Can I get a gay couple here?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Now here, in a nutshell, is exactly what people are afraid of. Soulforged is arguing that even if gay parents will make their children gay, it's a good thing and we should encourage it.

I don't know Goofball, you sure you want him on your side?

He has a point, if there were more gay people there would be less discrimination.

[Redleg]

While I agree with you that it isn't a born into or genetic condition, there is another possibility besides it being a lifestyle choice that you have to look at. I personally believe it's something that develops from outside influences when the person is quite young. Many aspects of your personality are not finally determined until the age of seven.

There are several ongoing studies into just this issue. One such study sites that a possible hormone imbalance in the mother during the fetus development stage effects the sexual aspects of the child. However the study has not been complete last time I attempted a search on the internet. Someone with a peer review access might be able to shed more light onto this particlur study.

Again there are too many factors that influence an individual's behavior for me to reach the conclusion that its a condition one is born into - ie genetic.

[Just A Girl]

The problem with homosexuals is....
They Tend to contract.
Hiv and hepititis and stuff.

Hepititis is HIGLY contageous. And as such i dont beleve that Its a good idea to subject a child to The possibilatys of Its parents (although adopted) dying at an early age.

Now Im not saying all homosexual couples WILL get HIV and Hepititis And other Std'S or Sti'S
but They Are much more likley to,

hetrosexual couples, Have a Really hard time adopting children.
They often fail to be allowed to adopt a child Due to some Misdeminer they had long forgoten about.
Or they Dont have enough Income (although many familys Live on less)
The idea of Adoption is to place the child In a "SAFE" loving enviroment,
Unfortunatly With STD's And Homophobic crimes against homosexuals.
the Child Would Undoubtedly be made to suffer for Its Adopted parents choice.

Think about it.
Can You Imagine Going through school When Your parents are Both male or female?
Bulling already accounts for Enough Child deaths,
Children Are vicious lil things,
And if they knew 1 childs parents were homosexual. In That child's mind he would be better off dead Than haft to be subjected to the torment the other children and his peers sunject him to,

We know tis is Not How its Suposed to work.
Unfortunatly It is how it works.
Apart from illness and the possibilaty of an early death. I dont see this as being the Adopted parents Problem.

Its More of society's problem, And Its the child who would suffer the most.
Homosexual couples Should really Try to think about what the child would go through.

It is unfortunate.
but that is my oppinion on the matter.

[Goofball]

1) It says that it's okay to discriminate against gays because we have always done so in the past, and not discriminating them is a "revolutionary" new idea that we should take slowly. Based on that logic, should we not allow employers to fire homosexual employees, in order to improve workplace harmony by not offending the sensibilities of more conservative employees?

A Strawman arguement my dear Goofball, the care and raising of children does not equate to an individuals ability to perform their job. I but into this conservation because I happen to agree with Beriut about adoption.

You're not butting in at all. Everyone is welcome to discuss.

And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).

There is no basis whatsoever to make a claim that same-sex couples are any more likely to be unfit parents than hetero couples, and there is no evidence to suggest that having opposite-sex parents is any more or less beneficial to a child than having same-sex parents. On the other hand, I can come up with a considerable amount of data that would support the idea that children raised by black parents are more likely to become criminals than children raised by white parents. Should we also give preference in adopting based on skin color? And your statement about what is "normal" is just silly. In the thirties, it was more or less "normal" for a husband to blacken his wife's eye for her if she didn't mind her manners. Luckily, several wacky "social experiments" since then have changed that custom. (Okay, I know I said sarcasm was off, but I couldn't resist that one.)

Your throwing a red herring into the arguement Goofball. Address the issue of same-sex couples and traditional couples to bring forth your premise.

I did. I'm not being sarcastic, but I suggest you re-read what I said. I've highlighted the relevant part in bold.

Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.

Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?

At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?

There is already considerable evidence that a good portion of heterosexual couples make a complete balls-up of raising their children. Should we outlaw all heterosexual couple adoption for thirty years or so until we can do an in-depth study to determine what kind of people are more likely to be good parents vs. bad parents so thet we may more properly screen applicants?

