View Full Version : Can I get a gay couple here?
Weebeast
01-12-2006, 04:37
Have you adopted a child? How's your child? I was just having a conversation with a buddy of mine and he's basically saying that gay people shouldn't adopt kids because the kids might turn gay or become 'abnormal.'
I don't know, some straight parents raise gay kids. You know what I mean?
Your help would be appreciated. I don't have gay friends with kids so I don't know anything about this.
I've heard lots of claims, but you can do the reading for yourself, assuming you have a semi-useful library nearby:
Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129; Bozett, F.W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York: Praeger; Gottman, J.S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F.W. Bozett & M.B. Sussman, (Eds.), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York: Harrington Park Press; Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572; Green, R. (1978), Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697; Huggins, S.L., (1989) A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers, F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the Family (pp. 123-135), New York: Harrington Park Press; Miller, B. (1979), Gay fathers and their children, The Family Coordinator, 28, 544-52; Paul, J.P. (1986).
Hmmmm... Backroomish. Poor guy will be attacked by the anti-gay crowd though. Best of luck.
Well I've got lots of gay friends. I've known some for thirty years. Most are great people. Pretty much the same % of idiots to nice guys as straight people.
As far as I've ever seen, people do not "go gay"; you're born that way. On the other hand, anyone raised in a "specific" environment will obviously be affected to some degree by that environment. I do not doubt that it might lead the person to some... curiosity and perhaps, depending on the individual, experimentation. But flat out "turning gay"? I don't buy it.
Personally, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt a child until all other avenues of adoption for the child have been exhausted. The child's interests come first.
To the Backroom and awayyyyyyyy...
My god mother and her "partner" have a child and he is perfectly straight but completely ****** in the head cause they raised him horribly.
Duke Malcolm
01-12-2006, 17:28
I have an acquaintance whose mother is a lesbian and he says she had a partner until quite recently, and he seems a bit, ah, homosexual and estranged.
However, I think that having such parents is not enough to turn someone gay, perhaps give them certain opinions and tastes and manners and such, but not actually to make them want sodomy. I believe it is the environment around the child until the end of puberty which affects whether or not the child will end up gay.
Lanemerkel1
01-12-2006, 17:30
instead of stating my oblivious hatred for gay people, I think I'll just stay out of this thread
Strike For The South
01-12-2006, 17:35
Im not really sure about this. I mean there are tons of hardworking honest gay people out there most of whom would make excellent parents. On the other hand it has to mess with the kids head somewhat. Although Ive known some pretty messed up kids with straghit parents so I say yes
Ianofsmeg16
01-12-2006, 18:14
instead of stating my oblivious hatred for gay people, I think I'll just stay out of this thread
Y'know, i don't get why people hate gays, my god! They're different! Let's all hate them, i know some gay guys, they are perfectly alright, and 99% of them dont come on to guys they know arent gay, so whats the problem?
But Kudos on staying out of the thread and not starting a flame war against gays :2thumbsup:
instead of stating my oblivious hatred for gay people, I think I'll just stay out of this thread
Failed on all counts then!
I am not entirely happy with the thought of a gay couple adopting a child. I worry for the child, though I cannot state quite why.
Lentonius
01-12-2006, 18:17
youre either born gay or straight, end of
but i spose as long as you are a kind person it doesnt really matter...
Geoffrey S
01-12-2006, 18:29
Not as far as I know. As Beirut said, the kid's interests should come first, but there's no real reason why a gay couple should be worse at raising a child. In general, I'd think it'd mean they'd grow up more open-minded to the possibility than actually becoming gay themselves, which is a good thing in so many ways.
Hmmmm... Backroomish. Poor guy will be attacked by the anti-gay crowd though. Best of luck.
Well I've got lots of gay friends. I've known some for thirty years. Most are great people. Pretty much the same % of idiots to nice guys as straight people.
I agree - my uncle was one of the greatest people I knew growing up and he was homosexual.
As far as I've ever seen, people do not "go gay"; you're born that way. On the other hand, anyone raised in a "specific" environment will obviously be affected to some degree by that environment. I do not doubt that it might lead the person to some... curiosity and perhaps, depending on the individual, experimentation. But flat out "turning gay"? I don't buy it.
I don't buy the your born homosexual arguement because most of the same reason's you don't buy the "turn gay" arguement. I have seen to many practicing bi-sexuals and those who chose to pracapate in homosexual behavior to buy the genetic arguement for homosexuality.
Personally, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt a child until all other avenues of adoption for the child have been exhausted. The child's interests come first.
Agreed - a homosexual couple who are willing to devote their attention to a child is better then the state foster or orphanage systems that most un-abopted children end up at. But it should be after all tradtional coubles have been rejected or exhasuated in the adoption process. (in all fairness I think the adoption process for traditional couples needs to be tightened also, to insure the child is going into a safe environment.)
Goofball
01-12-2006, 18:50
Agreed - a homosexual couple who are willing to devote their attention to a child is better then the state foster or orphanage systems that most un-abopted children end up at. But it should be after all tradtional coubles have been rejected or exhasuated in the adoption process. (in all fairness I think the adoption process for traditional couples needs to be tightened also, to insure the child is going into a safe environment.)
I'm glad to hear that you are not totally opposed to gay couples adopting Red. But I disagree that straight couples should be given preference. Gay or straight couples should be held to the same standards when determining whether or not they are allowed to adopt. Mainly: can they provide a safe, loving, and financially secure environment for a child.
Marcellus
01-12-2006, 19:41
I'm glad to hear that you are not totally opposed to gay couples adopting Red. But I disagree that straight couples should be given preference. Gay or straight couples should be held to the same standards when determining whether or not they are allowed to adopt. Mainly: can they provide a safe, loving, and financially secure environment for a child.
Agreed.
Ironside
01-12-2006, 22:22
instead of stating my oblivious hatred for gay people, I think I'll just stay out of this thread
I've to say that this is one of the better misspellings I've seen for a while :laugh4:
As for the issue, I cannot say that I'm not 100% for the idea for gay couples adopting, but I'll say that good parents matters much more than the parents sexual orientation.
I don't buy the your born homosexual arguement because most of the same reason's you don't buy the "turn gay" arguement. I have seen to many practicing bi-sexuals and those who chose to pracapate in homosexual behavior to buy the genetic arguement for homosexuality.
My mother knew my brother was gay when he was three. That's a bit young for a lifestyle choice but old enough for a parent to see certain character traits.
I have no doubt that many people experiment and some are influenced by their environment, but I've know way too many gay men to ever think that it was a lifestyle choice. These guys were gay from Day 1.
I'm glad to hear that you are not totally opposed to gay couples adopting Red. But I disagree that straight couples should be given preference. Gay or straight couples should be held to the same standards when determining whether or not they are allowed to adopt. Mainly: can they provide a safe, loving, and financially secure environment for a child.
I disagree.
The interests of the child must come first. If we are going to experiment with social ideas/programs/revolutions giving full rights to gay couples, fine. But let's not use children in the experiment.
The benefits to a child of having a mother and a father are too obvious and numerous to state. There are waiting lines to adopt children, so there should be no need to involve them in "social experiment". If gay couples want kids, they can create them with other partners and have shared custody. Never should a child be handed over to two gay men or women when a mother and father are waiting in the wings.
Having a mother and father is normal. Having two fathers or two mothers is not. The child has the right to have a mother and a father. The gay couple's rights to adopt a child do not overide the rights of the child to a mother and father.
Kralizec
01-12-2006, 22:30
I agree with Beirut, only let a gay couple adopt a kid if there aren't any suitable straight couples. Maybe in 20-30 years we'll have more insights on how gay couples manage to raise kids and we can reconsider.
im sure there as many (in %) bad gay parents as their are straight ones, but it must be more difficult to grow up, especially with the amount of anti-gay behavior you get in schools etc.
doc_bean
01-12-2006, 22:52
Parents screw their children up most of the time anyway, so I don't have a big problem with a gay couple raising a kid on principle. However, being pragmatic, it's going to be a little weird for the kid to have two daddies or two mommies, and it will be one more obstacle they'll need to overcome (on a lesser scale than being orphans or given away at birth I'd imagine though).
So, tough criteria should be used for selecting parents, and homosexuality shouldn't matter much.
My mother knew my brother was gay when he was three. That's a bit young for a lifestyle choice but old enough for a parent to see certain character traits.
My wife just "knew" her oldest son was gay from about age 4. Turns out that he isn't.
Ancendentol (SP) evidence is just that.
I have no doubt that many people experiment and some are influenced by their environment, but I've know way too many gay men to ever think that it was a lifestyle choice. These guys were gay from Day 1.
Again you have just supported my arguement about why I don't believe its a "born" into condition. Your first statement supports my postion on that. This is why I will not support homosexuals as a protected class. If they wish to practice that lifestyle - no harm no foul as far as I am concerned. As far as getting laws passed for their benefit in society they must go through the same legislative process that every other individual must go through. When a scientist can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition that an individual is born into - then I will advocate them being a distint and therefor a class that must have protection against discrimination under the law.
Back on topic
The interests of the child must come first. If we are going to experiment with social ideas/programs/revolutions giving full rights to gay couples, fine. But let's not use children in the experiment.
The benefits to a child of having a mother and a father are too obvious and numerous to state. There are waiting lines to adopt children, so there should be no need to involve them in "social experiment". If gay couples want kids, they can create them with other partners and have shared custody. Never should a child be handed over to two gay men or women when a mother and father are waiting in the wings.
Having a mother and father is normal. Having two fathers or two mothers is not. The child has the right to have a mother and a father. The gay couple's rights to adopt a child do not overide the rights of the child to a mother and father.
Agreed.
I have absolutely no problem allowing homosexual couples to adopt a child if a suitable tradtional couple can not be found. (Suitable in my eyes means the same for both the traditional family and the same-sex family. Both types of couples must meet the same criteria for adoption, the difference is that given a choice between the two, the child goes to the traditional couple.)
Goofball
01-12-2006, 23:22
I'm glad to hear that you are not totally opposed to gay couples adopting Red. But I disagree that straight couples should be given preference. Gay or straight couples should be held to the same standards when determining whether or not they are allowed to adopt. Mainly: can they provide a safe, loving, and financially secure environment for a child.I disagree.
The interests of the child must come first. If we are going to experiment with social ideas/programs/revolutions giving full rights to gay couples, fine. But let's not use children in the experiment.
(Prepare yourself, I'm about to be slightly sarcastic, but I know you're a big boy and can handle it.)
I realize that treating people as equals and offering them a level social playing field regardless of their sexual orientation is a pretty wacky "social experiment," but don't you think that maybe its time has come?
Okay, sarcasm off.
Your argument (no to be mistaken with you) offends me for a few of reasons.
1) It says that it's okay to discriminate against gays because we have always done so in the past, and not discriminating them is a "revolutionary" new idea that we should take slowly. Based on that logic, should we not allow employers to fire homosexual employees, in order to improve workplace harmony by not offending the sensibilities of more conservative employees?
2) There is no basis whatsoever to make a claim that same-sex couples are any more likely to be unfit parents than hetero couples, and there is no evidence to suggest that having opposite-sex parents is any more or less beneficial to a child than having same-sex parents. On the other hand, I can come up with a considerable amount of data that would support the idea that children raised by black parents are more likely to become criminals than children raised by white parents. Should we also give preference in adopting based on skin color? And your statement about what is "normal" is just silly. In the thirties, it was more or less "normal" for a husband to blacken his wife's eye for her if she didn't mind her manners. Luckily, several wacky "social experiments" since then have changed that custom. (Okay, I know I said sarcasm was off, but I couldn't resist that one.)
im sure there as many (in %) bad gay parents as their are straight ones, but it must be more difficult to grow up, especially with the amount of anti-gay behavior you get in schools etc.
There is already considerable evidence that a good portion of heterosexual couples make a complete balls-up of raising their children. Should we outlaw all heterosexual couple adoption for thirty years or so until we can do an in-depth study to determine what kind of people are more likely to be good parents vs. bad parents so thet we may more properly screen applicants?
im sure there as many (in %) bad gay parents as their are straight ones, but it must be more difficult to grow up, especially with the amount of anti-gay behavior you get in schools etc.
This is my favorite argument of all.
"We shouldn't let gay couples adopt because if we do, the rest of us will continue our narrow-minded, cruel ways and discriminate not only against the gay couple themselves, but against the child they adopt as well. Hey, don't blame me, blame society."
EDIT: Incorrect use of "you're" vs. "your." I can't believe it. One of my biggest grammatical pet peeves and I did it myself. See what you do to me Beirut?
Don Corleone
01-12-2006, 23:46
I'm going to break another PC taboo, be a sexist and state that I view lesbians and gay male couples as completely different on this particular issue. I have far fewer issues with a lesbian couple adopting a baby then I do with 2 gay males.
AntiochusIII
01-12-2006, 23:49
I'm going to break another PC taboo, be a sexist and state that I view lesbians and gay male couples as completely different on this particular issue. I have far fewer issues with a lesbian couple adopting a baby then I do with 2 gay males.And it would greatly help your position if you explain why. I can grasp some possible reasons for myself but to make an assumption of what you think isn't going to be very prudent of me.
For now, though, Goofball hits every point. :bow:
Goofball
01-12-2006, 23:54
I'm going to break another PC taboo, be a sexist and state that I view lesbians and gay male couples as completely different on this particular issue. I have far fewer issues with a lesbian couple adopting a baby then I do with 2 gay males.
What are you trying to do to me Don? Give me an aneurism?
I can only deal with so many meritless statements at once.
:juggle2:
:dizzy2:
I say they should be allowed to adopt.
I think they can do the job just as good as straight couples.
especially with the amount of anti-gay behavior you get in schools etc.Indeed, and that won't change anytime soon either unless they see that there is nothing wrong with it.
That's why it is time to show them that it isn't.
With time it will change just like allowing black people to go to class with white people.
1) It says that it's okay to discriminate against gays because we have always done so in the past, and not discriminating them is a "revolutionary" new idea that we should take slowly. Based on that logic, should we not allow employers to fire homosexual employees, in order to improve workplace harmony by not offending the sensibilities of more conservative employees?
A Strawman arguement my dear Goofball, the care and raising of children does not equate to an individuals ability to perform their job. I but into this conservation because I happen to agree with Beriut about adoption.
2) There is no basis whatsoever to make a claim that same-sex couples are any more likely to be unfit parents than hetero couples, and there is no evidence to suggest that having opposite-sex parents is any more or less beneficial to a child than having same-sex parents. On the other hand, I can come up with a considerable amount of data that would support the idea that children raised by black parents are more likely to become criminals than children raised by white parents. Should we also give preference in adopting based on skin color? And your statement about what is "normal" is just silly. In the thirties, it was more or less "normal" for a husband to blacken his wife's eye for her if she didn't mind her manners. Luckily, several wacky "social experiments" since then have changed that custom. (Okay, I know I said sarcasm was off, but I couldn't resist that one.)
Your throwing a red herring into the arguement Goofball. Address the issue of same-sex couples and traditional couples to bring forth your premise. Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.
There is already considerable evidence that a good portion of heterosexual couples make a complete balls-up of raising their children. Should we outlaw all heterosexual couple adoption for thirty years or so until we can do an in-depth study to determine what kind of people are more likely to be good parents vs. bad parents so thet we may more properly screen applicants?
Is that a counter to the arguement that a traditional family is the preferred family unit for child rearing for a healthy society?
"We shouldn't let gay couples adopt because if we do, the rest of us will continue our narrow-minded, cruel ways and discriminate not only against the gay couple themselves, but against the child they adopt as well. Hey, don't blame me, blame society."
I don't believe that is the stance Beriut nor myself have taken on the issue. Edit: I see that was directed at someone else. Sorry for the mis-reading of the statement.
Don Corleone
01-13-2006, 00:02
Maybe I should take my foot out of my mouth. What statistics I was looking for turned out to be the opposite of the conventional wisdom I had adopted.
Apparently, gay men in Scandanavia and the Netherlands divorce at roughly the same rate as heterosexual couples. I thought it was higher among gay male couples.
I also thought lesbians were more stable in committed relationships then heterosexual couples. Turns out, they get divorced more frequently.
Okay then, I'm for allowing gay male couples to adopt, but until lesbians figure out how to provide some domestic permanence for their children, I think they should be last in the priority queue for adoption.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-13-2006, 00:08
Again you have just supported my arguement about why I don't believe its a "born" into condition. Your first statement supports my postion on that. This is why I will not support homosexuals as a protected class. If they wish to practice that lifestyle - no harm no foul as far as I am concerned. As far as getting laws passed for their benefit in society they must go through the same legislative process that every other individual must go through. When a scientist can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition that an individual is born into - then I will advocate them being a distint and therefor a class that must have protection against discrimination under the law.
While I agree with you that it isn't a born into or genetic condition, there is another possibility besides it being a lifestyle choice that you have to look at. I personally believe it's something that develops from outside influences when the person is quite young. Many aspects of your personality are not finally determined until the age of seven.
Soulforged
01-13-2006, 00:15
If we accept as a principle that being gay is good, because it's a personal election (or for other several causes that people differ), then why should it be an issue that the sons raised with gay parents will make them gay. I see no reason, even if they had that effect that people usually attach at them (usually by ignorance) it wouldn't be an issue wouldn't it?
Don Corleone
01-13-2006, 00:17
Now here, in a nutshell, is exactly what people are afraid of. Soulforged is arguing that even if gay parents will make their children gay, it's a good thing and we should encourage it.
I don't know Goofball, you sure you want him on your side? :laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
01-13-2006, 00:19
Now here, in a nutshell, is exactly what people are afraid of. Soulforged is arguing that even if gay parents will make their children gay, it's a good thing and we should encourage it.
I don't know Goofball, you sure you want him on your side? :laugh4:
He has a point, if there were more gay people there would be less discrimination.
While I agree with you that it isn't a born into or genetic condition, there is another possibility besides it being a lifestyle choice that you have to look at. I personally believe it's something that develops from outside influences when the person is quite young. Many aspects of your personality are not finally determined until the age of seven.
There are several ongoing studies into just this issue. One such study sites that a possible hormone imbalance in the mother during the fetus development stage effects the sexual aspects of the child. However the study has not been complete last time I attempted a search on the internet. Someone with a peer review access might be able to shed more light onto this particlur study.
Again there are too many factors that influence an individual's behavior for me to reach the conclusion that its a condition one is born into - ie genetic.
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 00:29
The problem with homosexuals is....
They Tend to contract.
Hiv and hepititis and stuff.
Hepititis is HIGLY contageous. And as such i dont beleve that Its a good idea to subject a child to The possibilatys of Its parents (although adopted) dying at an early age.
Now Im not saying all homosexual couples WILL get HIV and Hepititis And other Std'S or Sti'S
but They Are much more likley to,
hetrosexual couples, Have a Really hard time adopting children.
They often fail to be allowed to adopt a child Due to some Misdeminer they had long forgoten about.
Or they Dont have enough Income (although many familys Live on less)
The idea of Adoption is to place the child In a "SAFE" loving enviroment,
Unfortunatly With STD's And Homophobic crimes against homosexuals.
the Child Would Undoubtedly be made to suffer for Its Adopted parents choice.
Think about it.
Can You Imagine Going through school When Your parents are Both male or female?
Bulling already accounts for Enough Child deaths,
Children Are vicious lil things,
And if they knew 1 childs parents were homosexual. In That child's mind he would be better off dead Than haft to be subjected to the torment the other children and his peers sunject him to,
We know tis is Not How its Suposed to work.
Unfortunatly It is how it works.
Apart from illness and the possibilaty of an early death. I dont see this as being the Adopted parents Problem.
Its More of society's problem, And Its the child who would suffer the most.
Homosexual couples Should really Try to think about what the child would go through.
It is unfortunate.
but that is my oppinion on the matter.
Goofball
01-13-2006, 00:33
1) It says that it's okay to discriminate against gays because we have always done so in the past, and not discriminating them is a "revolutionary" new idea that we should take slowly. Based on that logic, should we not allow employers to fire homosexual employees, in order to improve workplace harmony by not offending the sensibilities of more conservative employees?A Strawman arguement my dear Goofball, the care and raising of children does not equate to an individuals ability to perform their job. I but into this conservation because I happen to agree with Beriut about adoption.
You're not butting in at all. Everyone is welcome to discuss.
And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).
There is no basis whatsoever to make a claim that same-sex couples are any more likely to be unfit parents than hetero couples, and there is no evidence to suggest that having opposite-sex parents is any more or less beneficial to a child than having same-sex parents. On the other hand, I can come up with a considerable amount of data that would support the idea that children raised by black parents are more likely to become criminals than children raised by white parents. Should we also give preference in adopting based on skin color? And your statement about what is "normal" is just silly. In the thirties, it was more or less "normal" for a husband to blacken his wife's eye for her if she didn't mind her manners. Luckily, several wacky "social experiments" since then have changed that custom. (Okay, I know I said sarcasm was off, but I couldn't resist that one.)Your throwing a red herring into the arguement Goofball. Address the issue of same-sex couples and traditional couples to bring forth your premise.
I did. I'm not being sarcastic, but I suggest you re-read what I said. I've highlighted the relevant part in bold.
Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.
Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?
At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?
There is already considerable evidence that a good portion of heterosexual couples make a complete balls-up of raising their children. Should we outlaw all heterosexual couple adoption for thirty years or so until we can do an in-depth study to determine what kind of people are more likely to be good parents vs. bad parents so thet we may more properly screen applicants?Is that a counter to the arguement that a traditional family is the preferred family unit for child rearing for a healthy society?
