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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

(Yes kids, that includes ear sex).

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

[Beskar]

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

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

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

[Ser Clegane]

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

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

[Hosakawa Tito]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Beskar]

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

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

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

[Azathoth]

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

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

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

Hygiene.

[Centurion1]

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

[Beskar]

Hygiene.

This comment is relevant how?

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ser Clegane]

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

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

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

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

[Beskar]

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

There is some circular logic going on in this statement.

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

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

And what of a girl raised by one woman?

[Hosakawa Tito]

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

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

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

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

[Kadagar_AV]

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

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

Kudos for the very last sentence.

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

[Centurion1]

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

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