Is that a counter to the arguement that a traditional family is the preferred family unit for child rearing for a healthy society?

I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.

Maybe it's time for some new traditions.

[Goofball]

Now here, in a nutshell, is exactly what people are afraid of. Soulforged is arguing that even if gay parents will make their children gay, it's a good thing and we should encourage it.

I don't know Goofball, you sure you want him on your side?

I know you meant that tongue-in-cheek, but I think if you read his post again you'll find that SF is arguing not necessarily that being gay is good, but that personal choice is good.

At any rate, I don't believe that being gay is good or bad. Just like I don't think being left-handed is good or bad. I also don't believe that gay parents would be more likely to raise an adopted child to be gay. But even if it were proven that they were, I wouldn't care.

[Goofball]

Just to add a little levity to the thread, does anybody else find that the thread title sounds like a personal ad in a swinger magazine?

[Divinus Arma]

The question is:

Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?

Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?


If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.


The bottom line is that if you support a culture that is completely free of traditional sexual concepts, then this is acceptable. The result is that our children will be raised with certain challenges in gender identification. This will only complicate the already difficult process of growing up. Hormonal changes and accompanying emotional experiences in combination with social gender confusion may result in psychological damage.

Being in favor of the natural order of things, I believe that the furthering of the homosexual cause is a danger to society.

Cats and dogs living together, that kind of thing.

[Goofball]

The question is:

Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?

Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?


If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.

The bottom line is that if you support a culture that is completely free of traditional sexual concepts, then this is acceptable. The result is that our children will be raised with certain challenges in gender identification. This will only complicate the already difficult process of growing up. Hormonal changes and accompanying emotional experiences in combination with social gender confusion may result in psychological damage.

Being in favor of the natural order of things, I believe that the furthering of the homosexual cause is a danger to society.

Cats and dogs living together, that kind of thing.

*yawns*

Tired, old conservative talking points that hold no basis in fact, but make anti-gay people happy because they can compare homosexuality to buggering the family dog.

Come back when you have something new.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Probably not. And even if you did, they'd probably want a ridiculous price.

Wait a minute....that's not what you mean.

Ahem.

And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).

What you seem to be forgetting is the crux of Beirut's argument: that the children should not be used as guinea pigs. The effects of being raised by parents who do not have a normal sexual orientation, and not having a mother and father, are, anecdotes aside, largely unknown. To throw children, who have no power or choice into the matter, into a situation where we don't know what the effect on them will be, is cruelhearted.

The basis of marriage was raising a family, and that is why it was between a man and a woman. Arguing that since some misguided nations now allow homosexual 'marriages' we should now act as though 'married' homosexuals are the same in every way to real married people ignores the basis for marriage.

If we accept as a principle that being gay is good, because it's a personal election (or for other several causes that people differ),

It isn't. Just because a person chooses to do something does not mean they are doing a good thing.
Thus, your argument is moot.

Crazed Rabbit

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Mostly OT:
Can anyone show some stats for the number of kids up for adoption vs maybe the number of people on waiting lists for adoption? In the US, for example?

I was under the impression that there wasn't much of a problem with people who want to adopt children, but that the problem lay in people wanting to be foster parents.

[Redleg]

You're not butting in at all. Everyone is welcome to discuss.

And my argument set up no strawman at all. Beirut argued that gays should be discriminated against in adoption decisions because the whole concept was a "social experiment." I pointed out that granting equal rights based on sexual orientation should not really be considered a social experiment, but a social necessity and not some crazy new idea. I used the employment example to demonstrate another situation that traditionally was accepted (discriminating against gays in the workplace) before, but is no longer (legally, anyway).

Establishment of criteria by the government for adoption is within its scope of responsiblities. Adoption outside of the arrangement between individuals is a regulated affair - and it should be. The concept of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children is indeed a social experiment. For instance (using the same type of red herring as your examble here) where in nature does same-sex couples procreate offspring?

The work place examble is within that same scope. Its not related to the discussion in that the legal rights of the same-sex couple are not being violated by the state.

I did. I'm not being sarcastic, but I suggest you re-read what I said. I've highlighted the relevant part in bold.

The red herring was bringing race into the discussion. The highlighted portion does indeed address the issue and was answered and then discarded by yourself with the following comment.

Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?

You defeat your arguement with your attempt at sarcasm here. If you want to discuss then discuss - but such comments do not bode well for a honest discussion.

And no the studies I am refering to are easily found on the web and some are studies done by agencies such as the Federal Government in the United States, among others. Links can be found with a simple google search. Since I am at work - I feel no obligation to do research to back up my statement. Given the nature of my family's health - I have read such articles done by professionals in the child studies and family studies.

At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?

Because the arguement is a red herring. I have no problem with allowing same sex couples adopting children if a suitable traditional couple can not be found for that child. Race is not revelant to my opinion. I see people for who they are not what color of their skin.

I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.

Maybe it's time for some new traditions.

Should I respond to such a obvious attempt of emotional appeal and burdern of proof logical fallacies in this arguement? Only with this, if your going to demand proof of statement - then you must also provide proof that your statement is more then just your opinion also.

[Goofball]

What you seem to be forgetting is the crux of Beirut's argument: that the children should not be used as guinea pigs. The effects of being raised by parents who do not have a normal sexual orientation, and not having a mother and father, are, anecdotes aside, largely unknown. To throw children, who have no power or choice into the matter, into a situation where we don't know what the effect on them will be, is cruelhearted.

No I understand it quite clearly. What you don't understand is that I don't view allowing equal rights to gays to be a social experiment, but something that any just society will eventually do. Therefor, the children are not really guinea pigs.

It was brought up before, but I'll do it again. Should we have not allowed desegregation of schools because we didn't want to treat children as guinea pigs? After all, that was a great "social experiment," wasn't it? I mean, we had no way of knowing that black children and white children going to school together would not cause the complete breakdown of society. In fact, there were many at the time who "proved" it would do just that.

Guess what?

They were wrong.

The basis of marriage was raising a family, and that is why it was between a man and a woman.

Says you.

Arguing that since some misguided nations now allow homosexual 'marriages' we should now act as though 'married' homosexuals are the same in every way to real married people ignores the basis for marriage.

"Misguided" nations? "Real" married people?

Puh-leaze...

I wasn't aware that Canada (among others) was such a socially backwards country. And I also wasn't aware that homosexuals were not "real" people after they chose to spend their lives together monogamously.

And arguing that because your misguided nation (for the most part) still discriminates against homosexuals ignores the fact that it's still unfair discrimination.

[Beirut]

(Prepare yourself, I'm about to be slightly sarcastic, but I know you're a big boy and can handle it.)

I realize that treating people as equals and offering them a level social playing field regardless of their sexual orientation is a pretty wacky "social experiment," but don't you think that maybe its time has come?

Okay, sarcasm off.

Your argument (no to be mistaken with you) offends me for a few of reasons.

1) It says that it's okay to discriminate against gays because we have always done so in the past, and not discriminating them is a "revolutionary" new idea that we should take slowly. Based on that logic, should we not allow employers to fire homosexual employees, in order to improve workplace harmony by not offending the sensibilities of more conservative employees?

Oh, I can deal with your sarcasm you west coaster you.

Full rights for homosexuals is a social experiment. I know because I know lots of them and see the daily challenges they continue to face. It's nice to say we're all equal, but in reality we're not. Discrimination exists on many levels, and it takes experimenting and risk to overcome those obstacles.

The difference in this case, adoption being the issue, is that the road to full rights for homosexuals should not involve children who have no say in the matter. A child being adopted into a family has very, very few rights, but one right he/she should have is the natural right to a mother & father. It's the least we can do. We owe nothing to the adults - everything to the child.

If homosexuals want full rights - great! Let them fight on every level for them. But don't involve the most innocent and least capable of defending themselves. Besides, what kind of a message does it send to a growing child that either the mother or father is unimportant and unnecessary? The balance of life calls for a mother and a father. It's simply the way we are.

[Divinus Arma]

*yawns*

Tired, old conservative talking points that hold no basis in fact, but make anti-gay people happy because they can compare homosexuality to buggering the family dog.

Come back when you have something new.

Denigrating my argument with such classless comments such as "*yawn*", and "come back when you have something new", do not further the discussion.

If you want to debate, then debate the points. Broad and sweeping statements such as yours are just as ludicrous as screaming "liberal", and are simplistic tactics employed by those who are unable to articulate themselves to counter a valid argument.

I'll happily remove references to beastality if it delegitamizes my argument. The fact remains. Total acceptance of homosexuality would result in a complete psychological shift in our culture in the way that I spelled out.

[Adrian II]

(..) where in nature do same-sex couples procreate offspring?

Where in nature do animals discuss marital issues in the backrooms of gaming forums?

Nowhere. Still I guess we're in the clear as we do precisely that.

The notion that 'healthy' or 'proper' human behaviour somehow requires a natural analogy (and usually one of a mythical kind) is known as the 'naturalist fallacy'.

And by the way: not only is long-term bonding a normal pehomenon among at least 450 major species (especially primates) from snails to bottlenose dolphins, but same-sex parenting is a regular feature among for instance flamingo's. Male flamingo couples take over nests and raise the young.

[

[Reverend Joe]

Weebeast, for what it's worth, I am sorry your topic turned out this way. But that is what happens when you take a young thread out if a good, clean home like the frontroom and place it in a brutal, alcohol-infested, severely disfunctional foster home like the backroom. Places like this will screw up a perfectly nice thread real fast.

Oh, and about the whole gay adoption- I really don't give a ****. Go ahead, let the gays **** up their perfectly good lives with children- see if they are happy eighteen years later. I can't believe these people... they find a loophole in the system, they don't have to have children, or get married- and now they want to throw a monkey wrench into all of that?! I would kill to be incapable of producing children! (And keep my balls.)

[Kralizec]

Vasectomy.

Besides Zorba, maybe by now smoking pot has made infertile anyway

[Just A Girl]

Weebeast, for what it's worth, I am sorry your topic turned out this way. But that is what happens when you take a young thread out if a good, clean home like the frontroom and place it in a brutal, alcohol-infested, severely disfunctional foster home like the backroom. Places like this will screw up a perfectly nice thread real fast.


Oh, and about the whole gay adoption- I really don't give a ****. Go ahead, let the gays **** up their perfectly good lives with children- see if they are happy eighteen years later.

I cant beleve your 1st staement was Followed By That?
This is a disfunctional post in its self,
The masking Happens to lower the whole tone of your post.
Although readiing on seems to imply that was the affect you were aiming for.

Strange way to start a disfuntional post.

[Goofball]

Establishment of criteria by the government for adoption is within its scope of responsiblities. Adoption outside of the arrangement between individuals is a regulated affair - and it should be. The concept of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children is indeed a social experiment. For instance (using the same type of red herring as your examble here) where in nature does same-sex couples procreate offspring?

The work place examble is within that same scope. Its not related to the discussion in that the legal rights of the same-sex couple are not being violated by the state.

And we've now reached the point where you and I always fall apart on this issue Red. I don't care what's legal, I care what's right.

Oh, and by the way, one old argument deserves another:

Show me where in nature humans can fly or breath underwater. You can't. But we do. And you don't seem to have a problem with either of those things.

The red herring was bringing race into the discussion. The highlighted portion does indeed address the issue and was answered and then discarded by yourself with the following comment.

Not, it was not a red herring. It was being argued that a certain type of couple (gay) would perhaps be more likely to be unfit parents, and that should be used against them in adoption proceedings. I pointed out that a certain type of couple (black) are statistically provable to be more likely to be unfit parents, but we don't hold that against them. If you can't see the logical connection in that argument, then I don't really know how to further explain it to you.