I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.
Maybe it's time for some new traditions.
Goofball
01-13-2006, 00:40
Now here, in a nutshell, is exactly what people are afraid of. Soulforged is arguing that even if gay parents will make their children gay, it's a good thing and we should encourage it.
I don't know Goofball, you sure you want him on your side? :laugh4:
I know you meant that tongue-in-cheek, but I think if you read his post again you'll find that SF is arguing not necessarily that being gay is good, but that personal choice is good.
At any rate, I don't believe that being gay is good or bad. Just like I don't think being left-handed is good or bad. I also don't believe that gay parents would be more likely to raise an adopted child to be gay. But even if it were proven that they were, I wouldn't care.
Goofball
01-13-2006, 00:44
Just to add a little levity to the thread, does anybody else find that the thread title sounds like a personal ad in a swinger magazine?
:laugh4:
Divinus Arma
01-13-2006, 00:44
The question is:
Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?
Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?
If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.
The bottom line is that if you support a culture that is completely free of traditional sexual concepts, then this is acceptable. The result is that our children will be raised with certain challenges in gender identification. This will only complicate the already difficult process of growing up. Hormonal changes and accompanying emotional experiences in combination with social gender confusion may result in psychological damage.
Being in favor of the natural order of things, I believe that the furthering of the homosexual cause is a danger to society.
Cats and dogs living together, that kind of thing.
Goofball
01-13-2006, 01:06
The question is:
Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?
Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?
If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.
The bottom line is that if you support a culture that is completely free of traditional sexual concepts, then this is acceptable. The result is that our children will be raised with certain challenges in gender identification. This will only complicate the already difficult process of growing up. Hormonal changes and accompanying emotional experiences in combination with social gender confusion may result in psychological damage.
Being in favor of the natural order of things, I believe that the furthering of the homosexual cause is a danger to society.
Cats and dogs living together, that kind of thing.
*yawns*
Tired, old conservative talking points that hold no basis in fact, but make anti-gay people happy because they can compare homosexuality to buggering the family dog.
Come back when you have something new.
Crazed Rabbit
01-13-2006, 01:07
Probably not. And even if you did, they'd probably want a ridiculous price.
Wait a minute....that's not what you mean. ~;p
Ahem.
And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).
What you seem to be forgetting is the crux of Beirut's argument: that the children should not be used as guinea pigs. The effects of being raised by parents who do not have a normal sexual orientation, and not having a mother and father, are, anecdotes aside, largely unknown. To throw children, who have no power or choice into the matter, into a situation where we don't know what the effect on them will be, is cruelhearted.
The basis of marriage was raising a family, and that is why it was between a man and a woman. Arguing that since some misguided nations now allow homosexual 'marriages' we should now act as though 'married' homosexuals are the same in every way to real married people ignores the basis for marriage.
If we accept as a principle that being gay is good, because it's a personal election (or for other several causes that people differ),
It isn't. Just because a person chooses to do something does not mean they are doing a good thing.
Thus, your argument is moot.
Crazed Rabbit
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-13-2006, 01:12
Mostly OT:
Can anyone show some stats for the number of kids up for adoption vs maybe the number of people on waiting lists for adoption? In the US, for example?
I was under the impression that there wasn't much of a problem with people who want to adopt children, but that the problem lay in people wanting to be foster parents.
You're not butting in at all. Everyone is welcome to discuss.
And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).
Establishment of criteria by the government for adoption is within its scope of responsiblities. Adoption outside of the arrangement between individuals is a regulated affair - and it should be. The concept of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children is indeed a social experiment. For instance (using the same type of red herring as your examble here) where in nature does same-sex couples procreate offspring?
The work place examble is within that same scope. Its not related to the discussion in that the legal rights of the same-sex couple are not being violated by the state.
I did. I'm not being sarcastic, but I suggest you re-read what I said. I've highlighted the relevant part in bold.
The red herring was bringing race into the discussion. The highlighted portion does indeed address the issue and was answered and then discarded by yourself with the following comment.
Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?
You defeat your arguement with your attempt at sarcasm here. If you want to discuss then discuss - but such comments do not bode well for a honest discussion.
And no the studies I am refering to are easily found on the web and some are studies done by agencies such as the Federal Government in the United States, among others. Links can be found with a simple google search. Since I am at work - I feel no obligation to do research to back up my statement. Given the nature of my family's health - I have read such articles done by professionals in the child studies and family studies.
At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?
Because the arguement is a red herring. I have no problem with allowing same sex couples adopting children if a suitable traditional couple can not be found for that child. Race is not revelant to my opinion. I see people for who they are not what color of their skin.
I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.
Maybe it's time for some new traditions.
Should I respond to such a obvious attempt of emotional appeal and burdern of proof logical fallacies in this arguement? Only with this, if your going to demand proof of statement - then you must also provide proof that your statement is more then just your opinion also.
Goofball
01-13-2006, 01:25
What you seem to be forgetting is the crux of Beirut's argument: that the children should not be used as guinea pigs. The effects of being raised by parents who do not have a normal sexual orientation, and not having a mother and father, are, anecdotes aside, largely unknown. To throw children, who have no power or choice into the matter, into a situation where we don't know what the effect on them will be, is cruelhearted.
No I understand it quite clearly. What you don't understand is that I don't view allowing equal rights to gays to be a social experiment, but something that any just society will eventually do. Therefor, the children are not really guinea pigs.
It was brought up before, but I'll do it again. Should we have not allowed desegregation of schools because we didn't want to treat children as guinea pigs? After all, that was a great "social experiment," wasn't it? I mean, we had no way of knowing that black children and white children going to school together would not cause the complete breakdown of society. In fact, there were many at the time who "proved" it would do just that.
Guess what?
They were wrong.
The basis of marriage was raising a family, and that is why it was between a man and a woman.
Says you.
Arguing that since some misguided nations now allow homosexual 'marriages' we should now act as though 'married' homosexuals are the same in every way to real married people ignores the basis for marriage.
"Misguided" nations? "Real" married people?
Puh-leaze...
I wasn't aware that Canada (among others) was such a socially backwards country. And I also wasn't aware that homosexuals were not "real" people after they chose to spend their lives together monogamously.
And arguing that because your misguided nation (for the most part) still discriminates against homosexuals ignores the fact that it's still unfair discrimination.
(Prepare yourself, I'm about to be slightly sarcastic, but I know you're a big boy and can handle it.)
I realize that treating people as equals and offering them a level social playing field regardless of their sexual orientation is a pretty wacky "social experiment," but don't you think that maybe its time has come?
Okay, sarcasm off.
Your argument (no to be mistaken with you) offends me for a few of reasons.
1) It says that it's okay to discriminate against gays because we have always done so in the past, and not discriminating them is a "revolutionary" new idea that we should take slowly. Based on that logic, should we not allow employers to fire homosexual employees, in order to improve workplace harmony by not offending the sensibilities of more conservative employees?
Oh, I can deal with your sarcasm you west coaster you.
Full rights for homosexuals is a social experiment. I know because I know lots of them and see the daily challenges they continue to face. It's nice to say we're all equal, but in reality we're not. Discrimination exists on many levels, and it takes experimenting and risk to overcome those obstacles.
The difference in this case, adoption being the issue, is that the road to full rights for homosexuals should not involve children who have no say in the matter. A child being adopted into a family has very, very few rights, but one right he/she should have is the natural right to a mother & father. It's the least we can do. We owe nothing to the adults - everything to the child.
If homosexuals want full rights - great! Let them fight on every level for them. But don't involve the most innocent and least capable of defending themselves. Besides, what kind of a message does it send to a growing child that either the mother or father is unimportant and unnecessary? The balance of life calls for a mother and a father. It's simply the way we are.
Divinus Arma
01-13-2006, 01:35
*yawns*
Tired, old conservative talking points that hold no basis in fact, but make anti-gay people happy because they can compare homosexuality to buggering the family dog.
Come back when you have something new.
Denigrating my argument with such classless comments such as "*yawn*", and "come back when you have something new", do not further the discussion.
If you want to debate, then debate the points. Broad and sweeping statements such as yours are just as ludicrous as screaming "liberal", and are simplistic tactics employed by those who are unable to articulate themselves to counter a valid argument.
I'll happily remove references to beastality if it delegitamizes my argument. The fact remains. Total acceptance of homosexuality would result in a complete psychological shift in our culture in the way that I spelled out.
Adrian II
01-13-2006, 01:43
(..) where in nature do same-sex couples procreate offspring?Where in nature do animals discuss marital issues in the backrooms of gaming forums?
Nowhere. Still I guess we're in the clear as we do precisely that.
The notion that 'healthy' or 'proper' human behaviour somehow requires a natural analogy (and usually one of a mythical kind) is known as the 'naturalist fallacy'.
And by the way: not only is long-term bonding a normal pehomenon among at least 450 major species (especially primates) from snails to bottlenose dolphins, but same-sex parenting is a regular feature among for instance flamingo's. Male flamingo couples take over nests and raise the young.
[https://img67.imageshack.us/img67/430/flamingos4ar.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
Reverend Joe
01-13-2006, 01:45
Weebeast, for what it's worth, I am sorry your topic turned out this way. But that is what happens when you take a young thread out if a good, clean home like the frontroom and place it in a brutal, alcohol-infested, severely disfunctional foster home like the backroom. Places like this will screw up a perfectly nice thread real fast.
Oh, and about the whole gay adoption- I really don't give a ****. Go ahead, let the gays **** up their perfectly good lives with children- see if they are happy eighteen years later. I can't believe these people... they find a loophole in the system, they don't have to have children, or get married- and now they want to throw a monkey wrench into all of that?! I would kill to be incapable of producing children! (And keep my balls.)
Kralizec
01-13-2006, 01:54
Vasectomy.
Besides Zorba, maybe by now smoking pot has made infertile anyway ~;)
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 01:56
Weebeast, for what it's worth, I am sorry your topic turned out this way. But that is what happens when you take a young thread out if a good, clean home like the frontroom and place it in a brutal, alcohol-infested, severely disfunctional foster home like the backroom. Places like this will screw up a perfectly nice thread real fast.
Oh, and about the whole gay adoption- I really don't give a ****. Go ahead, let the gays **** up their perfectly good lives with children- see if they are happy eighteen years later.
I cant beleve your 1st staement was Followed By That?
This is a disfunctional post in its self,
The masking Happens to lower the whole tone of your post.
Although readiing on seems to imply that was the affect you were aiming for.
Strange way to start a disfuntional post.
Goofball
01-13-2006, 01:58
Establishment of criteria by the government for adoption is within its scope of responsiblities. Adoption outside of the arrangement between individuals is a regulated affair - and it should be. The concept of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children is indeed a social experiment. For instance (using the same type of red herring as your examble here) where in nature does same-sex couples procreate offspring?
The work place examble is within that same scope. Its not related to the discussion in that the legal rights of the same-sex couple are not being violated by the state.
And we've now reached the point where you and I always fall apart on this issue Red. I don't care what's legal, I care what's right.
Oh, and by the way, one old argument deserves another:
Show me where in nature humans can fly or breath underwater. You can't. But we do. And you don't seem to have a problem with either of those things.
The red herring was bringing race into the discussion. The highlighted portion does indeed address the issue and was answered and then discarded by yourself with the following comment.
Not, it was not a red herring. It was being argued that a certain type of couple (gay) would perhaps be more likely to be unfit parents, and that should be used against them in adoption proceedings. I pointed out that a certain type of couple (black) are statistically provable to be more likely to be unfit parents, but we don't hold that against them. If you can't see the logical connection in that argument, then I don't really know how to further explain it to you.
But just because you don't understand an argument or can't refute it, doesn't mean it's a red herring.
Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?You defeat your arguement with your attempt at sarcasm here. If you want to discuss then discuss - but such comments do not bode well for a honest discussion.
Sorry Red, but that wasn't sarcasm. You stated an opinion (in this case: "Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.") but presented it as fact. I was simply asking what your sources were for that statement.
And no the studies I am refering to are easily found on the web and some are studies done by agencies such as the Federal Government in the United States, among others. Links can be found with a simple google search. Since I am at work - I feel no obligation to do research to back up my statement.
Then please understand that I feel no obligation to assign any credibility to your statements.
Because the arguement is a red herring. I have no problem with allowing same sex couples adopting children if a suitable traditional couple can not be found for that child.
So would "second class citizens" be an accurate way to describe your view towards gays?
Race is not revelant to my opinion. I see people for who they are not what color of their skin.
But not regardless of their sexual orientation, apparently.
I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.
Maybe it's time for some new traditions.Should I respond to such a obvious attempt of emotional appeal and burdern of proof logical fallacies in this arguement?
Probably not. You'll just state more of your opinions as fact then refuse to back them up, then accuse me of being sarcastic/facetious and get angry at me. Maybe you should just go home, have a nice meal with your family, and have a good sleep tonight.
~:grouphug:
Strike For The South
01-13-2006, 02:01
I'll happily remove references to beastality if it delegitamizes my argument. The fact remains. Total acceptance of homosexuality would result in a complete psychological shift in our culture in the way that I spelled out.
Homosexuals will never be full intergrated into American culture no matter how equal they are compared with straghit people. You never here people say "dude straghit" or you "vaginia sucking s**thead" This whole "gay" thing is overblown anyway.
Strike For The South
01-13-2006, 02:03
nm...
Papewaio
01-13-2006, 02:07
At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?
The Stolen Generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation) in Australia happened when Aboroginal children were removed from their parents... this happened uptil 1972...
Kralizec
01-13-2006, 02:12
I have a much simpler soultion for the middle east.
1. Sweep through capture fellow Orgahs send to Tosas house
2. Take Oil
3. Nuke all countries
Wrong thread, you vagina sucking hetero ~;p
And we've now reached the point where you and I always fall apart on this issue Red. I don't care what's legal, I care what's right.
In this instance what is legal and what is right for the child is one and the same.
Oh, and by the way, one old argument deserves another:
Show me where in nature humans can fly or breath underwater. You can't. But we do. And you don't seem to have a problem with either of those things.
We have artificle aids to help us overcome those issues. Same sex couples adopting children do not fall within that scope - that is way the arguement is a red herring. Just like I mentioned to start off.
Not, it was not a red herring. It was being argued that a certain type of couple (gay) would perhaps be more likely to be unfit parents, and that should be used against them in adoption proceedings. I pointed out that a certain type of couple (black) are statistically provable to be more likely to be unfit parents, but we don't hold that against them. If you can't see the logical connection in that argument, then I don't really know how to further explain it to you.
Race has no issue in this discussion - one can not control what color there skin color is.
The issue has not been that they are more likely to be unfit parents, notice that I have never stated that they would be unfit, I have argued that for the child the traditional family unit is the better arrangement for the well being and healthy development of the child. Also notice that I stated that they adoption agencies and the government need to tighten up the standards for traditional adoption in my opinion.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1034153&postcount=26
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1034240&postcount=41
The arguement is futher a red herring because if you look at the statistics of black families that function with the traditional couple - ie married mother and father - your attempt here developes farther into a red herring. The statistically potential is greater in the one parent households.
So yes Goofball you have used both a strawman and a red herring to counter my arguement.
For the record I am against men who neglect their responsiblities to their off spring.
But just because you don't understand an argument or can't refute it, doesn't mean it's a red herring.
Race is a red herring, has shown above.
Sorry Red, but that wasn't sarcasm. You stated an opinion (in this case: "Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.") but presented it as fact. I was simply asking what your sources were for that statement.
If you were simply asking what my source was - you would of stated it as you just did.
Then please understand that I feel no obligation to assign any credibility to your statements.
Right back at you. You have not provided the proof to back your claims either.
So would "second class citizens" be an accurate way to describe your view towards gays?
Incorrect - they have the same responsiblies and obligations as citizens as I do, to include the same fundmental rights. If they wish to change the society in which I live in - they must follow the same steps that I must do to cause change in the society.
But not regardless of their sexual orientation, apparently.
Sexual orientation is a behavior. Behaviors can be regulated by the society if it so desires. Again provide the study that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition? If you can provide such a study - then I will rethink my postion on both same-sex adoption and same sex marriage. Provide a convincing arguement that supports your claim and I can be swayed to change my opinion. Throwing facetious and sarcastic comments does not bode well for such an exchange.
Probably not. You'll just state more of your opinions as fact then refuse to back them up, then accuse me of being sarcastic/facetious and get angry at me. Maybe you should just go home, have a nice meal with your family, and have a good sleep tonight.
~:grouphug:
Oh I have been having fun pointing out the errors in your arguement. Its been rather enjoyable for me. Notice that I have not spouted one angry word concerning this subject. Can you state the same?
:no:
Where in nature do animals discuss marital issues in the backrooms of gaming forums?
Nowhere. Still I guess we're in the clear as we do precisely that.
The notion that 'healthy' or 'proper' human behaviour somehow requires a natural analogy (and usually one of a mythical kind) is known as the 'naturalist fallacy'.
And by the way: not only is long-term bonding a normal pehomenon among at least 450 major species (especially primates) from snails to bottlenose dolphins, but same-sex parenting is a regular feature among for instance flamingo's. Male flamingo couples take over nests and raise the young.
[https://img67.imageshack.us/img67/430/flamingos4ar.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
If your going to quote - place the quote in context.
The statement reads
For instance (using the same type of red herring as your examble here) where in nature does same-sex couples procreate offspring?
For everyone debating weather being gay is influnced by a gene or the environment, this should help:
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.
Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.
Papewaio
01-13-2006, 03:03
For everyone debating weather being gay
I think rainbows are a particular gay form of weather.
While hurricanes come across as a bit more red neck and responsible for flash flooding of areas. That lack of control and hostility shows that their environment is causing a great deal of tension and they do not have the skill set to gently deal with things like say the pacific winds in general do.
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 03:06
Being born on sunday Is what makes you Gay...
"and the child who was born on the sabath day, Was bonny and chearfull Happy And GAY"
So there ya go.
I think rainbows are a particular gay form of weather.
While hurricanes come across as a bit more red neck and responsible for flash flooding of areas. That lack of control and hostility shows that their environment is causing a great deal of tension and they do not have the skill set to gently deal with things like say the pacific winds in general do.
~:confused: :gah:
Sasaki Kojiro
01-13-2006, 03:25
Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?
Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?
Yes :balloon2:
If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.
No problem.
a culture that is completely free of traditional sexual concepts,
We can only hope :2thumbsup: actually all that needs to happen is that those who don't adhere to traditional sexual concepts are free to do so. The rest of you can be as prudish as you like.
Samurai Waki
01-13-2006, 03:33
Don't really know...nor care. If a gay couple want to adopt a kid more power to em'...considering our world is already too full of disease ridden, starving children without parents, the last thing we need is a few million more of them. If a gay couple wants a kid, stand aside, or be destroyed. :2thumbsup:
Alexanderofmacedon
01-13-2006, 03:47
It may not encourage them to be gay, but the humiliation that the kids in school put them through, might sometimes make them go a little crazy.
Adrian II
01-13-2006, 03:51
If your going to quote - place the quote in context.If you refer to 'nature' as a criterion, you are already out of order. That is what the naturalist fallacy is all about.
And keep your hands off my flamingo's, you brute. I saw that. :stare:
If you refer to 'nature' as a criterion, you are already out of order. That is what the naturalist fallacy is all about. The context was that I established the arguement as a fallacy - be it the wrong one - but the ackownlegment of a fallacy was included in the statement.
And keep your hands off my flamingo's, you brute. I saw that. :stare:
Flamingo's are only good for one thing - to look at. :2thumbsup:
Reverend Joe
01-13-2006, 04:20
I cant beleve your 1st staement was Followed By That?
This is a disfunctional post in its self,
The masking Happens to lower the whole tone of your post.
Although readiing on seems to imply that was the affect you were aiming for.
Strange way to start a disfuntional post.
Wait... you weren't taking me seriously, were you?! :inquisitive: You may as well be listening to Groucho Marx on marital advice! :laugh4:
For future reference, never, ever take me seriously, or believe anything I say.
For future reference, never, ever take me seriously, or believe anything I say.
After an extended stay at the org, you start to learn this.:laugh4: :laugh4:
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 05:04
Wait... you weren't taking me seriously, were you?! :inquisitive: You may as well be listening to Groucho Marx on marital advice! :laugh4:
For future reference, never, ever take me seriously, or believe anything I say.
Making a mental note.....
Any way.
No 1 has remarked on My statement...
I will re iterate the point i was making.
the idea of Adoption is to place the child In a "Safe" loving normal enviroment.
Now imagine Yourself as a child of say 11years.
And your in school, And your parents hapen to be a same sex couple.
With bullying acounting for the majoraty if not All child suicides.
And the fact kids are right lil Vicious things.
How is placing children in a situation where they will be punished for their parents choices "safe".
Also
As homosecuals tend to get infected With STd's And Sti's Such as Hiv And hepititis. Homosexual life expectancy cannot really be that Great,
Also some strains of Hepititis are HIGLY contagous.
Drinking from a cup a person with hepititis has previously used, Can be enough to transmit the disease.
Again
how is that a "safe" enviroment?
AntiochusIII
01-13-2006, 05:37
Now imagine Yourself as a child of say 11years.
And your in school, And your parents hapen to be a same sex couple.
With bullying acounting for the majoraty if not All child suicides.
And the fact kids are right lil Vicious things.
How is placing children in a situation where they will be punished for their parents choices "safe".Are you sure bullying always happen?
And it happens anyway without the homosexual "issue."
