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

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Hygiene.

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.

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Azathoth

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.

Originally Posted by Beskar

This comment is relevant how?

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

What he said.

Bad style Azathoth.

Also very little relevance to the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

You would seriously comment on my statement kadagar

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There is some circular logic going on in this statement.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

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

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

....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.

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

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?

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Using asterisks much are we?

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

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

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