billy Joe and Leeann might not. Not really arguing your point, just saying that those people are out there, and they have a political impact. Sometimes more of a political impact than one would wish. And yes, you could change Billy Joe to Jimmy Håkansson (or whatever national country bumpkin name).

And as a PS: Try and diminish the use of lol when you support me, it diminishes my point.

[Centurion1]

I did use a word kadagar but I saved seamus the trouble of asterisking part of it out.

"Being pedantic doesn't make you more intelligent, it simply furthers your own self illusion of intelligence, pedanticism does not correlate to intelligence it correlates to an overinflated ego.

Which can be construed as using big words for the simple purpose of sounding more smart no make you smarter it makes you look like a donkey.

And being told by someone in english how they speak to "less brained" people makes me LOL

Anyway I do not agree with you kadagar I believe this study absolute rubbish anyone with an iq above 90 could tell you and a waste of money

[Kadagar_AV]

I did use a word kadagar but I saved seamus the trouble of asterisking part of it out.

"Being pedantic doesn't make you more intelligent, it simply furthers your own self illusion of intelligence, pedanticism does not correlate to intelligence it correlates to an overinflated ego.

Which can be construed as using big words for the simple purpose of sounding more smart no make you smarter it makes you look like a donkey.

And being told by someone in english how they speak to "less brained" people makes me LOL

Anyway I do not agree with you kadagar I believe this study absolute rubbish anyone with an iq above 90 could tell you and a waste of money

Straying away from topic much, are we?

About less brained... I can only go by (as I am at the computer) the Merriam Webster's. From that source, I would not have been all wrong as I used it in a conjunction with another word (although it would have been more correct some 400 years ago, but then, I am a historian). However, and this is the more crucial part, remember that English is my third language. I would be glad to continue this discussion in Swedish or German, heck, I could probably even bluff my way through Italian. Regardless, if you got my point, that is usually the deciding factor as to if my use of language was successful or not.

Så hädanefter förmodar jag att vi kan tala Svenska, så att jag gott kan skratta åt de fel du gör :)



As to if the study was a waste of money... I disagree. When it is seen as normal that homosexuals can adopt, I will agree with you. But until then, I find this study very much valid.

[Centurion1]

Would you like to take this conversation into russian or latin? I could meander through both. However, if you were a native speaker I would be very wary before insulting you in said language. (Especially russian, mát is an ugly ugly thing)

[Megas Methuselah]

While we're at it, let's start ploughing through some French and Saulteaux, eh?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Enough, thank you.

:beadyeyes:

:closed: