Aren't people who're afraid of/loathe spiders called arachnophobes ?
Don't try to play silly games with me.
Printable View
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?Quote:
Aren't people who're afraid of/loathe spiders called arachnophobes ?
Don't try to play silly games with me.
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.
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.
Don't take the definition so literally. We don't have a word for "prejudiced against or disliking homosexuals".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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?Quote:
Don't take the definition so literally. We don't have a word for "prejudiced against or disliking homosexuals".
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...
Touche (plagiarized from Reenk Roink).Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
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:
How about...I won't exchange anybody for my parents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
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.
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:
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:
:bow: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
There you go with ur liberal trickery! Spell it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Probably because "liberal" ideas tend to be the emancipatory let-every-flower-bloom ones ? ~:pat:Quote:
How is it only those who dont agree with liberal ideas are labled narrow minded?
Now are we going to play the Silly Game much longer ? :focus:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Gah, really now, I never said "bullied" I said mocked, and I know what I saw...Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
My word apparently isn't good...:shame:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentonius
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...
Except that if everyone liked blue the human race would still go on.:idea2: If everyone were gay that would be a serious glitch.Quote:
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.
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.
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:
A link to a document about the research:Quote:
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.
http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/apg...ments/sons.rtf
So please drop the overdramatized argument of the human population failing when gay people are allowed to adopt children.
Oh for... :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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.Quote:
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.
If you go back to my first post you will see that no real study has ever been done that supports this.Quote:
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Now lets look at sterile: Not producing or incapable of producing offspring.
Where in the definition of sterile does it say anything about gays?
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.Quote:
Compare to people who simply do not want to have children
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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,
Its in humanities best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality. People have known this since the beggining of time. Its not rocket science.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
No they only need two. Are there others I havent heard of?Quote:
Humans, like all animals whose reproduction relies on intercourse between individuals of two or more sexes,
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.Quote:
. 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.
Your arrogance is showing again. I have no anti-homosexual prejudices . Im also getting tired of your baiting.Quote:
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.
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.
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" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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...
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.Quote:
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
Your quite good at stating the exception as if it were the rule.Quote:
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...
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 ?
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.Quote:
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 ?
It's "imprinting". The point here is that the parents are used by children as a template. Hence the wolf-children 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/...n%20humans.pdf
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...
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 ?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:Quote:
Its in humanities best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality.
Its the truth.Quote:
Its in humanities best interest to promote heterosexuality over homosexuality.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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 ?Quote:
Studies show that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to try homosexual acts.
...
...hey, wait a sec...
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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?"
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
The one I posted way back. There are plenty more.Quote:
And which studies exactly
You mean the book that was written by Patricia Morgan?Quote:
The one I posted way back. There are plenty more.
http://www.gaynz.com/political/Same-Sex-Parenting.asp
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?Quote:
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 agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
If you dont think being homosexaul is bad for you just check the statistics.
Nobody is saying they are better, just that they are just as good.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
I think we all are bi sexual.
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%Quote:
Some claim that homosexuals represent 10% of the population.
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.Quote:
At what point would the number become dangerous? The thing is that at some point it does.
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/c...stgameever.gif
Exceot homosexuals are far less inclined ti have such a relationship.Quote:
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.
And thats not the only risksQuote:
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.)
Other reasons to oppose gay adoption.Quote:
Home E-mail to a Friend
‘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)
As far as claims of homosexuals are born that wayQuote:
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.
And as far as your studies showing no difference between those rasies by same sex couplesQuote:
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)
LINKQuote:
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.'
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.Quote:
Nobody is saying they are better, just that they are just as good.
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.Quote:
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
Well the study I quoted says its even less.Quote:
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%
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.Quote:
Reproduction these days is no longer a side effect, in most cases it is a deliberate choice,
Exceot homosexuals are far less inclined ti have such a relationship.Quote:
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.
And thats not the only risksQuote:
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.)
Other reasons to oppose gay adoption.Quote:
Home E-mail to a Friend
‘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)
As far as claims of homosexuals are born that wayQuote:
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.
And as far as your studies showing no difference between those rasies by same sex couplesQuote:
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)
LINKQuote:
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.'
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.Quote:
Nobody is saying they are better, just that they are just as good.
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.Quote:
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
Well the study I quoted says its even less.Quote:
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%
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.Quote:
Reproduction these days is no longer a side effect, in most cases it is a deliberate choice,
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)
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.Quote:
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?
Again its just common sense
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
[QUOTE=Gawain of Orkeny]
Other reasons to oppose gay adoption.
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 ?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.
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.
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 ?Quote:
As far as claims of homosexuals are born that way
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.
Catholic education.org as a source ? :help:Quote:
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).
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).Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.).Quote:
Well the study I quoted says its even less.
I don't know, I'd like to see figures :book:Quote:
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.
Why shouldnt they?Quote:
Do they count people that just like little boys and not grown men as homosexuals ?
They are not the source of the study.Quote:
Catholic education.org as a source ?
Where?Quote:
but the average straigth couple doesn't do much better (8y is about the average lifespan of a marriage these days).
How horrible. Must have something to do with being religous.Quote:
About 75 percent
of Jewish Israelis remain married for their entire lives
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):
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
(Source: This book.)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
Humans themselves produce only 1-2 young per breeding. Oops.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
Sexual contact, yes, but still they get children. It`s bi-sexualityQuote:
Originally Posted by Sheep
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.
Either do I. Again its a case by case basis. However I feel the odds favor heterosexual couples. I dont oppose gay adoption outright.Quote:
Also, I don't claim to know whether or not adoption by gay parents is good or bad
Can you get a gay couple here? Maybe you're on the wrong site?!?!?:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
Okay, but I thought it was funny nonetheless.Quote:
They are not the source of the study.
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).Quote:
Where?
Yes, it depends on how you calculate it. What did I say about statistics again ? :2thumbsup:Quote:
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.
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!]Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I apologize unconditionally for drawing conclusions about your beliefs without knowing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Whats the definition of homosexuality again?Quote:
Liking little boys or grown men is totally different.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Theres only one way to make that calculation. 57% of those who marry stay married for at least 20 years. Not hard to understand.Quote:
Yes, it depends on how you calculate it. What did I say about statistics again ?
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...eterosexualityQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
At most it indicates that pedophiles prefer little boys to little girls.Quote:
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.
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.
1) You take a year, say 1980 and look at when those people got divorced, you canQuote:
Theres only one way to make that calculation. 57% of those who marry stay married for at least 20 years. Not hard to understand.
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.
Actually, the article I linked to earlier was from here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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...
Did you read my post?Quote:
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.
Quote:
This would apply to the heterosexuals in the study as well
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.Quote:
Also no age requirement. Do you therefore believe that there is no difference between liking little girls and liking grown 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.Quote:
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.
Even worse. Its a Canadian site :laugh4:Quote:
Very clearly not a gay rights site
And Ive shown you none of these studies are worth the paper their written on.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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)
So in reality we agree. This is another question with no clear and easy answer. Thats why it constantly comes up on these boards.Quote:
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
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.
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.