May be we want to reteach the parents that gays aren't evil, so their kids won't go evil on adopted children of gays, instead of barring homosexual couples with unfair discrimination?
I thought we've seen a few example of mindless gay-hating on the .orgs lately.
Also
As homosecuals tend to get infected With STd's And Sti's Such as Hiv And hepititis. Homosexual life expectancy cannot really be that Great,
Also some strains of Hepititis are HIGLY contagous.
Drinking from a cup a person with hepititis has previously used, Can be enough to transmit the disease.Links and facts to backup your claim, please?
Sasaki Kojiro
01-13-2006, 05:47
Making a mental note.....
Any way.
No 1 has remarked on My statement...
I will re iterate the point i was making.
the idea of Adoption is to place the child In a "Safe" loving normal enviroment.
Now imagine Yourself as a child of say 11years.
And your in school, And your parents hapen to be a same sex couple.
With bullying acounting for the majoraty if not All child suicides.
And the fact kids are right lil Vicious things.
How is placing children in a situation where they will be punished for their parents choices "safe".
Also
As homosecuals tend to get infected With STd's And Sti's Such as Hiv And hepititis. Homosexual life expectancy cannot really be that Great,
Also some strains of Hepititis are HIGLY contagous.
Drinking from a cup a person with hepititis has previously used, Can be enough to transmit the disease.
Again
how is that a "safe" enviroment?
I'm pretty sure you have to prove you don't have any contagious diseases before you can adopt.
Soulforged
01-13-2006, 05:54
It isn't. Just because a person chooses to do something does not mean they are doing a good thing.
Thus, your argument is moot.Not at all, I never said that the "thing" they choose is good or bad, I say that the free personal election is a good thing. Now if you're arguing that being gay makes someone a bad person then try to support it or at least tell me when the morality falls in such a subject. Alternatively if you are saying that it's indiferent then you should agree with me in that, if you accept the personal election to be a good thing (and accept it as you would accept a law), then we shouldn't desagree.
If you're of those incorrectible positivists, then you've even less range of choice in the matter, because it's not a choice and they're genetically determined to be homosexual, wich I disagree, but as you see both arguements fall before the truth, that it's not a bad thing, and wheter it's an election or not it should be accepted by society as another expression of the nature of mankin.
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 06:36
What do you want me to Link to?
a page showing homosexual rates of Std's as oposed to hetrosexuals?
or a link ther says hepititis is Higly contagous?
Also Bulling always happens.
But think about it... Whos gonna be the 1 getting bullied If thers 1 kid in your school who has same sex parents?
--------------
As for proving you dont have std's before adoption..
the fact of the matter is homosexuals (males expeshilay)
Do contract STD's more often than There hetrosexual conterparts,
Even worse...
Some homosexuals Consider having HIV as a status symbol of there homosexuality.
(PLACE LINK HERE)
Now again.
im not saying this is true for all homo sexuals, And i feel as though I need to make that clear.
But I am saying that homosexuals Are more likley to have or contract std's
Whic obviously could be detrimental to the child.
the question here Shouldnt be should you let Gay couples adopt a child.
(that would be for there benafit !not the idea of adoption)
it should be.
Is there likley to be a biger detrimentall affect on the child if it is placed with a same sex couple than if he/she was placed with a hetrosexual couple.
and on avarage, I would say Yes.
but not becous of who they chose to love.
its simply becous homosexuals Are more likley To be Singled out for attac, more likley to die of std's. and less likley to suply a stable and noram enviroment for the child.
the benafits are suposed to be for the child,
Not some ironic trophy for a same sex couple.
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 07:50
Ok where it says Place link here...
i forgot to place the link...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200309%5CFOR20030912b.html
------------------------
homosexuals likley to catch HIV
5-10% of homosexuals contract HiV... So thats not As bad as i thought.
And infact The Bigest Spread of HIv is from Hetrosexual couples.
However....
Due to there ebing MANY more hetrosexuals than there are homosexuals.
It is very dificult to prove which are most likely to contract STD's
So I will be forced to abandon that Line of comment.
Hepititis contagous link...
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hepatitis/contagious.htm
Personal contact with an infected person. HBV, HCV, and HDV sometimes spread when household members unknowingly come in contact with virus-infected blood or body fluids--most probably through cuts and scrapes or by sharing personal items such as razors and toothbrushes. While it is possible to become infected by contact with saliva, blood and semen remain the major sources of infection.
Other Relivant link as to why Less "safe enviroment"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
Weebeast
01-13-2006, 09:45
Wow. It's three-page long.
Don't really know...nor care. If a gay couple want to adopt a kid more power to em'...considering our world is already too full of disease ridden, starving children without parents, the last thing we need is a few million more of them.
I like that idea. Most of kids who get adopted are supposed to be orphans anyway. I rather have gay parents than none at all. To whom do I ask money from? You know what I mean?
Now imagine Yourself as a child of say 11years.
And your in school, And your parents hapen to be a same sex couple.
With bullying acounting for the majoraty if not All child suicides.
And the fact kids are right lil Vicious things.
How is placing children in a situation where they will be punished for their parents choices "safe".
Seriously, who hasn't been bullied? You're telling me straights kids are exempt from bullying? What about the kids who get bullied because of their sexual preferences or many other things? It's a part of growing up. The parents should teach them how to overcome that bullying. Of course it'd also be nice if other parents could teach their kids not to bully and judge others. Then again, we can't always have everything.
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 10:03
Wow. It's three-page long.
I like that idea. Most of kids who get adopted are supposed to be orphans anyway. I rather have gay parents than none at all. To whom do I ask money from? You know what I mean?
Seriously, who hasn't been bullied? You're telling me straights kids are exempt from bullying? What about the kids who get bullied because of their sexual preferences or many other things? It's a part of growing up. The parents should teach them how to overcome that bullying. Of course it'd also be nice if other parents could teach their kids not to bully and judge others. Then again, we can't always have everything.
Parents Can teach kids all they Like,
Kids are kids, Its not the parents no matter what you may have heard.
family of 5, consisting of 2 parents & 3 children.
2 of them grow up fine and respectable.
one of them Always in fights, expelled from 3 schools. Abuses drugs. Dosent listen, fights with his father. bullied others, always getting arrested for breaking the law.
Now if it was the Parents fault all 3 would be the same.
thats not how it works.
peer pressure Is the major contributing factor for anti social behavior.
----------
As for heterosexuals being bullied,
of course they get bullied.
but think about it.
a school full of relatively normal kids.
few fat 1's
few skinny 1's
a few from broken homes.
and one who has same sex parents.
Who do you think will be Bullied the most?
Hell Chances are. the fat kids, skinny kids, kids from broken homes, AND the relitivly normal kids Would ALL bully the one with same sex parents
Im willing to state IMHO,
that, this poor kid "with same sex parents" would be called A homosexual. And "aids boy" and All sort of other hideous things from the other children as that is how Life is.
You cant blame the parents.
Making Fun of some 1 is called Making Fun. Cos To them Its FUN.
Insulting others can make your peers laugh.
Peer pressure is A terrible thing.
But never the less.
im sure you can see what i mean.
Weebeast
01-13-2006, 10:51
Parents Can teach kids all they Like,
Kids are kids, Its not the parents no matter what you may have heard.
family of 5, consisting of 2 parents & 3 children.
2 of them grow up fine and respectable.
one of them Always in fights, expelled from 3 schools. Abuses drugs. Dosent listen, fights with his father. bullied others, always getting arrested for breaking the law.
Now if it was the Parents fault all 3 would be the same.
thats not how it works.
What happens to a kid who has no siblings then?
As for heterosexuals being bullied,
of course they get bullied.
but think about it.
a school full of relatively normal kids.
few fat 1's
few skinny 1's
a few from broken homes.
and one who has same sex parents.
Who do you think will be Bullied the most?
The one who doesn't do anything about it will be bullied the most.
You cant blame the parents.
Making Fun of some 1 is called Making Fun. Cos To them Its FUN.
To me dressing up in Templar tunic and killing random 'infidels' is fun but I don't do that, do I? Having fun to the point where somebody else is hurt is not acceptable.
Major Robert Dump
01-13-2006, 12:13
A few things i was thinking of...
-
2005 in Oklahoma there were more divorces than marriages, and divorces do far more damage to a child than gay parents both physically and pyscologically and even more so if the parents are poor. What happens to adopted kids whose parents divorce? What would happen to gay kids when the parents divorce?
All this talk about "traditional families" is moot because marriage is moot, it's a joke, it's done for tax breaks as much as its done to rear children, its not a sacred institution. It's not it's not it's not. Homosexuality may never be accepted by the mainstream, but convincing me that marriage will ever be sacred to the mainstream will never happen with all the shacking up, all the $39 divorces and all the hot chics who marry bald fat guys for "security."
How would we tell when straight couples had been exhausted so the homo could step in and adopt? Would there be a time line? Would it be based on the kids age, like 13-and-no-parents-yet so you can have gay ones? Could someone opposed to gays adopting just never exhaust the "possibilities", just take more applicants and never stop screening people who they know will fail anyway, but hey -- being an orphan is better than having gay parents, right?
What about inheritence? What about estates of the deceased? If a state doesnt allow gay marriage but does allow singles to adopt how would a single adoptee be any worse than gay one?
Personally, I'm glad i didnt have gay parents because I dont like Barbara Striesand, but I'm also a child of working-class divorcees. But if there seems to be too many orphans and not enough parents I don't see how this could be bad since letting gays adopt would not only make one less orphan but also keep them from having a surrogate mom get artificially pregnant for them, thus adding another head into the population.
Also, Should gay men be allowed to have abortions?
Also, this thread is gay.
but think about it.
a school full of relatively normal kids.
few fat 1's
few skinny 1's
a few from broken homes.
and one who has same sex parents.
Who do you think will be Bullied the most?
The fat one without a doubt.
Bullies generally don't go after the parents, they go after the kid.
So if the same sex kid is "normal" then they won't pick on him.
Fat kids are weak hence get picked on.
Major Robert Dump
01-13-2006, 12:30
YEAH BUT WHAT IF THE KID WITH GAY PARENTS IS ALSO THE FAT ONE? THEN HE WOULD BE PICKED ON BY THE OTHER FATTIES TOO!
One thing to consider is an age restriction for the adopted kid. I know I joked about it earlier, but a kid in late to mid teens is not going to have his/her home life under as much scrutiny as a bunch of 7 year olds whose life revolves around mommy and daddy, erm daddy and daddy. But I don't think there would be manuy gay couples who went for it because part of the joy of childrearing is raising the kid from a young age, and not many people want to adopt teenagers, its like you'd get all the worst and none of the fun
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 13:02
Well What if they adopt a 2 year old homophobe?
they wouldnt know untill he was old enough to tell em He thought they were scumm...
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 13:04
Guess I better state..
"I Do not think Homosexuals are scumm. before you start attacking me, It was just a question"
Adrian II
01-13-2006, 13:10
YEAH BUT WHAT IF THE KID WITH GAY PARENTS IS ALSO THE FAT ONE? THEN HE WOULD BE PICKED ON BY THE OTHER FATTIES TOO!What if the gay parents are fat and picked on by their natural kid, so they divorce and get picked on by adopted kids who want to be gay but aren't? :dizzy2:
I don't think it is a very good idea, kids should have a 'natural' view on sexuality the way it was meant, how confusing must it be to grow up in a way that many reject. One of my best friends is gay, and I talked it over with him numerous times, he would like to have kids one day but agrees with me. Call me conservative, but a kid needs a mom and a dad, we didn't beat bioligy in our golden century of science. I am sure it can work in some cases, but I think that anyone that risks faillure when kids are concerned is really doing it for himselve. Homosexual couples can't have children, that is the way the earth works.
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 18:24
Lets try the BLUNT aproach....
Would any of you Lot want 2 gay people as your parents?
Cos i would not.
Reenk Roink
01-13-2006, 18:26
Hehe "Lot" :laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
01-13-2006, 18:43
Call me conservative, but a kid needs a mom and a dad, we didn't beat bioligy in our golden century of science.
Kids also need siblings...and you'll find that is the "natural" way for things to happen. But I don't hear anyone trying to make having only one child illegal.
Just A Girl
01-13-2006, 18:45
Hehe "Lot" :laugh4:
Bit 2 blunt?
it try again...
How many of you People, Would want Gay parents?
I know i would not want any...
is that better :smile:
Reenk Roink
01-13-2006, 18:49
Very nicely done... :2thumbsup:
Kids also need siblings...and you'll find that is the "natural" way for things to happen. But I don't hear anyone trying to make having only one child illegal.
Yes that is true. I just wonder how a kid raised by a homosexual couple would look at sexuality, it must be confusing as hell and growing up is hard enough as it is. I don't think it should be illegal, freedom for all, I just don't think it is something that should be encouraged. If a homosexual couple wants to raise a kid, they better think it over and after that think it over again because it may be harmfull, we just don't really know now.
If we accept as a principle that being gay is good, because it's a personal election (or for other several causes that people differ), then why should it be an issue that the sons raised with gay parents will make them gay. I see no reason, even if they had that effect that people usually attach at them (usually by ignorance) it wouldn't be an issue wouldn't it?
Well actually.... If kids of gays have a higher chance of becoming homosexuals than 50%, they will after som time make up the majority of Earths population...
I don't think it is a very good idea, kids should have a 'natural' view on sexuality the way it was meant, how confusing must it be to grow up in a way that many reject. One of my best friends is gay, and I talked it over with him numerous times, he would like to have kids one day but agrees with me. Call me conservative, but a kid needs a mom and a dad, we didn't beat bioligy in our golden century of science. I am sure it can work in some cases, but I think that anyone that risks faillure when kids are concerned is really doing it for himselve. Homosexual couples can't have children, that is the way the earth works.
Well said. :bow: Until the day we only have one human gender, I will promote heterosexuality.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-13-2006, 20:15
Yes that is true. I just wonder how a kid raised by a homosexual couple would look at sexuality, it must be confusing as hell and growing up is hard enough as it is. I don't think it should be illegal, freedom for all, I just don't think it is something that should be encouraged. If a homosexual couple wants to raise a kid, they better think it over and after that think it over again because it may be harmfull, we just don't really know now.
Kids learn about heterosexuality from their peers, from movies and books. The thing they don't learn about easily is homosexuality. Kids raised by parents with liberal views on sexuality are going to be a lot less confused since they have someone to explain it to them. Kids confused about sexuality is a result of bad parenting, not the sexuality of their parents.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-13-2006, 20:18
I dont see why being gay should qualify you to adopt in the first place or is it the fact that there are two of them? In that case what has their sexual prefference got to do with it? Singles can also adopt. Personally Id rather be raised by a single parent than a homosexual couple and I think most kids would feel the same. Id also rather be raised by two straight people of the same sex than homosexual ones. How can so many of you just ignore common sense? Is there any doubt that children are best off when raised by a mother and a father all other things being equal?
Don Corleone
01-13-2006, 20:21
I'm amazed. 48 hours, and nobody has dragged out that ole Skeletor picture.
Watchman
01-13-2006, 20:26
I don't see why straight couples or single parents should have any sort of monopoly on raising their kids horribly wrong - when you look at it, they *do* hold the first place on "worst upbringing ever" on just about all categories now don't they ?
Given the track record perfectly straight parents around my family have I have a very hard time believing gays could do any worse (or would with any meaningfully higher frequency). I know I'd have been much better off overall if I never actually knew my father (or had to live with him for a decade), and I'm from the light end of the scale. "Nothing screws up a kid's life as well as parents," as my brother sums it.
Well actually.... If kids of gays have a higher chance of becoming homosexuals than 50%, they will after som time make up the majority of Earths population...Wouldn't that solve a whole lot of problems related to overpopulation in one go ? Sounds brilliant.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-13-2006, 20:32
Well actually.... If kids of gays have a higher chance of becoming homosexuals than 50%, they will after som time make up the majority of Earths population...
But it would be a much smaller population. In fact it may well be the end of mankind.
Wouldn't that solve a whole lot of problems related to overpopulation in one go ? Sounds brilliant.
Not if:
But it would be a much smaller population. In fact it may well be the end of mankind.
They have do adopt their childrens from somewhere; otherwise they of course come to a solution with the lesbians..
Gawain of Orkeny
01-13-2006, 20:50
They have do adopt their childrens from somewhere; otherwise they of course come to a solution with the lesbians..
If being raised by homosexuals caused more than half of the population to become gay how many babies do you think would be available to adopt? Also a population needs something like a 2.1 birth ratio to maintain itself. This would be hard to do with over 50% of the population not providing any children. Its the main reason homosexuality has been frowned upon all these centuries. Its called the survival of the species.
If being raised by homosexuals caused more than half of the population to become gay how many babies do you think would be available to adopt? Also a population needs something like a 2.1 birth ratio to maintain itself. This would be hard to do with over 50% of the population not providing any children. Its the main reason homosexuality has been frowned upon all these centuries. Its called the survival of the species.
It`s a self feeding circle, so theoritically, it ould have been the end of mankind, but it wouldn`t. With Lesbians and gays co-existant, children would be produced, but it would be a bizarre society.
The ratio is probably much lower than 50% anyway.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-13-2006, 21:01
With Lesbians and gays co-existant, children would be produced, but it would be a bizarre society.
The ratio is probably much lower than 50% anyway.
Then they would have to become bi sexual would they not?
Then they would have to become bi sexual would they not?
Not necessarily, it`s always the artificial way.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-13-2006, 21:10
Not necessarily, it`s always the artificial way.
So then the solution to all our problems is answered. Just eliminate all the males and save their sperm. No more arguments.:laugh4:
Are you sure bullying always happen?
Pretty, pretty, pretty sure I am, at least. Consider: a lot of fat kids are getting bully'd, now fat kids make a much higher percentage of society than "kids whose parents are homosexuals".
Just for the record, I didn't have time to read all 4 pages. Just around 3, so I might be a little off the convo; I'll just state my opinion tho'.
In this - as mention - opinion, I see a few major problems:
-The kids ARE (pretty surely) getting bullied, society - or "children society" - isn't that far. Really.
-The kids might think about what their lives are like and wonder why they don't have a mother/father of their own. Yes, wouldn't be a problem with a total shift of society neither, but there won't be one so soon, I guess.
-On the long term, if we made homosexuals less a minority, the west would die out even more than it does now. Not that I care, actually its not even a major point because we'll die anyway thanks to...*reminds himself not to start a U.S. bashing*
Anyway, I had other points prepared. But with a few more Glen Cook books (Black Company series) waiting, I'm not too encouraged to write a lot more. Maybe tomorrow...or the day after tomorrow. You get it ;)
Watchman
01-13-2006, 21:36
Well, developement-aid workers occasionally wonder just what could be achieved in Africa if the men were shipped off the continent for a couple of years...
The "end of mankind" scenario is so silly it's not even funny. Genes, being the selfish little buggers they are, are very keen on being passed on which in practice results, among other things, in the baseline "wiring" in humans and other animals with similar reproduction systems being very heavily in favour of heterosexuality - that's what produces the offspring, after all. Exclusive homosexuals are, when it comes down to it, a major deviation from the norm and theoretically a biological dead-end - but seeing as how they stubbornly keep popping up anyway, and most of the time in straight families, vulgar-hereditary ideas obviously aren't workable.
Most children find the very idea of their parents having sex with each other quite baffling to say in the least - even as adults (although from different reasons) - and something of a non-issue. Makes me seriously wonder if the parents' sexual orientation (obviously barring extreme cases) would have much effect on anyone anyway, and certainly if we're talking about *bad* parents it's quite irrelevant.
Although the world really could do with a peaceful way to reduce population growth when you think about it...
Watchman
01-13-2006, 21:39
Kids can always find some excuse to bully each other. Quite literally anything will do. Claiming that as an argument against same-sex parenthood is just silly.
Although the world really could do with a peaceful way to reduce population growth when you think about it...
Thank God education is another alternative....:juggle2:
Watchman
01-13-2006, 21:52
There's still way too many of us First World fat cats gobbling excessive amounts of resources, tho'.
Kids can always find some excuse to bully each other. Quite literally anything will do. Claiming that as an argument against same-sex parenthood is just silly.
Jesus, now I'm still sittin' here...
I disagree, not to say highly. Kids can not always find an excuse, granted some children are little worms having to get a boost for their ego no matter the price. But even "normal" kids will probably bully someone with same sex parents, don't even try to tell me that this isn't a major factor.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-13-2006, 22:00
Jesus, now I'm still sittin' here...
I disagree, not to say highly. Kids can not always find an excuse, granted some children are little worms having to get a boost for their ego no matter the price. But even "normal" kids will probably bully someone with same sex parents, don't even try to tell me that this isn't a major factor.
Anecdotal, but...
One of the students in my mom's class has two mothers, and she hasn't noticed any bullying. I was a "normal" kid and I would never have bullied someone for having same sex parents, I don't buy that argument at all.
Maybe an exception? Or it's because they're two mothers?
Watchman
01-13-2006, 22:17
That whole line of thinking looks suspiciously like it's de facto comparable to claiming people with bona fide metabolic issues that cause obesity shouldn't have kids because the little totters might inherit it and get bullied at school for being fat... Or bad eyes. Glasses get picked on, right ? Or, hey, when you think about it, nonstandard skin color...
I take you can see why I don't quite like the underlying tone here ? I reserve an amount of special loathing to the use of the argument "for the good of the children" as a blunt instrument against minorities.
To be quite frank, children can be quite the horrible little sadistic monsters that really do not need any "legit" motivations to pick on someone. Victims are bullied; the excuses get invented as necessary (I suspect more for the peace of mind and self-respect of the bullies themselves). Or, as one statesman once told his aide, "I make the decisions, you come up with the justifications".
I understand, aknowledge and agree with you to a certain extent. But still there's a difference between having to wear glasses and having 2 (fe)males as parents.Of course my whole argument is based on subjectivity, how else could it be? Maybe I could even find some loophole through which I could neglect your points or some other "complicated" method, or find some examples otherwise. But at the moment I'm not really in the mood nor do I have the nerve to think about it intensely. Do you know that when you feel something but you can't think of any reasons to do so momentarily? It's like that now, just that my brain is totally shut and I don't want to open it again today.
Maybe tomorrow :juggle2:
Watchman
01-13-2006, 22:41
All I'm saying is that I find it extremely unlikely gay couples can do their children, however exactly aquired, any more harm than straight ones can do to theirs. It's really that simple.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-14-2006, 01:11
Lets try this. Is there anyone here who if they had a choice would rather have homosexual rather than heterosexual parents all else being equal? How many here would rather have a dad and a dad rather than a mother and a father?
Goofball
01-14-2006, 01:14
Is there any doubt that children are best off when raised by a mother and a father all other things being equal?
Yes, there is.
I see no reason why a child raised by a gay couple who had a healthy family life, loved each other and the child, and had a solid financial situation would be any worse off than a child raised by a hetero couple in the same circumstances.
Goofball
01-14-2006, 01:18
Lets try this. Is there anyone here who if they had a choice would rather have homosexual rather than heterosexual parents all else being equal? How many here would rather have a dad and a dad rather than a mother and a father?
That's really not a fair question, because it involves somebody making the notional choice to "discard" one of their existing parents. I would not trade either of my parents for anything.
On the other hand, if I had been raised by two same-sex parents who treated me well, supported me and loved me, my answer would also be the same: I would not trade either of them for anything.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-14-2006, 01:23
I see no reason why a child raised by a gay couple who had a healthy family life, loved each other and the child, and had a solid financial situation would be any worse off than a child raised by a hetero couple in the same circumstances.
Because men and women are not the same and offer different types of love and nurturing. Almost all studies say that chidren are best raised by their biological parents. Adopted children dont do as well nevermind if their parents are homosexuals.
Same-sex parenting
is bad for kids (http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2002/february_06_2002.htm)
There is not a single published comparative study of the effects of homosexual foster care or adoption. Advocates of gay adoption can only cite studies on homosexual parenting. (page 127)
Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, many studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children, particularly the likelihood that children of homosexuals may become involved in homosexual behaviour themselves. (page 67)
In fact some researchers in favour of gay adoption even admit that such children are more likely to be homosexual. (pages 77, 78, 85ff)
Gender confusion seems to be rife with daughters of lesbian mothers. (page 78)
Studies commonly fail to test any hypothesis or use a proper control group. Sample sizes are so small that no deductions can be made. One study which was headlined as "Gay men make better fathers" did not even have any children in the study but merely asked opinions. (pages 55-56)
Evidence from around the world shows that the married family is the most successful child rearing environment. (Britain, USA, The Netherlands, New Zealand - see pages 87-90)
Pro-gay sociologists argue that gay adoption should go ahead despite the lack of evidence in support. (page 132)
Goofball
01-14-2006, 01:34
Because men and women are not the same and offer different types of love and nurturing.
Okay, I acknowledge and agree with that. But I don't believe that either of those differing (male or female) types of love and nurturing are biological (other than the obvious one: breastfeeding, but an adoptive mother wouldn't be able to offer that anyway); they are simply the result of societally imposed traditional male/female roles.
There is no reason why a woman can not perform traditional "male" nurturing roles (i.e. sporting activities, working on cars, etc.) and vice versa. And with most gay couples I know, the partners adopt very specific "wife" or "husband" roles in the relationship already, so it's not a big step for them to take on "mommy" or "daddy" roles.
Almost all studies say that chidren are best raised by their biological parents.
Agreed.
Adopted children dont do as well nevermind if their parents are homosexuals.
Agreed. But I don't think it would make a difference whether thei adoptive parents were gay or straight, all other things being equal.
EDIT:
Okay you went and slipped your article in after I had already replied. C'mon Gawain. You me to take seriosly an article on same-sex parenting from an outfit called "The Christian Institute?" You don't think they might have a bit of an axe to grind? Not to mention the fact that they only cite one source for all of their "conclusions," a single book written by a woman friendly to their cause.
Here's another article:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm
Quotation:
"...social science research on lesbigay family issues has become a rapid growth industry that incites passionate divisions." Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz 1
Summary:
With the exception of studies at a few universities with very close connections with conservative Christian denominations (like the Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, UT), essentially all research studies into same-sex parenting reveal that children of these families develop normally. There is some indication that boys are less sexually adventuresome, and that girls are more sexually daring. There are also anecdotal accounts of children having to endure ridicule, taunting and harassment from other youth because of their parents' sexual orientation.
Click below to visit one of our sponsors:
A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting:
1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .
Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.
There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.
1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14
2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They : Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."
Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."
Suggested a "less defensive, more sociologically informed analytic framework" for future studies in this area.
Comments on same-sex parenting by professional associations:
1976-SEP: American Psychological Association (APA): They issued a policy statement on child custody or placement which said: "The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural, or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases." 2
1998: The Child Welfare League of America: Their Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services states:
"Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation." Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted 'on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future.' " 3
1998-AUG-16: American Psychological Association (APA): They issued a statement titled "Legal Benefits for Same - Sex Couples" which said, in part:
"Whereas the scientific literature has found no significant difference between different-sex couples and same-sex couples that justify discrimination...";
"Whereas scientific research has not found significant psychological or emotional differences between the children raised in different-sex versus same-sex households..."
"Therefore, be it resolved, That APA supports the provision to same-sex couples of the legal benefits that typically accrue as a result of marriage to same-sex couples who desire and seek the legal benefits;..." 4
1998-MAR-14: North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC): The NACAC issued a policy statement which states:
"Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care and adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration regardless of sexual orientation or differing life style or physical appearance." 5
2000-MAY: American Psychiatric Association (APA): In their FactSHEET on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, they write:
"Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. children raised in gay or lesbian household do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality of gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems." 6
2001-APR: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) NARTH is a very small association of therapists, social workers, religious leaders, teachers, and anyone else who is interested in supporting NARTH, regardless of whether they have academic qualifications. Unlike all of the other mental-heath association in the U.S., they promote the concept that homosexuality abnormal, unnatural and changeable. It is regarded as a "failure to function according to design." 7 They believe that "Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex." Consistent with this stand, they take a dim view of same-sex marriage and parenting, stating that: "[Homosexuality]... threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage--a bond which is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children." They also stated: "And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families." 8
2002-FEB-4: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): The Dr. Ellen Perrin, led the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health at the AAP. They studied adoption by same-sex parents. Her prime task was to determine if there is a disadvantage conferred upon a child who is being raised by two men or two women, in comparison to the same child being raised by a man and woman. Perrin said: "We felt that the data were very conclusive that the answer to that question is 'no.' " Thus, the AAP will support legal and legislative efforts to allow adoption by gay and lesbian couples. Perrin said: "We — meaning basically the Academy of Pediatrics — felt that the research was conclusive enough when taken in its totality to support this policy." 9 An AAP news release of 2002-FEB-4 states:
"...there is a considerable body of professional literature that suggests children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual."
"Coparent or second-parent adoption protects a child's right to maintain continuing relationships with both parents in a same-sex relationship. Several states have considered or enacted legislation sanctioning coparent or second parent adoption by partners of the same sex. But other states have not yet considered legislative action, while at least one state bans adoptions altogether by the second parent or coparent in a same sex relationship." 10
They published a technical report in the 2002-FEB issue of Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed journal. The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT. "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes." 11
2002-JUN: The American Psychoanalytic Association endorsed same-sex parenting. It is the smallest of the three APA's which also include the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. According to Focus on the Family, they have "given unqualified endorsement to homosexual adoption and parenting. The group says sexual orientation shouldn't even be considered in legal decisions concerning parenting." The Association's statement says, in part: "Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child....[They should be] afforded the same rights and....responsibilities as heterosexual parents."
Chairperson Gary Grossman headed the committee which prepared the statement. He commented that it should "help judges, who may have their own biases for whatever reasons, to look at the evidence and listen to the professionals..."Optimally, children do better with two parents, but the gender of the parents is really not so relevant."
Sasaki Kojiro
01-14-2006, 01:38
Lets try this. Is there anyone here who if they had a choice would rather have homosexual rather than heterosexual parents all else being equal? How many here would rather have a dad and a dad rather than a mother and a father?
If the dad and dad were better parents than the mom and dad, then yes of course...
If the dad and dad were better parents than the mom and dad, then yes of course...
Ok, what if they were equal though?
Sasaki Kojiro
01-14-2006, 01:51
Ok, what if they were equal though?
Whoever asks first.
Watchman
01-14-2006, 01:52
Just out of curiosity, is there any *other* argument against it than the rather worn "it's bad for the kids", which far as I can tell has been pretty popular an argument against some very diverse things over the decades and all too often, in the end, baselessly ?
Samurai Waki
01-14-2006, 02:06
I still get this odd feeling like everyone still thinks that it's 1950 and Truman is fighting the Soviets because of it being a moral obligation. Kids are taught to hate from their parents, if their parents don't like it, then their kids won't like it, thats why we still have racists in the US, and it's because our parents (or grandparents) were taught to distrust blacks because they might dirty the gene pool. However, it's not 1950, and by and large most kids learn to co-exist with kids of other race, as long as their parents feel it is adequate. If a kid's parent said they "hate homosexuals" then that kid would have a reason to bully the other kid. When I was in gradeschool, one of the kids I hung out with was raised by two moms (I.E. They were Lesbians), nobody really cared, because nobody made it an issue, and we liked the kid. Fifteen Years later, He's still straight, and happily married...where is the evidence that being a homosexual makes you a bad parent? I think being a bad Parent makes you a bad parent, gay or straight.
Just A Girl
01-14-2006, 02:10
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.
Its diferent when its men....
I really would not want 2 gay men as my parents.
Reenk Roink
01-14-2006, 02:14
Hehe ShambleS, you have got to have the funniest things to say on the ORG :laugh4:.
Just A Girl
01-14-2006, 02:17
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality.
Taken from. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
Ive Spoiler coded Most of the Article. Saves scrolling for others.
Homosexual activists attempt to portray their lifestyle as normal and healthy, and insist that homosexual relationships are the equivalent in every way to their heterosexual counterparts. Hollywood and the media relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual. The reality is quite opposite to this caricature which was recently conceded by the homosexual newspaper New York Blade News:
Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness.[1]
Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable stds. In addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:
Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other stds, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.
· According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting "always" using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.[2]
· The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.[3]
Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
· A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv "continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV."[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.[5]
· A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.[6]
Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.
· A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.[7]
· A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another cdc study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex--the riskiest sexual behavior--in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.[8]
Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
· A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[9]
· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10]
· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[12]
Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" typically means something radically different from marriage.
· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]
· In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]
Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.
· The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
· The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[16]
Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital warts.
· HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV."[17]
· HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies."[18]
· The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr. Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in Human Pathology in Paris, the Washington Blade reports that "HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women."[19]
Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.
· Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC reports: "Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world."[20]
· Hepatitis B: This is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Each year in the United States, more than 200,000 people of all ages contract hepatitis B and close to 5,000 die of sickness caused by AIDS. The CDC reports that MSM are at increased risk for hepatitis B.[21]
· Hepatitis C is an inflammation of the liver that can cause cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. The virus can lie dormant in the body for up to thirty years before flaring up. Although less so than with hepatitis A and B, MSM who engage in unsafe sexual practices remain at increased risk for contracting hepatitis C.[22]
Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. Gonorrhea traditionally occurs on the genitals, but has recently appeared in the rectal region and in the throat. Although easily treated by antibiotics, according to the cdc only "about 50 percent of men have some signs or symptoms, and "many women who are infected have no symptoms of infection."[23] Untreated gonorrhea can have serious and permanent health consequences, including infertility damage to the prostate and urethra.
· A CDC report documents "significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM," indicating that "safe sex" practices may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[24] In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]
· The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that "gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals)."[26] Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea--15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for heterosexual men.[27]
Syphilis: A venereal disease that, if left untreated, can spread throughout the body over time, causing serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, and death. The initial symptoms of syphilis are often mild and painless, leading some individuals to avoid seeking treatment. According to the National Institutes of Health, the disease may be mistaken for other common illnesses: "syphilis has sometimes been called 'the great imitator' because its early symptoms are similar to those of many other diseases." Early symptoms include rashes, moist warts in the groin area, slimy white patches in the mouth, or pus-filled bumps resembling chicken pox.[28]
· According to the CDC, "transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex."[29] In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.[30]
· The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: "It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring hiv infection when syphilis is present."[31]
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[32] The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as "sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes."[33] Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system: According to the pro-homosexual text Anal Pleasure and Health, "[s]exual activities provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a sexual partner . . . The most direct route is oral-anal contact."[34]
· Proctitis and Proctocolitis are inflammations of the rectum and colon that cause pain, bloody rectal discharge and rectal spasms. Proctitis is associated with STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis that are widespread among homosexuals.[35] The Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "[p]roctitis occurs predominantly among persons who participate in anal intercourse."
· Enteritis is inflammation of the small intestine. According to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "enteritis occurs among those whose sexual practices include oral-fecal contact."[36] Enteritis can cause abdominal pain, severe cramping, intense diarrhea, fever, malabsorption of nutrients, weight loss.[37] According to a report in The Health Implications of Homosexuality by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, some pathogens associated with enteritis and proctocolitis [see below] "appear only to be sexually transmitted among men who have sex with men."[38]
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.
· Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men and inject drugs" together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.[39]
· Women risk contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual relations with infected MSM. According to the CDC, "HIV infection among U.S. women has increased significantly over the last decade, especially in communities of color. cdc estimates that, in the United States, between 120,000 and 160,000 adult and adolescent females are living with HIV infection, including those with AIDS." In 1999, for example, most of the women (40 percent) reported with AIDS were infected through heterosexual exposure to HIV.[40] That number is actually higher, as "historically, more than two-thirds of AIDS cases among women initially reported without identified risk were later reclassified as heterosexual transmission."[41]
· Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other life-threatening diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have "a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer."[42]
HIV/AIDS Among Young People
· AIDS incidence is on the rise among teens and young adults. The CDC reports that, "even though AIDS incidence (the number of new cases diagnosed during a given time period, usually a year) is declining, there has not been a comparable decline in the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among youth.[43]
· Young homosexual men are at particular risk. The CDC estimates that "at least half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under twenty-five, and the majority of young people are infected sexually."[44] By the end of 1999, 29,629 young people aged thirteen to twenty-four were diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. MSM were the single largest risk category: in 1999, for example, 50 percent of all new AIDS cases were reported among young homosexuals.[45]
· Sexually active young women are also at risk. The CDC reports: "In 1999, among young women the same age, 47 percent of all AIDS cases reported were acquired heterosexually and 11 percent were acquired through injection drug use."
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies of MSM treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent in major cities.[46] A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having high numbers of anonymous sex partners: "[S]yphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs."[47] The CDC report concluded: "Persons with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection."[48]
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
· Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."[49]
· At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."[50]
Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM
· Many Lesbians also have had sex with men. The homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade, citing a 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, reported that "the study's data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men."[51] The study added that "sex with men in the prior year was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that possibly could transmit HPV."[52]
· Lesbians have more male sex partners that their heterosexual counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: "Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman's sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of 'lesbian' women reporting sex with (often high risk) men."[53] The study found that "the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners."[54]
· A study in the American Journal of Public Health concurs that bisexual women are at increased risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases: "Our findings corroborate the finding that wsmw (women who have sex with men and women) are more likely than WSMO (women who have sex with men only) to engage in various high-risk behaviors" and also "to engage in a greater number of risk-related behaviors."[55] The study suggested that the willingness to engage in risky sexual practices "could be tied to a pattern of sensation-seeking behavior."[56]
· MSM spread HIV to women. A five-year study by the CDC of 3,492 homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one in six also had sex with women. Of those having sex with women, one-quarter "said they recently had unprotected sex with both men and women." Nearly 7 percent of the men in the study were HIV positive."[57] "The study confirms that young bisexual men are a 'bridge' for HIV transmission to women," said the CDC.[58]
"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk. The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false. The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: "The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW was similar to all WSW."[59] One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."[60]
Cancer Risk Factors for Lesbians. Citing a 1999 report released by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade notes that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight."[61] Elsewhere the Blade also reports: "Some experts believe Lesbians might be more likely than women in general to develop breast or cervical cancer because a disproportionate number of them fall into high-risk categories."[62]
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Lesbians
· In a study of the medical records of 1,408 lesbians, the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections found that women who have sexual relations with womenare at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: "We demonstrated a higher prevalence of bv (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls."[63]
Compulsive Behavior among Lesbians. A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors: "Like most problem drinkers, 32 (91 percent) of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34 percent), codependency (29 percent), sex (11 percent), and money (6 percent)." In addition, "Forty-six percent had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."[64]
Alcohol Abuse Among Homosexuals and Lesbians
· The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.[65] Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent).[66]
· Although the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists article found no significant connection between male homosexuals and alcohol abuse, a study in Family Planning Perspective concluded that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."[67] The study noted that problem drinking may contribute to the "significantly higher STD rates among gay and bisexual men."[68]
Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.
· A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]
· In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[70]
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[71]
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]
· A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,
It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.[73]
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:
Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.[74]
Greater Risk for Suicide.
· A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry,found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.[75]
· Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as "gay," lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems.[76] Significantly, in his comments on the studies in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that "widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill."[77]
Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexualsconcluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[78]
In 1995, long after the deadly effects of AIDS and other stds became widely known, homosexual author Urvashi Vaid expressed one of the goals of her fellow activists: "We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item."[79] Debilitating illness, chronic disease, psychological problems, and early death suffered by homosexuals is the legacy of this tragically misguided activism, which puts the furthering of an "agenda" above saving the lives of those whose interests they purport to represent.
Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens. --
Just A Girl
01-14-2006, 02:21
Hehe ShambleS, you have got to have the funniest things to say on the ORG :laugh4:.
Lol.
Well thanx for that vote of confidence.
But ive gotten in trouble for My "humour"
And im sure there are funnyer people than me :)
All i do is watch people set things Up then i go cick em over for the Points.
I still get this odd feeling like everyone still thinks that it's 1950 and Truman is fighting the Soviets because of it being a moral obligation. Kids are taught to hate from their parents, if their parents don't like it, then their kids won't like it, thats why we still have racists in the US, and it's because our parents (or grandparents) were taught to distrust blacks because they might dirty the gene pool. However, it's not 1950, and by and large most kids learn to co-exist with kids of other race, as long as their parents feel it is adequate. If a kid's parent said they "hate homosexuals" then that kid would have a reason to bully the other kid. When I was in gradeschool, one of the kids I hung out with was raised by two moms (I.E. They were Lesbians), nobody really cared, because nobody made it an issue, and we liked the kid. Fifteen Years later, He's still straight, and happily married...where is the evidence that being a homosexual makes you a bad parent? I think being a bad Parent makes you a bad parent, gay or straight.
That was one instance. That proves nothing.
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-14-2006, 04:30
Well, seeing as potential adoptive parents are considered on a case by case basis, I don't see what relevance the fact that certain STDs are far more prevalent amongst gay people has. If the parents-gay or straight-are out having unprotected sex and shooting up every night, they don't get to adopt, it's as simple as that.
The fact that these behaviours are more prevalent amongst the gay community does not mean that all homosexuals indulge in them, nor does it mean those that don't should be punished by being unable to adopt.
Have you adopted a child? How's your child? I was just having a conversation with a buddy of mine and he's basically saying that gay people shouldn't adopt kids because the kids might turn gay or become 'abnormal.' I agree. The Gay couple (nee' parents) may imprint their behaviour unto the child. That's not good because a homosexual do not normally reproduce.
Samurai Waki
01-14-2006, 05:16
That was one instance. That proves nothing.
BS. It proves that you have an agenda and people can co-exist as long as you're educated.
Weebeast
01-14-2006, 06:21
Lets try this. Is there anyone here who if they had a choice would rather have homosexual rather than heterosexual parents all else being equal? How many here would rather have a dad and a dad rather than a mother and a father?
Of course as a 'clueless' child, I would consider to live with whoever shows love to me the most, in this case it could be the gay parents. I still don't get breast-fed anyway, do I? It doesn't really matter really. My dad died when I was little. I've witnessed my mom being capable of being a father figure (she does boy-talk and all that). Yeah, I was raised in a very unorthodox environment. I and people around me don't see if there's anything 'wrong' with me.
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.
Its diferent when its men....
I really would not want 2 gay men as my parents
LOL Yeah, Girls Gone Wild is a must-watch but Boys Gone Wild is a no-no.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-14-2006, 06:32
Of course as a 'clueless' child, I would consider to live with whoever shows love to me the most, in this case it could be the gay parents.
Why? Again your talking one case here. The question is are you the exception or the norm? Common sense says your the exception.
BS. It proves that you have an agenda and people can co-exist as long as you're educated.
Unforunately not everyone is educated and never will be. I have an agenda? I really have no idea what you are talking about.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-14-2006, 07:49
That was one instance. That proves nothing.
You haven't provided any instances for your side of it ~:handball:
And it isn't one instance, because there is more than 1 other student in the class. For every student who came in contact with this student you can add another instance of someone not bullying. When you add in my example we have enough instances for it to be statistically significant.
I don't see why the child even has to reveal that they have two parents of the same sex...
Gawain of Orkeny
01-14-2006, 08:02
I don't see why the child even has to reveal that they have two parents of the same sex...
How would you keep it a secret? :juggle2:
Samurai Waki
01-14-2006, 08:15
Unforunately not everyone is educated and never will be. I have an agenda? I really have no idea what you are talking about.
I just wanted to see your reaction actually, I've been watching to much O'reilly factor.
Watchman
01-14-2006, 11:14
"Kids of gay couples get bullied" is a straw man argument anyway, even if one assumes it to be categorically true - because the problem there isn't the victims having gay parents, but being bullied for it. Now, children, how does one go about reducing such discriminatory hostility ? Hint: it has nothing to do with the victims and very much with their tormentors, or rather their education and suchlike.
I find such simple instances of not seeing the wood behind the trees a glaring indication of a clear and present bias, personally.
The Gay couple (nee' parents) may imprint their behaviour unto the child. That's not good because a homosexual do not normally reproduce.And what's with this anyway ? Humans are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to reproduce if they don't feel like it. And you know what ? It doesn't matter a jack because there's never been and never will be any shortage of others willing to pick up the slack, entirely regardless of their qualifications (or lack thereof) for it. Species are built that way.
As an interesting side note, did you know that back in the day the reactionary/misogynist crowd was also extremely concerned about the reproductive function of women, and very commonly used arguments stemming from that to oppose various initiatives of women's empowerement and suffrage ? And don't even try to tell me this is a coincidence.
Just A Girl
01-14-2006, 14:06
Iv asked this Twice already...
And Not 1 of you has answerd truthfuly YET.
Would You LIke to Have 2 Gay men as your Adopetd Parents. When You could have a Hetro sexual couple??
I beleve the answer to That Is So obious that You guys refuse to answer it,
I know for a Fact I would not want 2 gay men as my Parents.
Would You LIke to Have 2 Gay men as your Adopetd Parents. When You could have a Hetro sexual couple??
If the 2 gay guys are better then I say them.
As long as they are good parents I don't care.
Ianofsmeg16
01-14-2006, 17:07
Iv asked this Twice already...
And Not 1 of you has answerd truthfuly YET.
Would You LIke to Have 2 Gay men as your Adopetd Parents. When You could have a Hetro sexual couple??
I beleve the answer to That Is So obious that You guys refuse to answer it,
I know for a Fact I would not want 2 gay men as my Parents.
I'm going to be honest aswell, I myself have nothing agaisnt gays, but a great many of my friends do, so no, would not like a gay couple as my adopted parents. I would lead a miserable life, not through any fault of the parents, but because of how heirarchies dominate todays youth :shame:
Mongoose
01-14-2006, 17:37
A related problem: What if the child in question refuses to be raised by a Gay couple? What it doesn't want to be taken in by a couple of a different race? should the child have any say?
"Is a post made entirely of question annoying?"
-Big John
Sasaki Kojiro
01-14-2006, 18:02
Iv asked this Twice already...
And Not 1 of you has answerd truthfuly YET.
Would You LIke to Have 2 Gay men as your Adopetd Parents. When You could have a Hetro sexual couple??
I beleve the answer to That Is So obious that You guys refuse to answer it,
I know for a Fact I would not want 2 gay men as my Parents.
Apparently I was being untruthful?
You have to keep in mind that a baby would not have your prejudices.
Just A Girl
01-14-2006, 18:05
Apparently I was being untruthful?
You have to keep in mind that a baby would not have your prejudices.
Sorry,
i hadnt relized any 1 had even Awerd the question at all.
i must have missed your responce.
Mongoose
01-14-2006, 18:10
A baby? No. But a 10 year old on the other hand...
The Stranger
01-14-2006, 18:23
that surely is a point...not to mention his friends but i still dont mind gays adopting a child...as long as they have thought it over but is also for straght people getting or adopting a child
You haven't provided any instances for your side of it ~:handball:
And it isn't one instance, because there is more than 1 other student in the class. For every student who came in contact with this student you can add another instance of someone not bullying. When you add in my example we have enough instances for it to be statistically significant.
I don't see why the child even has to reveal that they have two parents of the same sex...
You also forget about all those students who have been bullied because they had gay parents or were influenced by their parents.
Samurai Waki
01-14-2006, 19:14
Where's your statistic? where's your evidence? Hear Say? Or is it just personal opinion?
Watchman
01-14-2006, 20:46
I've a bit of an issue with fathers in general, and quite possibly to the point of being unwilling to become one myself although this remains to be seen, so I will have to say no to the "gay daddies" inquiry. But not because they're gay. And seeing as how I got bullied at school in spite of not having gay parents, I don't really have anything to lose in that departement anyway...
I find the concept of two mothers much more palatable, mainly because personal experience hasn't probably irrecoverably soured my view on them. And I'd incidentally rather prefer either a lesbian pair or a single woman as adopted parents over hetero couples...
doc_bean
01-14-2006, 23:16
Would You LIke to Have 2 Gay men as your Adopetd Parents. When You could have a Hetro sexual couple??
I wouldn't mind.
But it really depends on who you're talking about, maybe gays have 1% more chance of screwing up a kid, parents who get a divorce have 10% more chance, parents who practice SM a 15% more chance, a parent who is a pedophile 100% more chance, etc.
It's hard to say how something will influence a child and to what amount, it depends on so many things, not all even related to the parents.
The whole bullying point is rather dumb too, I was the fat kid with glasses in elementary school (possibly not fat to today's standards, but pretty big in the day, and there was only one other kid with glasses in the school), I got picked on for it occasionally, but I still had lots of friends, and over all, a great time. I never hated school because i was 'different'.
In high school at a certain point quite a few people thought I was gay, I don't remember why, but I didn't get upset about it and only denied being gay when actually asked. By the logic of this thread I should have been almost beaten to death, yet I was fine, no one bothered me.
The point ? The circumstances and the environment you grow up in matter a lot. It's also important how you (or the virtual kid of this thread) deal with things, almost nothing makes you a sure victim.
And another question, who would you rather be raised by ? The crazy religious woman from Trading Spouses and her husband or two loving, rather liberal, gay men ?
Reenk Roink
01-14-2006, 23:20
Where's your statistic? where's your evidence? Hear Say? Or is it just personal opinion?
Now don't completely disregard his anecdote, at my school, calling someone "gay" or a "fag" is very common. The two openly gay kids currently at my school are mocked like crazy...
Alexanderofmacedon
01-14-2006, 23:24
Well, I'm sure we could all agree, that if the world was more open to this sort of thing, it would be a lot easier.:juggle2:
Now don't completely disregard his anecdote, at my school, calling someone "gay" or a "fag" is very common. The two openly gay kids currently at my school are mocked like crazy...
Yes, I have a few openly gay ones at my school too. I'd say 80% of the kids aren;t to pleasant to them.
So yes, I'd say it's personal experience and opinion.
Reenk Roink
01-15-2006, 00:00
Well, I'm sure we could all agree, that if the world was more open to this sort of thing, it would be a lot easier.:juggle2:
True, but the fact is it isn't and whether some people may think is right or wrong becomes irrelevant...
My state (Michigan) voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marraige. Most folks aren't too happy with it being around.
Yes, I have a few openly gay ones at my school too. I'd say 80% of the kids aren;t to pleasant to them.
So yes, I'd say it's personal experience and opinion.
Exactly, and by the way, don't think it's because "what mom or dad says" or because it's just filled with "crazy fundies" as kids are quite mean to others intent on keeping their virginity.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-15-2006, 00:21
Now don't completely disregard his anecdote, at my school, calling someone "gay" or a "fag" is very common. The two openly gay kids currently at my school are mocked like crazy...
...openly gay, not with gay parents.
Reenk Roink
01-15-2006, 00:42
Ok, how 'bout all the disses the child would recieve about his dads...?
How would he be able to invite his friends over to his house, especially as he gets older, if current trends remain...?
Teenagers especially are embarrased by their normal heterosexual parents all the time, think about that with gay parents...
Kanamori
01-15-2006, 00:51
So, gay couples adopting children should be banned, because it may give children a reason to be made fun of. When will glasses be banned too?
Reenk Roink
01-15-2006, 01:36
So, gay couples adopting children should be banned, because it may give children a reason to be made fun of. When will glasses be banned too?
When did I ever say anything about being banned, I'm simply not seeing it in the same Black & White situation as many others here are...
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-15-2006, 02:26
Iv asked this Twice already...
And Not 1 of you has answerd truthfuly YET.
Would You LIke to Have 2 Gay men as your Adopetd Parents. When You could have a Hetro sexual couple??
I beleve the answer to That Is So obious that You guys refuse to answer it,
I know for a Fact I would not want 2 gay men as my Parents.
The problem with this question is that, having all (mostly) been raised by a mother and a father, it's impossible for any of us to answer it without being biased.
As it's all I've ever known, I couldn't imagine not having one male and one female parent, but that means nothing, really. I'm sure if I'd been raised by two men, I couldn't imagine having a heterosexual mother and father.
Samurai Waki
01-15-2006, 02:30
Now don't completely disregard his anecdote, at my school, calling someone "gay" or a "fag" is very common. The two openly gay kids currently at my school are mocked like crazy...
Most kids call people gay, fag, queer just because they really have no idea what they're talking about. Generally Kids are homophobic for whatever reason...I don't even know if educating them would necessarily help, however in the long run, most people generally grow to at least accept it, or turn their cheek to it. Most people that are openly defiant towards homosexuality score quite high on the 'Peter Meter' when they are tested on their reactions towards Gay Porn.:laugh4:
Watchman
01-15-2006, 02:51
Kids, and for that matter their parents, used to have those sorts of attitudes towards different religious groups (heck, it's not that long since stark religious intolerance was both the norm and considered virtuous...), skin colors, ethnic backgrounds (in the case skin color doesn't work), social classes, parts of the city, the village on the other side of the river, the next city block... many of which have been reasonably succesfully educated out of circulation and been made socially unacceptable.
Anyone care to explain why homophobia would be so much different from other forms of narrow-mindedness ?
Gawain of Orkeny
01-15-2006, 05:01
Anyone care to explain why homophobia would be so much different from other forms of narrow-mindedness ?
Anyone care to explain why calling someone homophobe would be so much different from other forms of narrow-mindedness ?
Watchman
01-15-2006, 05:09
Aren't people who're afraid of/loathe spiders called arachnophobes ?
Don't try to play silly games with me.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-15-2006, 05:24
Aren't people who're afraid of/loathe spiders called arachnophobes ?
Don't try to play silly games with me.
Whos afraid of or loathes gays here?
Don't try to play silly games with me.
Homophobe and Neo Con are two of the most missused terms on these boards and are bandied about all to freely.
Watchman
01-15-2006, 05:31
Well excuse me for using such a nasty and misused term. If you happen to know a better word, do tell as I'm always open to more convenient words instead of long clunky half-sentences for use when referring to things.
Now did you have a point ? Because your argumentation sounds suspiciously like the "isn't calling racists, racists, intolerance of different opinions" line which I have no time for.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-15-2006, 05:38
Whos afraid of or loathes gays here?
Don't try to play silly games with me.
Homophobe and Neo Con are two of the most missused terms on these boards and are bandied about all to freely.
Don't take the definition so literally. We don't have a word for "prejudiced against or disliking homosexuals".
Gawain of Orkeny
01-15-2006, 05:46
Don't take the definition so literally. We don't have a word for "prejudiced against or disliking homosexuals".
Then dont use homophobe in its place. Watchmans post insinuates that those who oppose gay marriage or adoption are homophobes and therefore narrow minded. How is it only those who dont agree with liberal ideas are labled narrow minded?
AntiochusIII
01-15-2006, 06:11
GAH! FLAME WAR! GAH!
*puts on Vanya's arquebus hat*
I can't believe this ridiculous thread would continue for six pages, starting from somebody asking a gay parent for experience.
And did anyone notice no gays are in this thread yet?
Wait...
And did anyone notice no one who admits he's gay are in this thread yet?
~;) Hello Peter.
Talking about the gay experience...
In high school at a certain point quite a few people thought I was gay, I don't remember why, but I didn't get upset about it and only denied being gay when actually asked. By the logic of this thread I should have been almost beaten to death, yet I was fine, no one bothered me.Touche (plagiarized from Reenk Roink).
I was thought to be gay by some people once, I have yet to be bullied.
What is this bullying-because-your-daddy-and-daddy-is-gay thing again?
And do you know that many kids simply don't know the meaning of fag? And that many kids bully each other for all sorts of bloody insane reasons that could drive a teenager like me to gets a certain desire to strangle them for their evil intolerance? (Of course, parents won't do that, and I've never done that.) What's the point of banning gay kids, or kids with gay parents (which, by the way, are different) alone when we should be doing that on anime geeks, Trekkies, nerds, kids-with-big-glasses, uncools, those who hate sports, etc.? After all, someone in ALL these categories are bullied to a certain extent.
...
I know! Let's solve prejudice by locking the misunderstood ones somewhere else so the public won't have to be bothered! Wahaha! Stupid anime geeks! Die, or at least go to Japan and don't return! :no:
Would You LIke to Have 2 Gay men as your Adopetd Parents. When You could have a Hetro sexual couple??How about...I won't exchange anybody for my parents?
What we really need here is a real example of such a kid posting his opinions. Assuming that (s)he's gonna go through the Seven Planes of Hell for having two same-sex parental figures, and then decide that your opinion is to prevent that based on your dreams in the clouds alone is sooooo like the Mothers Against Gays and other Moral Majority (i.e. "Religious Right") phenomenon.
Alexanderofmacedon
01-15-2006, 06:15
Didn't really read the thread too carefully, but if you guys are trying to say Gawain is a homophobe, then you're dead, dead wrong.
Gawain stick in there man.:shame:
Reenk Roink
01-15-2006, 06:29
Yeah seriously, first of all, getting into a flame war is bad enough, especially considering the fact that both sides follow their own conjectures of what is right and wrong, and that no one is yet certain of what is...
Secondly ... :gah2:
. How is it only those who dont agree with liberal ideas are labled narrow minded?
:bow: :2thumbsup:
Samurai Waki
01-15-2006, 08:07
How is it only those who dont agree with liberal ideas are labled narrow minded?
Ah. The Question is...how is it not narrow minded to believe that Liberal Ideas attempt to point the finger at ideas that conservatives don't agree with?
See. Liberals can play the pointing game too.
Anyways...I think this thread has probably ran it's course in usefulness...it's just emotions and temper taking control now.
Ah. The Question is...how is it not narrow minded to believe that Liberal Ideas attempt to point the finger at ideas that conservatives don't agree with?
See. Liberals can play the pointing game too.
There you go with ur liberal trickery! Spell it out.
Watchman
01-15-2006, 12:57
How is it only those who dont agree with liberal ideas are labled narrow minded?Probably because "liberal" ideas tend to be the emancipatory let-every-flower-bloom ones ? ~:pat:
Now are we going to play the Silly Game much longer ? :focus:
Well, I'm sure we could all agree, that if the world was more open to this sort of thing, it would be a lot easier.:juggle2:
Ideally, it wouldn`t been any children needing to be adopted at all. Lesbians wouldn`t be a political issue, since they are able to get children anyway.
Reenk Roink
01-16-2006, 01:07
I was thought to be gay by some people once, I have yet to be bullied.
What is this bullying-because-your-daddy-and-daddy-is-gay thing again?
Gah, really now, I never said "bullied" I said mocked, and I know what I saw...
My word apparently isn't good...:shame:
youre either born gay or straight, end of
I disagree, I don't believe anyone is born gay. "Technically" gays are a freak of nature, so I cant understand how they would be born gay.
Watchman
01-16-2006, 03:48
People get born sterile, with an odd number of extremities, *really* odd genetic foul-ups, ambidexterity, or one or more of a gazillion other things. Given that homosexual behaviour has been observed among other animals too (and not all that rarely either), I'd say it's pretty far from the strange end.
If you absolutely must, consider it a minor and not particularly severe "glitch" in the behavioral wiring of the brain. Some like blue, some red; kinda the same thing.
Although personally I'm against such "medicalization" of the phenomenom, that does make a passable comparision.
Besides, since most homosexuals are born to straight parents and raised by them (well, duh), it pretty certainly isn't the nurture that does it...
Gawain of Orkeny
01-16-2006, 04:54
If you absolutely must, consider it a minor and not particularly severe "glitch" in the behavioral wiring of the brain. Some like blue, some red; kinda the same thing.
Except that if everyone liked blue the human race would still go on.:idea2: If everyone were gay that would be a serious glitch.
Papewaio
01-16-2006, 05:00
And how happy would the one non-gay guy be?
Or the gay guy who doesn't dress nice, is a slob, unemployed, who just happens to want sexual relief from anyone and hence has sex with females... opposite scenario to sailors on a long voyage/ prisoners / the Smurfs... then you will get a next generation.
As long as the strategy bears fruit it will be a valid strategy. Multiple generations do not require that all the members of the previous generation be straight, it doesn't even require them all to be fertile. It just requires some of them to reproduce.
Duke John
01-16-2006, 11:14
I have seen the argument of "children of gay couples will become gay themselves" being written quite a few times in this thread and it was never supported by the results of researches. I did a quick google and came up with this (it was the most trustworthy looking):
From the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/boyscout.html#nature
In which is written:
2. Sexual and gender development
Research into the three aspects of sexual identity -- gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation -- consistently demonstrates no differences between children of gay or lesbian parents and children of heterosexual parents. Research involving children of gay fathers indicates that these children develop gender role identifications (self-identification as male or female) that are consistent with their biological sex. Similarly, comparisons of children raised by lesbian and heterosexual mothers found no appreciable differences. Most children in both groups identified with their biological sex and indicated satisfaction with their gender. Likewise, the comparisons revealed no appreciable differences in gender role behavior (tendency to engage in activities traditionally regarded as masculine or feminine).
Research indicates that the same prevalence rates for heterosexuality and homosexuality holds for children of gay and lesbian parents as for children of only heterosexual parents. For example, a study of 82 sons (17 years or older) of 55 gay or bisexual fathers concluded that 91 percent of those whose sexual orientation could be rated were heterosexual. Furthermore, the sons' sexual orientations were unrelated to the amount of time they spent living with their fathers, the frequency of their contact with their fathers, the degree to which they accepted their father's sexual orientation or the quality of the father-son relationship. Another study of 40 gay fathers and their children determined that, of the 21 sons who were old enough for sexual orientation to be assessed, only one was gay. These findings corroborate other research indicating that the sexual orientation of the father or the relationship between child and gay father is not predictive with respect to the child's sexual orientation.
Similarly, studies of children raised by lesbian mothers have found that these children “are generally no more likely than their peers from heterosexual mother families to identify themselves as gay or lesbian or to be attracted to someone of the same gender.” Thus, researchers have concluded: “The truth is that most children of homosexual men and women turn out to be heterosexual.” A reverse study of the sexual orientation of 702 parents of gay men and lesbians revealed that 90 percent of the parents were heterosexual, 4 percent were bisexual, and only 6 percent were homosexual.
A link to a document about the research:
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/apgl/documents/sons.rtf
So please drop the overdramatized argument of the human population failing when gay people are allowed to adopt children.
Watchman
01-16-2006, 15:33
Except that if everyone liked blue the human race would still go on.:idea2: If everyone were gay that would be a serious glitch.Oh for... :wall:
Gawain, please. I know you're not stupid, so why do you persist in spouting this kind of idiocy ? And you said it yourself - if. But it isn't and never will be, as homosexuality isn't some kind of highly contagious viral ailment. It's an inborn predisposition, about the same way some like thin people and some like fat people or some like cats and some like dogs. Case closed, now stop spouting rubbish and wasting my time and patience.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-16-2006, 16:46
It's an inborn predisposition, about the same way some like thin people and some like fat people or some like cats and some like dogs. Case closed, now stop spouting rubbish and wasting my time and patience.
First off stop with the insults. Secondly wheres your proof of your claims? I could say the same of pedophiles, murderers, people into beastiality or even something like preffering blondes. The case is far from closed. Now stop spouting rubbish and wasting my time and patience.
I have seen the argument of "children of gay couples will become gay themselves" being written quite a few times in this thread and it was never supported by the results of researches. I did a quick google and came up with this (it was the most trustworthy looking):
From the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/boyscout.html#nature
In which is written:
If you go back to my first post you will see that no real study has ever been done that supports this.
Watchman
01-16-2006, 17:12
First off stop with the insults.Believe me, I'm trying very hard to remain civil. But it remains a fact that statements like "if everyone were gay the human race would be in trouble", while per se probably true, are in practice nothing short of absurd and only serve to demonstrate the prejudices of the people issuing them, as well as their willingess to let those prejudices overrule all perspective, analytical ability and whatever might be known of basic demographics.
Homosexuals are a tiny demographic minority. Even in the hypotethical case that having homosexuals as your bilogical or adoptive parents would make you more likely to turn out that way yourself, the minority would not grow meaningfully larger - you'd need every gay-raised kid turn out gay on the top of all the ones who pop up spontaneously, and a large number of the former at that to begin with, for the tiny minority to swell even into an insignificant minority. As far as the long-term demographic prospects of entire nations go, all that is utterly irrelevant. Odds are reproductive issues caused by smoking and drinking are far more significant.