But just because you don't understand an argument or can't refute it, doesn't mean it's a red herring.

Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.

Shown by whom? Pat Robertson? Preferred by whom? The Catholic Church?

You defeat your arguement with your attempt at sarcasm here. If you want to discuss then discuss - but such comments do not bode well for a honest discussion.

Sorry Red, but that wasn't sarcasm. You stated an opinion (in this case: "Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.") but presented it as fact. I was simply asking what your sources were for that statement.

And no the studies I am refering to are easily found on the web and some are studies done by agencies such as the Federal Government in the United States, among others. Links can be found with a simple google search. Since I am at work - I feel no obligation to do research to back up my statement.

Then please understand that I feel no obligation to assign any credibility to your statements.

Because the arguement is a red herring. I have no problem with allowing same sex couples adopting children if a suitable traditional couple can not be found for that child.

So would "second class citizens" be an accurate way to describe your view towards gays?

Race is not revelant to my opinion. I see people for who they are not what color of their skin.

But not regardless of their sexual orientation, apparently.

I don't know. I haven't seen anybody make that argument. I've seen you make the statement, but it's not backed up by anything so far other than your own opinion. Again: What do you mean by preferred? Who defines a healthy society? This is not a cheap shot at the USA or at Christians, and I use this example only because you keep talking about traditional families, a concept that Christians identify themselves with closely, but I will make the point that although you have one of the highest populations of traditional evangelical Christians in the world, your society is arguably (depending on whose subjective standards we use) one of the unhealthiest in the world.

Maybe it's time for some new traditions.

Should I respond to such a obvious attempt of emotional appeal and burdern of proof logical fallacies in this arguement?

Probably not. You'll just state more of your opinions as fact then refuse to back them up, then accuse me of being sarcastic/facetious and get angry at me. Maybe you should just go home, have a nice meal with your family, and have a good sleep tonight.

[Strike For The South]

I'll happily remove references to beastality if it delegitamizes my argument. The fact remains. Total acceptance of homosexuality would result in a complete psychological shift in our culture in the way that I spelled out.

Homosexuals will never be full intergrated into American culture no matter how equal they are compared with straghit people. You never here people say "dude straghit" or you "vaginia sucking s**thead" This whole "gay" thing is overblown anyway.

[Strike For The South]

nm...

[Papewaio]

At any rate, my example (and my question) still stands. You cannot argue the fact that statistically, black parents are more likely to raise criminal children than white parents. Why do you not then embrace the idea that we should also give adoption preference to white parents over black parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?

The Stolen Generation in Australia happened when Aboroginal children were removed from their parents... this happened uptil 1972...

[Kralizec]

I have a much simpler soultion for the middle east.

1. Sweep through capture fellow Orgahs send to Tosas house
2. Take Oil
3. Nuke all countries

Wrong thread, you vagina sucking hetero

[Redleg]

And we've now reached the point where you and I always fall apart on this issue Red. I don't care what's legal, I care what's right.

In this instance what is legal and what is right for the child is one and the same.

Oh, and by the way, one old argument deserves another:

Show me where in nature humans can fly or breath underwater. You can't. But we do. And you don't seem to have a problem with either of those things.

We have artificle aids to help us overcome those issues. Same sex couples adopting children do not fall within that scope - that is way the arguement is a red herring. Just like I mentioned to start off.

Not, it was not a red herring. It was being argued that a certain type of couple (gay) would perhaps be more likely to be unfit parents, and that should be used against them in adoption proceedings. I pointed out that a certain type of couple (black) are statistically provable to be more likely to be unfit parents, but we don't hold that against them. If you can't see the logical connection in that argument, then I don't really know how to further explain it to you.

Race has no issue in this discussion - one can not control what color there skin color is.

