Gayness May Be Linked to Conditions in Womb

[doc_bean]

Sorry I've wasted enough time searching for this link already. If you watched BBC news last week on Wednesday or Thursday I think you probably heard the story. If you can link me to a BBC news archive I'd find it.

It's not on Fox (where you'd expect such a thing), not on the bbc site and nothing to be found googling...

Sounds made up to me, or possibly a case of bad reporting.

[Watchman]

And some pretty damn tendentious interpretation on Legio's part, I might add.

Lions.

I vote we don't pursue that sidetrack further.

[Kralizec]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...rd/5109518.stm

"You saw him as the ideal victim. You are presented as a couple but this is not about homosexuality, it is about abuse of trust."

As the judge says it has nothing to do with homosexuals- but with child molesters who pose as such. It just shows that more careful screening is necessary for adoption applicants.

Most historical occurences of homosexuality seem to have eventually resulted in pedophilia.

I'd like to see if there's some extensive and non-biased research pointing in that direction- not just anecdotical information.
I have a strong hunch you're thinking of Greek pederasty- totally different thing. Puberty was considered the normal age of having sex (and is actually biologically natural, as Lemur pointed out) and most girls were wed out between ages 11-14.

[whyidie]

This is old news folks.

From here

Gay Gene Isolated, Ostracized

April 9, 1997 | Issue 31•13

BALTIMORE—On Monday, scientists at Johns Hopkins University isolated the gene which causes homosexuality in human males, promptly segregating it from normal, heterosexual genes. "I had suspected that gene was queer for a long time now. There was just something not quite right about it," said team leader Dr. Norbert Reynolds. "It's a good thing we isolated it; I wouldn't want that faggot-ass gene messing with the straight ones." Among the factors Reynolds cited as evidence of the gene's gayness: its pinkish hue; meticulously frilly perimeter; and faint but distinct, perfume-like odor.

[Aenlic]

I love The Onion. I'd use it as my main source of news; but the way things have been going for the last 6 years in the USA, The Onion is often actually behind the Bush administration in sheer outrageous absurdity. It's often much more jaw-droppingly amusing to just watch the non-satirical "real" media reporting on actual statement made from inside the Bush administration.

[Watchman]

"The last bomb raid on Hamburg was so fierce there was still raining glass on the streets the next day!"
"Oh, that's nothing. The last raid on Berlin was such that Führer's pictures were raining on the streets the next week."
- wartime German jokes

"Have you heard ? The Fidzi Islands have now embraced Socialism."
"That cannot be, a disaster of that magnitude cannot befall such a small country..."
- Soviet jokes

[Rodion Romanovich]

As the judge says it has nothing to do with homosexuals- but with child molesters who pose as such. It just shows that more careful screening is necessary for adoption applicants.

Similarly being against homosexuals adopting hasn't anything to do with their sexuality. It's about the family that should contain a female and a male. The child needs to grow up with contact with both. For the same reasons single males and single women aren't considered good for adopting. Making it a gay rights matter is IMO extremistic political correctness. Plus if you start exaggerating political correctness with such misconceptions the step towards accepting other things is also short. Also bear in mind that these people who apparently weren't gay (but still liked boys rather than girls?) couldn't have adopted the child if homosexual adoption hadn't been allowed.

I'd like to see if there's some extensive and non-biased research pointing in that direction- not just anecdotical information.
I have a strong hunch you're thinking of Greek pederasty- totally different thing. Puberty was considered the normal age of having sex (and is actually biologically natural, as Lemur pointed out) and most girls were wed out between ages 11-14.

All historical societies that embraced homosexuality eventually seem to have accepted pedophilia too after a while. If our society today starts adopting laws that makes it possible for two male pedophiliacs to adopt a child and molest it then this society too is stepping towards accepting pedophilia (and this point was pretty much proven when the participants in the discussion in the other thread started to question the age of consent law and took steps towards embracing pedophilia using the same flawed logic that made homosexuals adopting a gay rights question, which it isn't). I think today's society too is making the dangerous steps towards accepting pedophilia. A line must be drawn and no acceptance whatsoever must be shown to pedophilia. Being against homosexual couples adopting children is not being against gay rights, it's being against child molestors pretending to be non-pedophiliac gays adopting children and molesting them. It's a matter of protecting both innocent children and innocent homosexuals who haven't got pedophilia tendencies.

[Watchman]

It's about the family that should contain a female and a male. The child needs to grow up with contact with both. For the same reasons single males and single women aren't considered good for adopting.

Might I point out that, as one wit put it, quite a few children manage to grow up into about functioning and sane individuals despite having a father rather than thanks to him ?

I cite myself as an example. Mom managed to kick Dad out of the house well over a decade ago, and I still haven't managed to entirely debug my head from the damage he did.