In short, as an argument anything along *those* lines goes firmly under the category of "mean and stupid" along the classic anti-refugee line "they come and take our jobs and women".
The reasoning behind why homosexual tendencies would be a primarily inborn tendency is really quite simple - the fact that by far the overwhelming majority of homosexuals over the course of human history have turned out that way despite having been born to and raised by patently heterosexual parents usually in environments to varying degrees hostile to the idea of same-sex coupling, if not outright prone to lynching exposed gays.
At that point it just plain can't be environmental influence anymore, now can it ?
Incidentally, did you know it wasn't all that long ago when being left-handed was considered a serious deviation from the nrom and active, even downright brutal, efforts were made to "re-educate" lefty kids to proper right-handedness ? Caused a lot of stress, anguish and to boot some neurological issues (stressful attempts to forcefully go against the natural 'wiring' of the nervous system apparently led to complications in children), and didn't work at all.
For some reason I'm getting the impression there's a parallel here.
Oh for... :wall:
Gawain, please. I know you're not stupid, so why do you persist in spouting this kind of idiocy ? And you said it yourself - if. But it isn't and never will be, as homosexuality isn't some kind of highly contagious viral ailment. It's an inborn predisposition, about the same way some like thin people and some like fat people or some like cats and some like dogs. Case closed, now stop spouting rubbish and wasting my time and patience.
The Human race is just like any other animal. At our core our purpose is to be born and reproduce so our race can go on. You cannot say that gays are born gay, it simply goes against the laws of nature.
Watchman
01-16-2006, 17:28
Which part of "deviation from the norm" flew by you ? Compare to people who simply do not want to have children, who also exist even without possible cultural pressures (seeing as abstinence is held to be pious in many religions); where's the evolutionary point or biological viablity in that ?
Or people/animals born flat out sterile ?
Heck, there's even a species of small lizard - the whip-tail lizard - consisting entirely of parenthogenetically procreating females who need to simulate sex with each other to trigger carriage...
I suggest you don't speak too confidently of the "laws of nature", thank you. They're not that simple.
Which part of "deviation from the norm" flew by you ? Compare to people who simply do not want to have children, who also exist even without possible cultural pressures (seeing as abstinence is held to be pious in many religions); where's the evolutionary point or biological viablity in that ?
Or people/animals born flat out sterile ?
Thats an entirely different issue. Lets look at the definition of gay: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Now lets look at sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing offspring.
Where in the definition of sterile does it say anything about gays?
Compare to people who simply do not want to have children
Again, thats nature. They are together because they both have a desire for each other, and thats nature. Those species that don't have to pair up find other ways to reproduce. And thats the point, in the end they reproduce.
Watchman
01-16-2006, 18:03
Correction - most of them reproduce. The contribution of every eligible member is not required. Species can survive fairly well with only an unbelievable small number of breeding individuals, when it comes down to that. Isn't current hereditary genetics research suggesting the entire human race was at one point in the very distant past "bottlenecked" through about one pair ?
That aside, care to explain the casual homosexual behaviour widely observed and well documented among the "higher" end of the Animal Kingdom (ie. birds and mammals) in the context of the "laws of nature" then ?
Look, the Laws of Nature only say that a species needs to be interested enough in carrying out its reproductive processes to maintain a (reasonably) healthy breeding population, after you substract odds and ends such as disease, accident, violence and starvation. Everything beyond that is of no concern to them.
You can actually witness this in practice in the blunt fact that homosexuals - whose reproductive urges have in essence been misplaced, cannot as-such be fulfilled through producing offspring, are thus limited to sexual intercourse (not that heteros didn't do that a lot without any intention of conceiving children...) and are evolutionarily and biologically speaking a bit of a cul-de-sac - are only a very small percentage of the total population. The vast majority have their, shall we say, priorities straight and seem to have no trouble at all filling in for the shortfall of that tiny minority.
If enviromental conditions do not allow a species to reproduce in normal numbers, that species will being to dwindle, especially when you average in diease, starvation and violence. Its not natural for a species to maintain small numbers, all species attempt to attain a greater population than they are at to make up for natural diasters. Look at falcons, they produce only 1-2 chicks per breeding season, and thats why they are endangered. The species that produces more offspring per breeding season will keep its numbers.
Now, how does any of this have to do with gays? Get back on topic.
Watchman
01-16-2006, 18:38
Hey, I'm not the one who's claiming it's "against the laws of nature" for gays to be born that way, or that gays were or could be some sort of demographic issue. I'm just pointing out that Momma Nature seems to have no trouble at all with that sort of thing. The internal dynamics of species reproduction on the whole appear to be quite robust and flexible enough that a small number of "bugs" in the system, or even drastic shortage of reproducing individuals, are of little concern.
They say that God doesn't play dice. Dunno about that, but Madame Nature and her kid Evolution definitely do. Is there any biological meaning in having an ear for music or talent for mathematics ? Being born blonde or brunette ? Right- or left-handed or ambidexterous ? Lactose intolerance or without it ? Eye color ? Gazillion other on the grand scale entirely irrelevant little things, including sexual orientation ? Heck no. Humans, when it comes down to it, are a fairly random jumble of genes mashed together and grown into a functional organism. There's no deeper meaning in the process; any number of random variations is possible and of little concern one way or another, as the species as a whole averages to compensating for the oddities of individuals at least as far as long-term survival is concerned.
"You cannot say that gays are born gay, it simply goes against the laws of nature" ? Hah. And since when did the laws of nature care at all of individuals' sexual preferences anyway ? They've already dictated what the norm is; random deviations from it are just dismissable statistical errors as far as they're concerned.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-16-2006, 18:46
Believe me, I'm trying very hard to remain civil. But it remains a fact that statements like "if everyone were gay the human race would be in trouble", while per se probably true, are in practice nothing short of absurd and only serve to demonstrate the prejudices of the people issuing them,
Your only demoonstrating your own prejudices here again. You admit its true but then toss it out. Trying to claim that being gay is the same as preffering blue over red is absurd and makes it hard for me to remain civil but you will notice I have.
Its in humanities best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality. People have known this since the beggining of time. Its not rocket science.
Watchman
01-16-2006, 19:10
I said per se; the statement is true in itself, but it is a purely hypotethical scenario not one bit applicable in any practical context. Humans, like all animals whose reproduction relies on intercourse between individuals of two or more sexes, are evolutionarily predisposed towards heterosexuality. Even if people, as sentient and sapient creatures who have graduated from pure biological evolution to cultural evolution and have thus a fair bit of control over their actions, decisions and suchlike (at least compared to other animals), were to entirely stop taking any stances in the homosexuality/heterosexuality issue the vast majority of them would still turn out straight. It's a built-in biological imperative to preserve the species, much as many reflexes related to infants, or why evolution has made it so getting kicked in the balls *hurts* and people thus instinctively avoid it - "don't you dare to endanger your genes' ability to reproduce with carelessness you git !"
Hence, "it's in humanity's best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality" (typos fixed; "humanities" is a very different thing from "humanity"...) is an absurd statement and stinks of trying to rationalize anti-homosexual prejudices with vague bunk biologics. I'd be far more positively predisposed of such concerns about the survival of the species and developement of children if I didn't well know them to be A) scientifically bunk and entirely unproven as well as logically dubious B) the standard reactionary blunt-instrument argument against just about anything that looks like undermining the hegemony of the sacred cow of the "nuclear family", which isn't a very ideal scheme anyway if results are to be judged by.
doc_bean
01-16-2006, 19:32
Now, how does any of this have to do with gays? Get back on topic.
You're the one that brought 'the laws of nature' to the debate. Like Watchman pointed out you can't use the hypotethical situation of all humans being gay to prove it's unnatural. There are several natural birth deficits that if everyone was born with them would end the human race, yet they still exist and can be genetic.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 02:26
Humans, like all animals whose reproduction relies on intercourse between individuals of two or more sexes,
No they only need two. Are there others I havent heard of?
. Even if people, as sentient and sapient creatures who have graduated from pure biological evolution to cultural evolution and have thus a fair bit of control over their actions, decisions and suchlike (at least compared to other animals), were to entirely stop taking any stances in the homosexuality/heterosexuality issue the vast majority of them would still turn out straight.
How do you know this. As Ive said homosexuality has almost always been frowned upon. Its ingrained in humans. Yet the Greeks supported a form of homosexual pedophilia. It was accepted. Now days people are taught sex is good. How is it that with more people using protection and sex ed in the schools we have a higher rate of STDs and unwanted pregnancies than in the 50s? Because more people fool around because its no longer taboo. If everyone were to believe that homosexual sex is just as proper and normal as heterosexual sex you can bet many, many more would do it. Face it even you have been programed to prefer heterosxuality. Its ingrained in almost every society.
Hence, "it's in humanity's best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality" (typos fixed; "humanities" is a very different thing from "humanity"...) is an absurd statement and stinks of trying to rationalize anti-homosexual prejudices with vague bunk biologics.
Your arrogance is showing again. I have no anti-homosexual prejudices . Im also getting tired of your baiting.
Watchman
01-17-2006, 02:37
Yeah, and...? The last time I checked, "many more" was a pretty far cry from "the majority." And even in your hypothetical case I don't really see how more people having a try at homosexuality out of sheer curiosity would necessarily result in any more exclusive homosexuals - from the reproductive POV there's nothing wrong with bisexuals, now is there...?
And I still think you're being reactionarily alarmist and paranoid, for the record. As if human society would collapse and the species go extinct if even passive persecution of homosexuality (ie. denying the minority the right for something) was gotten rid of. Bah, I say. The Greeks and Romans for ones did right fine while still conditionally accepting homosexual relationships.
Watchman
01-17-2006, 02:38
Your arrogance is showing again. I have no anti-homosexual prejudices .Sure you don't. Have you heard the saying, "your talk talks and your walk walks, but your walk talks more than your talk walks" ?
Watchman
01-17-2006, 02:43
Actually now that I think about it, I've heard homosexuality as a sort of male bonding mechanism has been over the millenia pretty common among various warrior cultures - of the more recent ones, I've heard the Prussians cited as one example...
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 02:50
And I still think you're being reactionarily alarmist and paranoid, for the record. As if human society would collapse and the species go extinct if even passive persecution of homosexuality
Do you really think I belive humanity would go extinct if homosexulaity were accepted? I dont know anymore than you do. Again I was replying to a ridiculous analogy.
Actually now that I think about it, I've heard homosexuality as a sort of male bonding mechanism has been over the millenia pretty common among various warrior cultures - of the more recent ones, I've heard the Prussians cited as one example...
Your quite good at stating the exception as if it were the rule.
Watchman
01-17-2006, 03:59
You sure do manage to sound like it though.
Okay, lets get this straight: unless I've wholly and utterly misunderstood you, you are in the opinion that gay couples should not, if at all avoidable, have or raise children, correct ? And the reasoning behind this is what ?
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 04:22
you are in the opinion that gay couples should not, if at all avoidable, have or raise children, correct ? And the reasoning behind this is what ?
Im saying all other things being equal I would pick heterosexual parents over homosexual ones . If the gay couple can do a better job of raising the child then they should be allowed to adopt it. Again so should a single person or persons living together. I agree that it should be a case by case matter. The only thing that matters is the good of the child.
It's "imprinting". The point here is that the parents are used by children as a template. Hence the wolf-children (http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=kamala) of India. Raised by wolves, behave like wolves not a "normal" human.
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/children.php?tp=0
Here's another:
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~schluter/statsbook/binomial%20rxc%20&%20regression%20-%20sexual%20imprinting%20in%20humans.pdf
Alexanderofmacedon
01-17-2006, 04:31
Gawain pwns, so everyone else shut up...
If you don't agree, you're a commie, a nazi and a terrorist...
:juggle2:
EDIT: Not because I have anything against anybody...I just have a ton of respect for Gawain...
Watchman
01-17-2006, 04:35
I really don't think that is comparable, Quietus.
Okay Gaw, have we actually been talking right past each other for the past day or so or am I imagining things ? And what then of oddities like this ?
Its in humanities best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality. Or is there some catch in the formulation "if the gay couple can do a better job" given the patent impossibility of detemrining these things beforehand ? ~:confused:
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 04:44
Its in humanities best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality.
Its the truth.
Or is there some catch in the formulation "if the gay couple can do a better job" given the patent impossibility of detemrining these things beforehand
Thats up to the adoption organization to decide. I think children use their parents as role models. Studies show that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to try homosexual acts. Again no definitive or exhaustive study has been done on the subject. Common sense would support that they would be more inclined to be sexually confused. Again what does ones sexual prefference have to do with child raising? Thats the real question.
Watchman
01-17-2006, 05:14
No it's not the truth. "Discouraging" homosexuality (which in practice means persecuting gays, people being what they are) only means gays stay "in the closet" with all the associated personal issues and grief. Whether they "come out" or not has nothing to do with the interests of mankind as a species but very much with cultural values - as in, it's going to be a real relief for them to be able to stop pretending, and a fair bit of teeth-grinding to the reactionary. Humanity on the whole isn't going to be affected one bit by it, except perhaps by becoming a bit more culturally enlightened.
As I've been saying for quite a while, gays are an altogether too small a minority to have any effects on demographics. All the more so as quite a few of them aren't exclusively homosexual but at least partially bisexual.
Studies show that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to try homosexual acts.And which studies exactly ? The one Duke John quoted and linked a while back for example said something quite different. If there are no serviceable and conclusive studies about it, then doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply ?
...
...hey, wait a sec...
If everyone were to believe that homosexual sex is just as proper and normal as heterosexual sex you can bet many, many more would do it.Yep, it's here too. That's what has been bothering me. Aren't you in fact pretty clearly saying there's something basically wrong with there being more homosexuals (re: the worry about children raised by gays also becoming such) and/or more people engaging in homosexual intercourse ? These statements don't really make much sense without an implied assumption that there's something about homosexuality that should be avoided.
Yep, it's here too. That's what has been bothering me. Aren't you in fact pretty clearly saying there's something basically wrong with there being more homosexuals (re: the worry about children raised by gays also becoming such) and/or more people engaging in homosexual intercourse ? These statements don't really make much sense without an implied assumption that there's something about homosexuality that should be avoided.
Let's not get carried away here. It's perfectly reasonable for a man to say that homosexuality is something to be avoided. But take the statement in context. My brother is gay and I've known gay men all my life. I've been to more gay parties than a lot of gay men have. And on several occasions, my brother invited friends of his who were dying of AIDS to celebrate Christmas with our family because he didn't want them to be alone for their (possibly) last Christmas. Hell, one of them cooked the entire dinner one Christmas.* For a rampaging heterosexual, beer chugging, gun shooting, tree killing SOB, I am as open minded and integrated into the gay community as as any PC, salad eating, tofu collector will ever be.
Yet in all of this, if given the choice, I would clearly and unequivocally wish my son (if I had one) were heterosexual and not homosexual. So what does that make me?
* I expressed some concern about this to my brother when I saw the guy in the kitchen. His response, with a smile; "Who do you think is cooking your food in a restaurant?"
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 05:41
Yep, it's here too. That's what has been bothering me. Aren't you in fact pretty clearly saying there's something basically wrong with there being more homosexuals (re: the worry about children raised by gays also becoming such) and/or more people engaging in homosexual intercourse ? These statements don't really make much sense without an implied assumption that there's something about homosexuality that should be avoided.
Ive always maintained that homosexuality should be tolerated but not encouraged. If you dont think being homosexaul is bad for you just check the statistics. Im not about to dictate to anyone what sexual prefference they should have but how do two homosexuals living together make them anybetter than two straight people of the same sex living together as far as adoption goes?
As I've been saying for quite a while, gays are an altogether too small a minority to have any effects on demographics. All the more so as quite a few of them aren't exclusively homosexual but at least partially bisexual.
I think we all are bi sexual. Some claim that homosexuals represent 10% of the population. At what point would the number become dangerous? The thing is that at some point it does.
And which studies exactly
The one I posted way back. There are plenty more.
Duke John
01-17-2006, 08:38
The one I posted way back. There are plenty more.
You mean the book that was written by Patricia Morgan?
http://www.gaynz.com/political/Same-Sex-Parenting.asp
As mentioned in the aforementioned prior article on the Care of Children Bill, Patricia Morgan comes readily to mind. She is a researcher for the Christian Institute, a UK Christian Right pressure group currently under investigation by the UK Charities Commission for illegitimate lobbying activities. Morgan's monograph, "Children as Trophies?" was cited in recent anti-gay lobbying against Tasmania's exploration of inclusive same-sex adoption provisions, which would follow the lead of Western Australia. However, the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission disregarded Morgan's monograph, as it did not cite any authoritative research that same-sex parenting had negative effects either.
I gave you statistics (although 54 gay couples may not be that large a population) that showed that children raised by gay couples are not more inclined to become gay themselves. Where are your hard facts? And were they used by an organisation that isn't cleary anti or pro-gay?
doc_bean
01-17-2006, 12:07
Ive always maintained that homosexuality should be tolerated but not encouraged.
I agree.
If you dont think being homosexaul is bad for you just check the statistics.
If you're talking about diseaeses, they're more related with a promiscuous (sp?) lifestyle than with gender preference. A gay couple in a stable monogamous relationship should be as safe as a straight couple.
Im not about to dictate to anyone what sexual prefference they should have but how do two homosexuals living together make them anybetter than two straight people of the same sex living together as far as adoption goes?
Nobody is saying they are better, just that they are just as good.
I think we all are bi sexual.
Well, if this is true than homosexual behaviour shouldn't be dangerous, no matter what percentage of the population takes part, since most would still be willing to sleep with people of the other gender, even if it was just to have kids.
Some claim that homosexuals represent 10% of the population.
Early studies showed this number iirc (Kingsly or what's his name), but they were biased (in the statistical sense), more recent studies seem to estimate the number more around 4-5%
At what point would the number become dangerous? The thing is that at some point it does.
Never really. People not wanting children, or people just wanting one kid, is dangerous as we can see in Western Europe right now. But now gay people want to have kids, or at least raise them. They can get them through artificial insemination if they want to, or, they can just close their eyes and do their duty with a woman if that's what it takes. That's what they did in the good old days too.
Reproduction these days is no longer a side effect, in most cases it is a deliberate choice, and as long as enough people are willing to choose it, gay or straight, the human race is not endangered.
But as I've said before, the point were most people are homosexual is a pretty ridiculous hypothetical situation.
Completily off-topic, I just had to post this :laugh4:
http://i.somethingawful.com/rompit/choaniki/worstgameever.gif
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 19:30
If you're talking about diseaeses, they're more related with a promiscuous (sp?) lifestyle than with gender preference. A gay couple in a stable monogamous relationship should be as safe as a straight couple.
Exceot homosexuals are far less inclined ti have such a relationship.
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)
Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)
The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)
B. Among homosexuals, highly risky sexual practices such as anal sex are very common.
The majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8) As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; www.gayhealthchannel.com;)
There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex. Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who ever had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV than those who never engaged in anal sex. (Valleroy L, et al. HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. JAMA. 2000; 284: 198-204.)
The term 'barebacking' refers to intentional unsafe anal sex. In a study of HIV-positive gay men, the majority of participants (84%) reported engaging in barebacking in the past three months, and 43% of the men reported recent bareback sex with a partner who most likely is not infected with HIV, therefore putting another man at risk of contracting HIV. (Halkitis PN. Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care. 2003; 15: 367-78.)
While many homosexuals are aware of HIV risk, a large number are unaware of the increased risk of contracting non-HIV STDs, many of which have serious complications or may not be curable. (K-Y lubricant and the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association survey)
While 'always' condom use reduces the risk of contracting HIV by about 85%, Condoms, even when used 100% of the time, fail to give adequate levels of protection against many non-HIV STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Herpes, Genital Warts and others. The only safe sex is, apart from abstinence, mutual monogamy with an uninfected partner. (Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know. Medical Institute for Sexual Health. 2002)
C. Homosexuals have very high rates of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV which pose a major burden to the health service.
Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).
The recently observed dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, but also in London and Manchester, UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhoea, and syphilis worsening in western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)
And thats not the only risks
Home E-mail to a Friend
Print
‘Gay marriage’ and homosexuality: some medical comments JOHN SHEA, MD, JOHN WILSON, MD, et. al.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. In addition, many 'committed' homosexual relationships only last a few years raising doubts about whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Background
Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population. The number of homosexuals living in 'common law partnerships' is even less, only 0.5% of all couples. This contrasts with 70% of all households with a married couple. The pressure for introducing same-sex marriages comes from a very small section of society.
According to Statistics Canada, 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women considered themselves to be homosexual.
Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57: 207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had same-sex partners. (Sandfort TG et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (Fergusson DM et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80)
In 2001, there were just over 8.3 million families in Canada, of which nearly 6 million (70%) were married couples and 1.1 million common-law couples. The 2001 Census was the first to provide data on same-sex partnerships. A total of 34,200 couples (or 0.5% of all couples) identified themselves as same-sex common-law couples. (www.statcan.ca/Daily/ English/021022/d021022a.htm)
2. Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle.
The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. Many 'committed' homosexual relationships only last a few years. This raises doubts as to whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.
A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even 'committed' relationships.
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)
Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)
The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)
B. Among homosexuals, highly risky sexual practices such as anal sex are very common.
The majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8) As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; www.gayhealthchannel.com;)
There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex. Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who ever had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV than those who never engaged in anal sex. (Valleroy L, et al. HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. JAMA. 2000; 284: 198-204.)