The issue has not been that they are more likely to be unfit parents, notice that I have never stated that they would be unfit, I have argued that for the child the traditional family unit is the better arrangement for the well being and healthy development of the child. Also notice that I stated that they adoption agencies and the government need to tighten up the standards for traditional adoption in my opinion.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=26

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=41


The arguement is futher a red herring because if you look at the statistics of black families that function with the traditional couple - ie married mother and father - your attempt here developes farther into a red herring. The statistically potential is greater in the one parent households.


So yes Goofball you have used both a strawman and a red herring to counter my arguement.

For the record I am against men who neglect their responsiblities to their off spring.

But just because you don't understand an argument or can't refute it, doesn't mean it's a red herring.

Race is a red herring, has shown above.

Sorry Red, but that wasn't sarcasm. You stated an opinion (in this case: "Traditional families have been shown to be the preferred method of child rearing, regardless of the color of thier skin.") but presented it as fact. I was simply asking what your sources were for that statement.

If you were simply asking what my source was - you would of stated it as you just did.

Then please understand that I feel no obligation to assign any credibility to your statements.

Right back at you. You have not provided the proof to back your claims either.

So would "second class citizens" be an accurate way to describe your view towards gays?

Incorrect - they have the same responsiblies and obligations as citizens as I do, to include the same fundmental rights. If they wish to change the society in which I live in - they must follow the same steps that I must do to cause change in the society.

But not regardless of their sexual orientation, apparently.

Sexual orientation is a behavior. Behaviors can be regulated by the society if it so desires. Again provide the study that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition? If you can provide such a study - then I will rethink my postion on both same-sex adoption and same sex marriage. Provide a convincing arguement that supports your claim and I can be swayed to change my opinion. Throwing facetious and sarcastic comments does not bode well for such an exchange.

Probably not. You'll just state more of your opinions as fact then refuse to back them up, then accuse me of being sarcastic/facetious and get angry at me. Maybe you should just go home, have a nice meal with your family, and have a good sleep tonight.

Oh I have been having fun pointing out the errors in your arguement. Its been rather enjoyable for me. Notice that I have not spouted one angry word concerning this subject. Can you state the same?

[Redleg]

Where in nature do animals discuss marital issues in the backrooms of gaming forums?

Nowhere. Still I guess we're in the clear as we do precisely that.

The notion that 'healthy' or 'proper' human behaviour somehow requires a natural analogy (and usually one of a mythical kind) is known as the 'naturalist fallacy'.

And by the way: not only is long-term bonding a normal pehomenon among at least 450 major species (especially primates) from snails to bottlenose dolphins, but same-sex parenting is a regular feature among for instance flamingo's. Male flamingo couples take over nests and raise the young.

[

If your going to quote - place the quote in context.


The statement reads

For instance (using the same type of red herring as your examble here) where in nature does same-sex couples procreate offspring?

[Ice]

For everyone debating weather being gay is influnced by a gene or the environment, this should help:

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

[Papewaio]

For everyone debating weather being gay

I think rainbows are a particular gay form of weather.

While hurricanes come across as a bit more red neck and responsible for flash flooding of areas. That lack of control and hostility shows that their environment is causing a great deal of tension and they do not have the skill set to gently deal with things like say the pacific winds in general do.

[Just A Girl]

Being born on sunday Is what makes you Gay...

"and the child who was born on the sabath day, Was bonny and chearfull Happy And GAY"

So there ya go.

[Ice]

I think rainbows are a particular gay form of weather.

While hurricanes come across as a bit more red neck and responsible for flash flooding of areas. That lack of control and hostility shows that their environment is causing a great deal of tension and they do not have the skill set to gently deal with things like say the pacific winds in general do.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Do we want to live in a world where homosexuality is as pervasive and accepted as heterosexuality?

Do we want the world culture to accept man-man love and female-female love just as equally as a male-female relationship?

Yes

If so, then you must be equally tolerant of polygamy and possibly even beastiality.

No problem.

a culture that is completely free of traditional sexual concepts,

We can only hope actually all that needs to happen is that those who don't adhere to traditional sexual concepts are free to do so. The rest of you can be as prudish as you like.