Bloody reactionary nuclear-family cultists.

...and would you believe there's so much wrong with the rest of your post - starting with some quite dubious and questionable presumptions that seem to employ some suspicious deductive leaps and associations - I genuinely don't know where to begin...?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Might I point out that, as one wit put it, quite a few children manage to grow up into about functioning and sane individuals despite having a father rather than thanks to him ?

I cite myself as an example. Mom managed to kick Dad out of the house well over a decade ago, and I still haven't managed to entirely debug my head from the damage he did.

Bloody reactionary nuclear-family cultists.

let me see if I got this straight - you hate your father much and think he hurt you a lot until he was kicked out, so you want some children to have two fathers??!!! The nuclear family works well if people choose their partners well and neither is into drugs or mentally ill. Crime, suicide and misery is more common in families with divorced parents according to many studies. It's a responsibility you have as a parent that you choose a partner who would make a good father/mother and that you know you can be together with for the rest of your life when you are to get children.

...and would you believe there's so much wrong with the rest of your post - starting with some quite dubious and questionable presumptions that seem to employ some suspicious deductive leaps and associations - I genuinely don't know where to begin...?

Why not begin at the top if there's so much to choose from you could at least give an example?

[Watchman]

let me see if I got this straight - you hate your father much and think he hurt you a lot until he was kicked out, so you want some children to have two fathers??!!! The nuclear family works well if people choose their partners well and neither is into drugs or mentally ill. Crime, suicide and misery is more common in families with divorced parents according to many studies. It's a responsibility you have as a parent that you choose a partner who would make a good father/mother and that you know you can be together with for the rest of your life when you are to get children.

Oh, these days I just kind of detest him and have slight difficulties being wholly polite to him. He makes a reasonably useful source of money though, and I don't even need to feel one bit bad about it since he never ever paid any of those whatchamacallit payments to help Mom support us he was supposed to in the first place.
Some people.

Besides, it ought to really tell something that where divorce is an option - de facto and de jure - it also gets done. A lot. And when it first becomes a viable option the rates go through the roof when couples that no longer have any reason to stay together make use of it. So much for the workability of the nuclear family.

Anyway, in the case you missed it my main point was the Good Old Nuclear Family isn't exactly the quarantee of happiness and joy you seem to think it is. Since hetero pairs (and to a lesser degree single parents) have for a long time had a monopoly on screwing up their kids, I don't really see why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to try. Chances are they're not going, and won't be able, to do any worse anyway.

Besides, since homosexuals may also have children from other instances - for example made the old-fashioned way for one reason or another - anyway the point is a bit moot. Heck, even if you deny same-sex couples the right to a legally binding marriage or something comparable there isn't much you can do about them cohabitating simply without such ceremonials either, and as mentioned it is wholly withing the realm of possibility one or both of them may already have kids... All of which makes your whining about gay couples' adoption rights seem a little odd, and gives me the sneaking suspicion if possible you would actually want to ban them to right to have and/or raise children, however aquired, in general.

Why not begin at the top if there's so much to choose from you could at least give an example?

Well, for starters you seem curiosuly fixated on supposedly or allegedly homosexual pedophiles and largely ignoring the little detail there's absolutely no quarantee heterosexuals - single or couples - who adopt children might not horribly mistreat them and/or fall guilty of outright incest, or for that matter might fall guilty of any of that with their own biological children. Which, for that matter, was the reality of such cases back when homosexuality was still criminalized.

Then there's the whole "but think of the children1!!!1!!!1" attitude in the first place. Because you know something ? That's what narrow-minded, prejudiced reactionaries pretty much without fail dig up as a blunt instrument against their little hates. It doesn't matter if it's Elvis, women's suffrage or Pokemon, sure as the sun rises some twerp will crawl out of the woodwork and throw the "for the sake of the kids" argument for it. And curiously enough, in hindsight that always tends to be found out to have been blatant alarmism.

Then there's the persistent, blatantly biased and clearly tendentious habit of associating homosexuality with pedophilia. Which just plain stinks of an attempt at associating your pet hate with something sufficiently reprehensible. Kind of the way back in the Middle Ages and later people couldn't settle for just hating Jews, they had to come up with all the kooky stories about sacrificing children and whatever to justify it and goad themselves into even greater heights of, ah, righteous fury.

To boot your dodgy historical references lack both merit and information base. Do you even realize marriage was quite often done in a way that these days would be considered little sort of institutionalized pedophilia ? It might well be norm for girls in their early teens, or even younger, to be married to men over thirty or so; this was the practice in Early-High Medieval Northern Italian city-states for example. It wasn't exactly uncommon either for even very young girls (and sometimes boys too) to be raped by pretty certifiably heterosexual soldiers when cities were being sacked and countryside ravaged, for that matter.

But no, you keep claiming links to homosexuality.