The term 'barebacking' refers to intentional unsafe anal sex. In a study of HIV-positive gay men, the majority of participants (84%) reported engaging in barebacking in the past three months, and 43% of the men reported recent bareback sex with a partner who most likely is not infected with HIV, therefore putting another man at risk of contracting HIV. (Halkitis PN. Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care. 2003; 15: 367-78.)
While many homosexuals are aware of HIV risk, a large number are unaware of the increased risk of contracting non-HIV STDs, many of which have serious complications or may not be curable. (K-Y lubricant and the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association survey)
While 'always' condom use reduces the risk of contracting HIV by about 85%, Condoms, even when used 100% of the time, fail to give adequate levels of protection against many non-HIV STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Herpes, Genital Warts and others. The only safe sex is, apart from abstinence, mutual monogamy with an uninfected partner. (Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know. Medical Institute for Sexual Health. 2002)
C. Homosexuals have very high rates of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV which pose a major burden to the health service.
Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).
The recently observed dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, but also in London and Manchester, UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhoea, and syphilis worsening in western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)
D. There are increased rates of mental ill health among the homosexual population compared to the general population. Many studies show much higher rates of psychiatric illness, such as depression, suicide attempts and drug abuse among homosexuals then among the general population. The homosexual lifestyle is associated with a shortened life expectancy of up to 20 years.
In a New Zealand study, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people. At the age of 21, homosexuals/bisexuals were at fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide. (Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.)
In a recent US study of the mental health of homosexuals, it was found that gay/bisexual men had a more than 3-fold increased risk of major depression and a five-fold increased risk of panic disorder. They were three times as likely to rate their mental health as only 'fair' or 'poor' and to experience high levels of distress. Gay/bisexual women had a nearly four-fold increased risk of general anxiety disorder and both groups were more than three times as likely than the general population to require treatment in a mental health setting. (Cochran S. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71 :53-61.)
It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among homosexuals are the result of 'homophobia'. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder ('manic depression'), agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)
Furthermore, if 'homophobia' and prejudices were the cause of the high rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide attempts among homosexuals, one would similarly expect to find higher rates of suicide attempts and suicide among ethnic minorities exposed to racism. However, this is not usually the case.
In a Vancouver study, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, it is estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. (Hogg RS et al. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Epidemiology.1997; 26:657-61)
Other reasons to oppose gay adoption.
Homosexuality and pedophilia.
Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.
One well known historic example on the link between homosexuality and pedophilia is found in ancient Greece. Greek mythology is saturated with stories of pedophilia and ancient Greek literature praises pedophilia. The age group of boys that were used for 'sexual pleasure' was probably in the range of 12-17. Male prostitution was very common with brothels in which boys and young men were available. There is evidence for an extensive trade in boys. (Churchill W. Homosexual Behavior among Males. Hawthorn. New York. 1967)
There are links between pedophilia and homosexuality. The political scientist Prof. Mirkin wrote in a paper that: 'pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition…' (Mirkin H. The pattern of sexual politics: feminism, homosexuality and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1-24.). There is an overlap between the 'gay movement' and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable through organisations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), as admitted by David Thorstad, Co-founder of NAMBLA writing in the Journal of Homosexuality. (Thorstad D. Man/boy love and the American gay movement. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990; 20 : 251-74)
The number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%. (Statistics Canada found only 1% of the population who described themselves as homosexual.) However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%. (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.) Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.
As far as claims of homosexuals are born that way
Biological evidence regarding gender development.
Despite all the impressions given by the media, homosexuality is neither an entirely innate condition nor is it unchangeable. The so-called 'gay gene' has never been found. There are studies that show it is possible to change sexual orientation from predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexual orientation.
A recent review by authors sympathetic to the gay movement shows clearly that homosexual development cannot be only determined by genes. Evidence from biology shows clearly that gays are not simply born that way. Environmental influences play a significant role in the development of gender identity and sexual behavior. (Bailey JM. "Biological perspectives on sexual orientation". In: Garnets LD and Kimmel DC: Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences. Columbia University Press, New York. 2003)
There is no convincing evidence for a 'gay gene'. Indeed, if there were a 'gay gene' those who carry it would probably be at a disadvantage in the natural selection process of evolution:' If there was a 'gay gene' this gene would cause a significant problem: homosexuality is associated with low fertility, indeed if a homosexual has only sex with same-sex persons he will have no offspring.' (Bailey JM. Biological perspectives on sexual orientation. 2003)
One way of finding out whether a condition is genetically determined is to examine the behavior of identical twins (who have the same genetic material) and comparing them with non-identical twins. It is assumed, that twins grow up in the same environment. There have been several studies investigating whether the identical twin brothers of homosexual men are also homosexuals. Concordance (both identical twins being homosexual) was found in only 25-50% of identical twin pairs. 'Genes' therefore cannot entirely explain homosexual orientation and behaviour. (Pillard RC and Weinrich JD. Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1986: 42; 808-12. King M and McDonald E. Homosexuals who are twins. A study of 46 probands. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1992; 160: 407-9.)
Recently, a study was published by Professor Spitzer, a prominent psychiatrist. He is viewed as a historic champion of gay activism by playing a key role in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders in 1973. In his study, he examined whether a predominantly homosexual orientation will, in some individuals, respond to therapy. He examined 200 respondents of both genders who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation lasting 5 years or more. He writes: 'Although initially skeptical, in the course of the study, the author became convinced of the possibility of change in some gay men and lesbians.' Although examples of "complete" change in orientation were not common, the majority of participants did report change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year as a result of reparative therapy. These results would seem to contradict the position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States, which claim there is no scientific basis for believing psychotherapy effective in addressing same-sex attraction. (Spitzer RL. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav. 2003; 32: 403-17; discussion 419-72. – further evidence see www.narth.com)
And as far as your studies showing no difference between those rasies by same sex couples
Gay activists claim that there is no difference between children raised in a homosexual as opposed to a heterosexual household. However, essentially all studies that show that there is no difference have been criticised because of poor research quality. Despite the shortcomings, the studies seem to suggest that children raised in same-sex parents may be more sexually promiscuous and more likely to become homosexuals.
In a review of all the studies that purport to find no difference between children raised in families by same-sex parents and parents of different sex, major methodological flaws have been noted. For example, the studies have very small sample sizes, biased sample selection, or lack of control groups. (P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Christian Institute. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2002)
Despite the limitations of the studies of same-sex parenting some differences are found. Children raised in same-sex parents are more likely to become sexually promiscuous and are more likely to become homosexual themselves. (Riggs SC. Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents. (letter) Pediatrics 2002; 109: 1193-4.)
However, the main concern remains the inherent instability of same-sex marriages. In the above mentioned Dutch survey, the average length of a 'committed' homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. In the mentioned survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of relationships did not last 8 years. Furthermore, violence among homosexual partnerships is two to three times as common as in heterosexual relationships. Such an environment does not provide the stability required for raising children. Former homosexual Stephen Bennett who is married to his wife and has two children states: 'Granting homosexuals the right to marry or adopt children is deliberately creating dysfunctional families.'
LINK (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html)
Nobody is saying they are better, just that they are just as good.
They could even in some cases be btter. However I maintain this is the exception not the norm. Chances are the stright couple will be better for them based on things like ive just posted and common sense.
Well, if this is true than homosexual behaviour shouldn't be dangerous, no matter what percentage of the population takes part, since most would still be willing to sleep with people of the other gender, even if it was just to have kids
By we are all bi sexual Im saying that we can all enjoy sex with either gender . Its our programed bias against homosexuality that stops many from experimenting with it. Plus the health risks and dissinigratin of the family.
Early studies showed this number iirc (Kingsly or what's his name), but they were biased (in the statistical sense), more recent studies seem to estimate the number more around 4-5%
Well the study I quoted says its even less.
Reproduction these days is no longer a side effect, in most cases it is a deliberate choice,
If this were so there would be no need for gay adoption or any adoptions. In fact we have more unwanted children now han we did in the 50s despite far more use of contraceptives and sex education. We have become far more promiscous it seems despite claims that this is not so.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 19:31
If you're talking about diseaeses, they're more related with a promiscuous (sp?) lifestyle than with gender preference. A gay couple in a stable monogamous relationship should be as safe as a straight couple.
Exceot homosexuals are far less inclined ti have such a relationship.
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)
Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)
The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)
B. Among homosexuals, highly risky sexual practices such as anal sex are very common.
The majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8) As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; www.gayhealthchannel.com;)
There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex. Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who ever had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV than those who never engaged in anal sex. (Valleroy L, et al. HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. JAMA. 2000; 284: 198-204.)
The term 'barebacking' refers to intentional unsafe anal sex. In a study of HIV-positive gay men, the majority of participants (84%) reported engaging in barebacking in the past three months, and 43% of the men reported recent bareback sex with a partner who most likely is not infected with HIV, therefore putting another man at risk of contracting HIV. (Halkitis PN. Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care. 2003; 15: 367-78.)
While many homosexuals are aware of HIV risk, a large number are unaware of the increased risk of contracting non-HIV STDs, many of which have serious complications or may not be curable. (K-Y lubricant and the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association survey)
While 'always' condom use reduces the risk of contracting HIV by about 85%, Condoms, even when used 100% of the time, fail to give adequate levels of protection against many non-HIV STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Herpes, Genital Warts and others. The only safe sex is, apart from abstinence, mutual monogamy with an uninfected partner. (Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know. Medical Institute for Sexual Health. 2002)
C. Homosexuals have very high rates of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV which pose a major burden to the health service.
Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).
The recently observed dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, but also in London and Manchester, UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhoea, and syphilis worsening in western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)
And thats not the only risks
Home E-mail to a Friend
Print
‘Gay marriage’ and homosexuality: some medical comments JOHN SHEA, MD, JOHN WILSON, MD, et. al.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. In addition, many 'committed' homosexual relationships only last a few years raising doubts about whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Background
Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population. The number of homosexuals living in 'common law partnerships' is even less, only 0.5% of all couples. This contrasts with 70% of all households with a married couple. The pressure for introducing same-sex marriages comes from a very small section of society.
According to Statistics Canada, 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women considered themselves to be homosexual.
Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57: 207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had same-sex partners. (Sandfort TG et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (Fergusson DM et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80)
In 2001, there were just over 8.3 million families in Canada, of which nearly 6 million (70%) were married couples and 1.1 million common-law couples. The 2001 Census was the first to provide data on same-sex partnerships. A total of 34,200 couples (or 0.5% of all couples) identified themselves as same-sex common-law couples. (www.statcan.ca/Daily/ English/021022/d021022a.htm)
2. Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle.
The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. Many 'committed' homosexual relationships only last a few years. This raises doubts as to whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.
A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even 'committed' relationships.
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)
Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)
The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)
B. Among homosexuals, highly risky sexual practices such as anal sex are very common.
The majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8) As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; www.gayhealthchannel.com;)
There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex. Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who ever had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV than those who never engaged in anal sex. (Valleroy L, et al. HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. JAMA. 2000; 284: 198-204.)
The term 'barebacking' refers to intentional unsafe anal sex. In a study of HIV-positive gay men, the majority of participants (84%) reported engaging in barebacking in the past three months, and 43% of the men reported recent bareback sex with a partner who most likely is not infected with HIV, therefore putting another man at risk of contracting HIV. (Halkitis PN. Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care. 2003; 15: 367-78.)
While many homosexuals are aware of HIV risk, a large number are unaware of the increased risk of contracting non-HIV STDs, many of which have serious complications or may not be curable. (K-Y lubricant and the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association survey)
While 'always' condom use reduces the risk of contracting HIV by about 85%, Condoms, even when used 100% of the time, fail to give adequate levels of protection against many non-HIV STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Herpes, Genital Warts and others. The only safe sex is, apart from abstinence, mutual monogamy with an uninfected partner. (Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know. Medical Institute for Sexual Health. 2002)
C. Homosexuals have very high rates of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV which pose a major burden to the health service.
Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).
The recently observed dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, but also in London and Manchester, UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhoea, and syphilis worsening in western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)
D. There are increased rates of mental ill health among the homosexual population compared to the general population. Many studies show much higher rates of psychiatric illness, such as depression, suicide attempts and drug abuse among homosexuals then among the general population. The homosexual lifestyle is associated with a shortened life expectancy of up to 20 years.
In a New Zealand study, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people. At the age of 21, homosexuals/bisexuals were at fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide. (Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.)
In a recent US study of the mental health of homosexuals, it was found that gay/bisexual men had a more than 3-fold increased risk of major depression and a five-fold increased risk of panic disorder. They were three times as likely to rate their mental health as only 'fair' or 'poor' and to experience high levels of distress. Gay/bisexual women had a nearly four-fold increased risk of general anxiety disorder and both groups were more than three times as likely than the general population to require treatment in a mental health setting. (Cochran S. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71 :53-61.)
It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among homosexuals are the result of 'homophobia'. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder ('manic depression'), agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)
Furthermore, if 'homophobia' and prejudices were the cause of the high rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide attempts among homosexuals, one would similarly expect to find higher rates of suicide attempts and suicide among ethnic minorities exposed to racism. However, this is not usually the case.
In a Vancouver study, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, it is estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. (Hogg RS et al. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Epidemiology.1997; 26:657-61)
Other reasons to oppose gay adoption.
Homosexuality and pedophilia.
Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.
One well known historic example on the link between homosexuality and pedophilia is found in ancient Greece. Greek mythology is saturated with stories of pedophilia and ancient Greek literature praises pedophilia. The age group of boys that were used for 'sexual pleasure' was probably in the range of 12-17. Male prostitution was very common with brothels in which boys and young men were available. There is evidence for an extensive trade in boys. (Churchill W. Homosexual Behavior among Males. Hawthorn. New York. 1967)
There are links between pedophilia and homosexuality. The political scientist Prof. Mirkin wrote in a paper that: 'pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition…' (Mirkin H. The pattern of sexual politics: feminism, homosexuality and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1-24.). There is an overlap between the 'gay movement' and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable through organisations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), as admitted by David Thorstad, Co-founder of NAMBLA writing in the Journal of Homosexuality. (Thorstad D. Man/boy love and the American gay movement. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990; 20 : 251-74)
The number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%. (Statistics Canada found only 1% of the population who described themselves as homosexual.) However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%. (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.) Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.
As far as claims of homosexuals are born that way
Biological evidence regarding gender development.
Despite all the impressions given by the media, homosexuality is neither an entirely innate condition nor is it unchangeable. The so-called 'gay gene' has never been found. There are studies that show it is possible to change sexual orientation from predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexual orientation.
A recent review by authors sympathetic to the gay movement shows clearly that homosexual development cannot be only determined by genes. Evidence from biology shows clearly that gays are not simply born that way. Environmental influences play a significant role in the development of gender identity and sexual behavior. (Bailey JM. "Biological perspectives on sexual orientation". In: Garnets LD and Kimmel DC: Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences. Columbia University Press, New York. 2003)
There is no convincing evidence for a 'gay gene'. Indeed, if there were a 'gay gene' those who carry it would probably be at a disadvantage in the natural selection process of evolution:' If there was a 'gay gene' this gene would cause a significant problem: homosexuality is associated with low fertility, indeed if a homosexual has only sex with same-sex persons he will have no offspring.' (Bailey JM. Biological perspectives on sexual orientation. 2003)
One way of finding out whether a condition is genetically determined is to examine the behavior of identical twins (who have the same genetic material) and comparing them with non-identical twins. It is assumed, that twins grow up in the same environment. There have been several studies investigating whether the identical twin brothers of homosexual men are also homosexuals. Concordance (both identical twins being homosexual) was found in only 25-50% of identical twin pairs. 'Genes' therefore cannot entirely explain homosexual orientation and behaviour. (Pillard RC and Weinrich JD. Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1986: 42; 808-12. King M and McDonald E. Homosexuals who are twins. A study of 46 probands. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1992; 160: 407-9.)
Recently, a study was published by Professor Spitzer, a prominent psychiatrist. He is viewed as a historic champion of gay activism by playing a key role in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders in 1973. In his study, he examined whether a predominantly homosexual orientation will, in some individuals, respond to therapy. He examined 200 respondents of both genders who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation lasting 5 years or more. He writes: 'Although initially skeptical, in the course of the study, the author became convinced of the possibility of change in some gay men and lesbians.' Although examples of "complete" change in orientation were not common, the majority of participants did report change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year as a result of reparative therapy. These results would seem to contradict the position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States, which claim there is no scientific basis for believing psychotherapy effective in addressing same-sex attraction. (Spitzer RL. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav. 2003; 32: 403-17; discussion 419-72. – further evidence see www.narth.com)
And as far as your studies showing no difference between those rasies by same sex couples
Gay activists claim that there is no difference between children raised in a homosexual as opposed to a heterosexual household. However, essentially all studies that show that there is no difference have been criticised because of poor research quality. Despite the shortcomings, the studies seem to suggest that children raised in same-sex parents may be more sexually promiscuous and more likely to become homosexuals.
In a review of all the studies that purport to find no difference between children raised in families by same-sex parents and parents of different sex, major methodological flaws have been noted. For example, the studies have very small sample sizes, biased sample selection, or lack of control groups. (P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Christian Institute. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2002)
Despite the limitations of the studies of same-sex parenting some differences are found. Children raised in same-sex parents are more likely to become sexually promiscuous and are more likely to become homosexual themselves. (Riggs SC. Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents. (letter) Pediatrics 2002; 109: 1193-4.)
However, the main concern remains the inherent instability of same-sex marriages. In the above mentioned Dutch survey, the average length of a 'committed' homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. In the mentioned survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of relationships did not last 8 years. Furthermore, violence among homosexual partnerships is two to three times as common as in heterosexual relationships. Such an environment does not provide the stability required for raising children. Former homosexual Stephen Bennett who is married to his wife and has two children states: 'Granting homosexuals the right to marry or adopt children is deliberately creating dysfunctional families.'
LINK (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html)
Nobody is saying they are better, just that they are just as good.
They could even in some cases be btter. However I maintain this is the exception not the norm. Chances are the stright couple will be better for them based on things like ive just posted and common sense.
Well, if this is true than homosexual behaviour shouldn't be dangerous, no matter what percentage of the population takes part, since most would still be willing to sleep with people of the other gender, even if it was just to have kids
By we are all bi sexual Im saying that we can all enjoy sex with either gender . Its our programed bias against homosexuality that stops many from experimenting with it. Plus the health risks and dissinigratin of the family.
Early studies showed this number iirc (Kingsly or what's his name), but they were biased (in the statistical sense), more recent studies seem to estimate the number more around 4-5%
Well the study I quoted says its even less.
Reproduction these days is no longer a side effect, in most cases it is a deliberate choice,
If this were so there would be no need for gay adoption or any adoptions. In fact we have more unwanted children now han we did in the 50s despite far more use of contraceptives and sex education. We have become far more promiscous it seems despite claims that this is not so.
I have a hard time believing that homosexuality is completely environmental. The only known consistent environmental factor leading to homosexuals is that EVERY ENVIRONMENT produces them. Even environments that are extremely hostile (even lethal) to homosexuals produce them. Can anyone name one that doesn't?
I suppose there may be some environmental factor that is responsible for most instances of homosexuality out there. But can anyone point out what that might be? I don't believe anyone can, so I believe homosexuality must be inherent, or at least there there must be an inherent predisposition to it, in some people.
(CONJECTURE) It is quite easy to imagine how such a "gay gene" might have been passed down through the generations even despite the superficial difficulties. Historically, cultural hostility has forced gays into the closet, where they function as heterosexuals even to the point of child-bearing. This is especially apparent in the case of female homosexuals, as females have had little choice in the matter of child-bearing for most of history... their sexuality has quite frankly been irrelevent, as men were going to impregnate them regardless (no value judgment here, just statement of fact). So a "gay gene" could easily be passed for quite a long time.
(CONJECTURE) Ironically, it may have been society's prejudices against homosexuality that have actually allowed homosexuality to spread more widely though the human population than through most other animals. In most species, animals that don't want to mate with the opposite sex just don't mate with the opposite sex... and no offspring means that any genetically-based traits will not be passed on. On the contrary, due to cultural effects, homosexual humans have been FORCED to produce offspring despite their sexuality.
That's a totally interesting idea to me... however, there has been no proof whatsoever of the heritability of homosexuality; on the contrary, there is ample evidence that a child's sexuality can NOT be predicted based on the parents'. We just have no idea how homosexuality arises. Not nearly enough research has been performed on this topic to say ANYTHING with any certainty. So why do so many people on both sides of the argument continue to do so?
(edits for clarity and spelling)
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 19:58
That's a totally interesting idea to me... however, there has been no proof whatsoever of the heritability of homosexuality; on the contrary, there is ample evidence that a child's sexuality can NOT be predicted based on the parents'. We just have no idea how homosexuality arises. Not nearly enough research has been performed on this topic to say ANYTHING with any certainty. So why do so many people on both sides of the argument continue to do so?
I agree with most of this. However those on the other side insist that its an inherint trait. Those on our side tend to think there are many different reasons or a combination of reasons that cause homosexuality.
Again its just common sense
Focus on the Family Gives the Facts on Gay Adoption
Pro-Family Organization Reaffirms the Importance of the Traditional Family
Colorado Springs—Last month an eight-member executive committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) endorsed same-sex parenting, claiming that children raised by homosexuals fare just as well as children whose parents are heterosexual. Talk show host Rosie O'Donnell recently added her voice to what appears now to be a coordinated effort to achieve yet another cherished objective by homosexual activists. Significantly, O'Donnell announced her opposition to the Florida law banning adoption by homosexual couples on ABC's Primetime Thursday. In sharp disagreement, Dr. James Dobson, heard by 7.5 million listeners each week, emphasized the important role mothers and fathers play in parenting on his national daily broadcast this week and discussed the facts surrounding this critical matter.
The AAP's endorsement of homosexual parenting is NOT supported by the research. Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, examined 49 empirical studies on same-sex parenting. They found no basis for the conclusion that children raised by homosexual parents fare just as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. They found serious methodological flaws in each of the studies examined, including inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper control groups and the failure to account for confounding variables indeed, the AAP's own report began with this statement, "Accurate statistics regarding the number of parents who are gay or lesbian are impossible to obtain."
The AAP's committee's recommendations have ignited a firestorm of protest among America's rank and file pediatricians. Many physicians have condemned the report, challenging its assumptions and criticizing the research cited by the committee as "seriously flawed." Some pediatricians have pulled out of the organization and many others are threatening to as well. The AAP hosts an online bulletin board on their "members only" website and the majority of pediatricians registering their opinion overwhelmingly disagreed with the committee's report.
Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to experience gender and sexual confusion, more likely to become promiscuous and more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior. They are also at greater risk of losing a parent to AIDS, substance abuse or suicide.
Children raised in a stable, married, heterosexual home do better than children raised in any other type of household. They are healthier physically and emotionally, do better academically, experience less poverty and commit fewer crimes.
Children need both a mother and a father. Why? Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation.
doc_bean
01-17-2006, 20:38
Exceot homosexuals are far less inclined ti have such a relationship.
And thats not the only risks
Adoption agencies should always look at the family situation, the people who want to adopt tend to be in a stable reltaionship, I'd assume.
Other reasons to oppose gay adoption.
[QUOTE]However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%. (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.) Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.
Do they count people that just like little boys and not grown men as homosexuals ? Because that would be another matter entirely. And up to what age are the minors involved considered ? Someone who likes 16-17y old boys is totally different from someone who likes 6-7y old boys. How is homosexuality defined ? Consistent homosexual contact, one experiment, serval experiments ?
I'd have to see the entire study, and will probably still have a lot of question then, before I could assert the validity and possible bias (statistical or intentional) of such a study. After all, statistics can be used to prove anything, especially if you just mention the results in such loaded terms.
As far as claims of homosexuals are born that way
I'm not fond of the gay gene theory either, but I believe in a genetic base. We tend to believe athletic parents are more likely to get athletic children, intelligent parents more likely to have intelligent children, heck, fat people more likely to have fat children, etc. so why not gay parents more likely to get gay children ?
I believe homosexuaity is due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
As for the study showing gays can be cured, it is an exception amongst studies on the subject and most gay people did revert back to homosexual behaviour after a while.
And as far as your studies showing no difference between those rasies by same sex couples
LINK (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html)
Catholic education.org as a source ? :help:
Anyway, all they are saying is that most studies use bad statistics, any conclusion they draw from those studies suffers from the same problem.
As far as the length and stability of homosexual relationships, I already said that i'd expect only stable couples to apply and to be accepted. The average gay couple might not make it past 8 years, but the average straigth couple doesn't do much better (8y is about the average lifespan of a marriage these days).
They could even in some cases be btter. However I maintain this is the exception not the norm. Chances are the stright couple will be better for them based on things like ive just posted and common sense.
Well, all other things, I'd also prefer the straight couple, but like I said before, all other things are rarely the same and then this is just an academic discussion. (ahem, as far as the word 'academic' can be used in the backroom anyway).
By we are all bi sexual Im saying that we can all enjoy sex with either gender . Its our programed bias against homosexuality that stops many from experimenting with it. Plus the health risks and dissinigratin of the family.
Probably true, without the negative view of homosexuality it's highly possible that most men would at some point experiment with it, however, I do think most would settle in a heterosexual relationship.
Well the study I quoted says its even less.
It depends on how you define 'homosexuality' and whether people are considered that are actuallyhomosexual or whether a guess is made about the percentage of the population that actually is homosexual, accounting for oppression (and peer pressure, and family pressure, etc.).
If this were so there would be no need for gay adoption or any adoptions. In fact we have more unwanted children now han we did in the 50s despite far more use of contraceptives and sex education. We have become far more promiscous it seems despite claims that this is not so.
I don't know, I'd like to see figures :book:
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 20:54
Do they count people that just like little boys and not grown men as homosexuals ?
Why shouldnt they?
Catholic education.org as a source ?
They are not the source of the study.
but the average straigth couple doesn't do much better (8y is about the average lifespan of a marriage these days).
Where?
About 75 percent
of Jewish Israelis remain married for their entire lives
How horrible. Must have something to do with being religous.
Also I cant find it now but 57% of all marriages in the US last over 20 years.
Some specfic rebuttals (I await the rebuttals of my rebuttals):
Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?
If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.
Well... many cultures ARE tolerant of polygamy (and some have polyandry as well). And beastiality is clearly NOT the same... an animal cannot consent to a romantic relationship like an adult human (of any sexuality) can. To say that an animal loves you in a romantic way is foolish, and to actually have sex with that animal is clearly abuse, by just about any standard.
Being in favor of the natural order of things,
Odd. You denounce homosexuality because it is not the natural order of things. Yet a few lines above you also imply that you are not tolerant of polygamy. Which is weird since the vast majority of mammals, including all those most closely related to us, practice polygamy nearly exclusively. Isn't polygamy also therefore the natural order of things?
Except that if everyone liked blue the human race would still go on.
Unlikely. If the entire species was uniformly attracted to the color blue, there would undoubtedly have arisen some sneaky blue predator that would have eaten us all. :)
The Human race is just like any other animal. At our core our purpose is to be born and reproduce so our race can go on. You cannot say that gays are born gay, it simply goes against the laws of nature.
Read my previous post. Did you know that in the species most genetically similar to us humans, the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee, which shares 97% of its genes with us (some estimates put it over 99%), female-female sexual contact is actually MORE COMMON than female-male sexual contact?
(Source: This book. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520216512/sr=1-3/qid=1137525964/ref=pd_bbs_3/002-2302319-9052834?%5Fencoding=UTF8))
Look at falcons, they produce only 1-2 chicks per breeding season, and thats why they are endangered.
Wrong. Some (not all) species of falcons are endangered because their interactions with humans have had negative consequences for them. They were quite happily and successfully producing only 1-2 chicks per breeding for tens of millions of years before we arrived. Mule deer also produce only 1-2 fawns per breeding, and are nowhere near endangered, because their interactions with humans have had largely positive consequences for them... in fact, their numbers exploded after the arrival of humans who killed off most of their now-endangered canine and feline predators (who, incidentally, have very high litter size). Clearly, litter size (clutch size for birds) has far less to do with a species becoming endangered than the consequences of their interactions with humans.
Humans themselves produce only 1-2 young per breeding. Oops.
Exceot homosexuals are far less inclined ti have such a relationship. [added by Sheep for clarity: promiscuous relationships that result in STD infections]
I would assume that higher rates of STD and promiscuity in homosexuals would be largely irrelevent to the current discussion of adoptions, considering that effective regulation of adoption would screen out diseased and promiscuous people of all genders and sexuality. The same argument goes for blacks' greater statistical likelihood of being convicted criminals... the adoption agencies SHOULD be screening out convicted criminals (whether they do is up for debate).
However those on the other side insist that its an inherint trait. Those on our side tend to think there are many different reasons or a combination of reasons that cause homosexuality.
I'm not sure how I ended up on 'your' side... I said in my very first sentence I doubted environment was solely responsible for homosexuality. 'My' side is that there is not enough evidence to come to a definitive conclusion yet... yet you seem to draw conclusions quite freely. I could be wrong; I don't know you that well.
Also, I don't claim to know whether or not adoption by gay parents is good or bad... but I can say it doesn't help anyone's argument to post documents produced by organizations with a clear and STATED bias towards one conclusion. If you want to see studies to determine socialism works, you don't go to a socialist website.
Read my previous post. Did you know that in the species most genetically similar to us humans, the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee, which shares 97% of its genes with us (some estimates put it over 99%), female-female sexual contact is actually MORE COMMON than female-male sexual contact?
Sexual contact, yes, but still they get children. It`s bi-sexuality
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 21:07
QUOTE]but I can say it doesn't help anyone's argument to post documents produced by organizations with a clear and STATED bias towards one conclusion. If you want to see studies to determine socialism works, you don't go to a socialist website.
[/QUOTE]
Again the study was not done by the site I listed but by a canadian doctor. Almost every document posted by the other side is from a gay rights site. There are few non biased sites on this matter.
Also, I don't claim to know whether or not adoption by gay parents is good or bad
Either do I. Again its a case by case basis. However I feel the odds favor heterosexual couples. I dont oppose gay adoption outright.
Devastatin Dave
01-17-2006, 21:24
Can you get a gay couple here? Maybe you're on the wrong site?!?!?:laugh4:
doc_bean
01-17-2006, 21:49
Why shouldnt they?
Liking little boys or grown men is totally different. Little boys are somewhat similar to women, there are lots of cases in history (and currently) where homosexual behaviour was practised with little boys but not with grown men. The connection between the two is rather vague, some organisation with a clear agenda (like that boy love thing or the religious right) might want to connect the two to either make homosexuality seem very bad or make boy love seem acceptable (yeah right...).
If that 25% (max estimate) of the homosexuals that are pedophiles is calculated without the requirement that those pedophiles have engaged in 'normal' homosexual contact, the argument against adoption by gay couples because of the greater risk of pedophilia is a joke. It uses 2 step logic to demonstrate its point: 25% of the pedophiles are gay, 1% of the population is gay so that a gay person is a pedophile is 25 times more likely. If however that 25% has never had a mature homosexual contact, but say only 1% has, then the chance of someone in a 'normal' homosexual relationship being a pedophile is about the same as that of a straight person.
They are not the source of the study.
Okay, but I thought it was funny nonetheless.
Where?
8 years of marriage is a figure often cited for Belgium and I think most of Western Europe, it is actually iirc, the average marriage gets ended after 8 years, calculated for specific years (when the marriage occured) or a specific time period (say 1980-1990).
How horrible. Must have something to do with being religous.
Also I cant find it now but 57% of all marriages in the US last over 20 years.
Yes, it depends on how you calculate it. What did I say about statistics again ? :2thumbsup:
Sexual contact, yes, but still they get children. It`s bi-sexuality
You are correct. I don't think anyone on Earth would deny that the union of male and female gametes is necessary for humans to reproduce (aside from cloning, potentially). [edit: Except maybe one time, if you are one of the billions that follow a certain 2000-year-old religious text!]
At issue is whether homosexuality is somehow "wrong" or "unnatural" because it does not lead to reproduction. I bring up bonobos to show that homosexual behavior can be quite common, and reproductive success can still occur. We know they have good reproductive success simply by the very fact that they continue to exist. (And no, bonobos are not endangered because almost all of them are bisexual, at least. They are endangered because they were unfortunate enough to have been discovered by humans.)
Almost every document posted by the other side is from a gay rights site. There are few non biased sites on this matter.
Very true. My comment was actually directed at both sides, not just at you (just as the last comment in my previous post was). You have posted articles taken directly from sites like Focus on the Family, and your opponents respond with quotes from the aforementioned gay rights site. I apologize if it seems I was singling you out. Nobody is alone in their bias.
Again its a case by case basis. However I feel the odds favor heterosexual couples. I dont oppose gay adoption outright.
I apologize unconditionally for drawing conclusions about your beliefs without knowing them.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-17-2006, 22:03
Liking little boys or grown men is totally different.
Whats the definition of homosexuality again?
Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1b —ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly /-E/ adverb
Theres no age requirement that seperates them.
If that 25% (max estimate) of the homosexuals that are pedophiles is calculated without the requirement that those pedophiles have engaged in 'normal' homosexual contact, the argument against adoption by gay couples because of the greater risk of pedophilia is a joke. It uses 2 step logic to demonstrate its point: 25% of the pedophiles are gay, 1% of the population is gay so that a gay person is a pedophile is 25 times more likely. If however that 25% has never had a mature homosexual contact, but say only 1% has, then the chance of someone in a 'normal' homosexual relationship being a pedophile is about the same as that of a straight person.
This would apply to the heterosexuals in the study as well then and you would therefore come up with the same statistics. The study clearly indicates that homosexuals are far more likely to be pedophiles.
Yes, it depends on how you calculate it. What did I say about statistics again ?
Theres only one way to make that calculation. 57% of those who marry stay married for at least 20 years. Not hard to understand.
Whats the definition of homosexuality again?
Theres no age requirement that seperates them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterosexuality
het·er·o·sex·u·al·i·ty Pronunciation Key (ht-r-sksh-l-t)
n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the opposite sex.
Also no age requirement. Do you therefore believe that there is no difference between liking little girls and liking grown women?
doc_bean
01-17-2006, 22:34
Whats the definition of homosexuality again?
Theres no age requirement that seperates them.
Bah, semantics, there is a real difference no matter what the dictionary says, just as there is a differnce between people who like little girls and people who like mature women.
The definition of homosexuality for research purposes is often problematic, often 'previous homosexual contact is used'. If the we would define heterosexuaility that way pretty much all homosexuals would fall into the heterosexual category. Purely homosexual behaviour over an entire lifespan is extremely rare.
This would apply to the heterosexuals in the study as well then and you would therefore come up with the same statistics. The study clearly indicates that homosexuals are far more likely to be pedophiles.
At most it indicates that pedophiles prefer little boys to little girls.
A lot of the cases I've heard about the pedophile was in a normal heterosexual relationship (or marriage) but then raped little boys on the side. If you count these as homosexuals it biases the conclusions severely. It would have been better and far clearer, if the studies indicated how many of the pedophiles were currently involved in a heterosecual relationship vs how many in a homosexual one, if not in a relationship they could have used a last serious relationship criterium. The way it is put now is unclear and doesn't prove anything about homosexuals in a normal relationship.
Theres only one way to make that calculation. 57% of those who marry stay married for at least 20 years. Not hard to understand.
1) You take a year, say 1980 and look at when those people got divorced, you can
1a)look at when >50% of the people who got married have divorced
1b)use a distribution function and calculate the expected time of a marriage started in 1980
2)You look at all people married today and calculate how long they have all been married and then average it
3) You take a certain number of years (say 20) and look how many marriages have made it past that point compared to all marriages
There are probably other strategies to, they all have there upsides and downsides. The difference is of course, that people didn't divorce quite as often in the good old days, so depending on which timeframe you include, you can seriously alter your results.
Goofball
01-17-2006, 22:43
Almost every document posted by the other side is from a gay rights site.
Actually, the article I linked to earlier was from here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org
Very clearly not a gay rights site. And the article referenced studies that went a long way towards disproving all this "same sex parenting is bad for kids crap" that has been spouted in this thread.
That must be why none of the anti-gay adoption folks commented on it.
As an aside, I would encourage everybody to have a look at that web site. It's pretty cool. Look at their fan/hate mail section.
They receive hate mail and death threats not only from crazy fundies (of all religions), but from extremist gay-rights folks as well.
The funny thing is, they also receive fan mail from conservative religious types and gay rights advocates.
The big difference between the hate mail and the fan mail? It appears that the writers of the fan mail have all achieved at least a grade 9 reading level, while the writers of the hate mail have trouble even spelling expletives properly.
Funny, that...
Gawain of Orkeny
01-18-2006, 03:59
het·er·o·sex·u·al·i·ty Pronunciation Key (ht-r-sksh-l-t)
n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the opposite sex.
Also no age requirement.
Did you read my post?
This would apply to the heterosexuals in the study as well
Also no age requirement. Do you therefore believe that there is no difference between liking little girls and liking grown women?
Not as far as them being a homosexual act or heterosexual act. Depending on the circumstances. There are heterosexual pedophiles,homosexual pedophiles and bi sexual pedophiles. Their not mutaly exclusive terms. Male on male sex is homosexual sex no matter what you choose to call it.
Bah, semantics, there is a real difference no matter what the dictionary says, just as there is a differnce between people who like little girls and people who like mature women.
And what of those who like both? And what constitutes a little girl? One of the judges from SCOTUS thiinks the age of consent should be 12.
Very clearly not a gay rights site
Even worse. Its a Canadian site :laugh4:
And the article referenced studies that went a long way towards disproving all this "same sex parenting is bad for kids crap" that has been spouted in this thread.
And Ive shown you none of these studies are worth the paper their written on.
Did you read my post?
Yes I did, and the line you just quoted from yourself was down below the next quote and certainly did not appear to be referencing your dictionary definition argument. But if it was then I guess I stand corrected on that point but that certainly was an odd place for it.
Not as far as them being a homosexual act or heterosexual act. Depending on the circumstances. There are heterosexual pedophiles,homosexual pedophiles and bi sexual pedophiles. Their not mutaly exclusive terms. Male on male sex is homosexual sex no matter what you choose to call it.
Male on male sex is indeed homosexual sex. His point is that at least some pedophiles who enjoy homosexual sex with little children do not appear to enjoy it with adults of the same gender. In fact numerous pedophiles are married and have children of their own. So the fact that 25% of pedophily reported is with children of the same gender as the abuser, simply means that 25% of pedophiles like children of the same gender. It does not necessarily mean that 25% of pedophiles are identifiably gay outside of their predilection for children.
This is an important distinction because the topic at hand is whether to allow gays to adopt. You present evidence that they should not be able to, because of the higher incidence of homosexual pedophilia. But if many of these homosexual abusers are outwardly heterosexual (ie, married, have kids, etc) then adult homosexuality is not necessarily a predictor of homosexual pedophilia.
I also wonder about the validity of the statistic itself. I wonder how much adult-female-on-male-child pedophilic interaction goes unreported. This would tend to increase the percentage of heterosexual pedophilia. But I have not read the study so perhaps that topic is addressed. The statistic is more convincing to me if it does.
And Ive shown you none of these studies are worth the paper their written on.
You have not. You have cited one report (quoted at a conservative Christian website if not performed by that group) that claims that many studies have methodological errors. The report does not address the specific studies that he has offered. Have you actually read the studies he has presented and examined the data, methods, and conclusions? Can you find anyone else who has? If not, then you have shown nothing. Just because many studies have errors does not mean that ALL studies on the subject have them or will have them when written in the future.
Clearly not enough is known about either of these issues (homosexuals' tendency towards pedophilia, or the effects of child-rearing by homosexuals on the children themselves). The case is far from closed in either direction. If it can be proven that gays are more likely to become pedophiles, then that is definitely important information and should be taken into account when deciding whether to allow gay adoption. It would at least mean that gay applicants should be scrutinized more closely in order to ferret out pedophilic tendencies.
Do we allow homosexuals to adopt in the meantime before we know these things? That is an interesting question that I do not have an answer to. I can see effective arguments on both sides ("We should not use children as guinea pigs." vs. "How will we ever know if we don't try it?" et cetera)
Gawain of Orkeny
01-18-2006, 07:00
Do we allow homosexuals to adopt in the meantime before we know these things? That is an interesting question that I do not have an answer to. I can see effective arguments on both sides ("We should not use children as guinea pigs." vs. "How will we ever know if we don't try it?" et cetera
So in reality we agree. This is another question with no clear and easy answer. Thats why it constantly comes up on these boards.
doc_bean
01-18-2006, 11:43
Regardless of the definition of homosexual, do you understand why I say the study (as it is presented/quoted here) says little to nothing about the risk of homosexuals in an adult relationship ?
I don't really have the time to go into a big debate here, but I think this is a very important point about quoted statistics, and the difference between what was actually researched and the result presented.
Watchman
01-18-2006, 13:21
Funny thing about marriage is, AFAIK, that wherever divorce is (made) fiscally, legally and socially feasible, the rates soar. Seriously. Which strongly suggests certain things about the stability of these things in general. I don't wonder about that; even otherwise perfectly fine parent-child relationships tend to start getting strained if they're stretched too long (twenty-odd years of cohabitation were starting to do that for me and my mother, for example), nevermind now those between people whose only real connection may well be having once been in love (which, for that matter, is by no means an automatic basis for marriage anyway...). "Running out of things to talk about" and just plain getting fed up with each others' proximity are pretty common issues in long-term relationships, I understand. Not that young people were too good at finding out suitable partners either; I'm not too familiar with these things, but one gets the very strong impressions breaking up and getting together with someone else is pretty common among youngsters these days. Gay couples have additional sociocultural stresses added to that - no wonder they're pretty unstable.
I'm not too convinced of the overall heredity of human traits beyond those that have to do with the actual structure of the body - pigmentation, height bias, tendency towards obesity or thinness, and suchlike - and even those tend to be pretty hit-or-miss things; children usually get a pretty random combination of traits from their biological parents, including ones that don't express at all in their immediate progenitor (relatives tell me I have inherited several of my maternal grandfather's features, which my mother doesn't possess for one example). Anything to do with neurology gets AFAIK pretty questionable, and personality traits (not counting those stemming directly from the odd hereditary neurological feature) are notoriously Right Out.
I've always been under the impression exclusive homosexuality from the word go is a bit of an inborn "glitch" not entirely unlike many genetic disorders; AFAIK quite a few of those turn up quite spontaneously without any perceivable heredity pattern (expect perhaps on the macroscale, but that's not really a concern on the practical level anymore). Case in point: my little brother suffers from an inborn grand mal strobe epilepsy. Nobody else in the family does; not me, our mother, father, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, *nobody*. If it's hereditary it's something ludicrously regressive, that's for sure.
"Gay gene" ? Unnecessary. People express odder deviations spontaneously enough.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.