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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree, fully.

Test is clearly not "fair" as the playing field is not fair. I might, however, stress one point. And this is an important one! It is not fair, because... think about it... Gay people need to do a logical decision and as well work towards getting children, whereas heterosexuals can dumbfundle in the backseat and get the same result.

As you see, the playing field is not equal, nor will it ever be. So to disregard this research because of it, seems rather unfair.(

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

[Kadagar_AV]

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

I agree, that is why atheism should spread more, so we get more people taking responsibility.

Or were you one of those Christians holding on to that silly belief that christianity has a somewhat good impact on sexual morals? I am just joking of course, I am sure you are an educated man and well read up (you are aware of, say, teenage pregnancy rates among Christians compared to atheists?).

But maybe we should leave religion out of this, to not turn it into a flame fest.



So what was your point, to make it clear, mate?

You want us all to live in celibacy until marriage, and gays not to have kids, unless they marry (which they should not be allowed to do? Kind of a catch 22 you got going for you there. Or?)

Anyway, you might want to elaborate on your point, I am afraid I didn't quite get your views on homosexuality and children.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Teh gays can do what they want in their own private sphere, I'm not so sure I like children being brought into it. Because as you all know, the nuclear family has existed throughout all of human history.

tbh, my only argument is that it just doesn't seem right. Certainly, I'm sure many homosexual couples would do a better job that these chavs that churn out babies to live off the benefits, but I still think there's no substitute for the traditional nuclear family. Not that I'm one of these crazy pro-family people either, ideas like family holidays etc really creep me out, seems like a little cult or something.

Also, I suspect that homophobia may be a perfectly natural reaction, wheras toleration is more something that has to be socially engineered. This is based of the purely anecdotal evidence that the more 'uneducated' people I know are very much homophobic (whether religious or not), but in the more educated environment of university, you would get castrated for saying anything remotely homophobic. But it makes sense really, it's natural to not like what's different, hence homophobia is natural.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh my, where to begin with this one.

Teh gays can do what they want in their own private sphere

... but they should not be allowed to show their love to the world? You, for some reason, think you have a say in who people love and not? What would give you this right, I might ask?

I'm not so sure I like children being brought into it. Because as you all know, the nuclear family has existed throughout all of human history.

Source? Gay relationships has been very highly esteemed in some time periods. And your comment about bringing children into "it" is just tasteless, borderline hateful. You think gay children will have gay kids, or what? That they will somehow make them gay?

tbh, my only argument is that it just doesn't seem right.

That does indeed seem to be your only argument, and a tasteless one at that.

Certainly, I'm sure many homosexual couples would do a better job that these chavs that churn out babies to live off the benefits, but I still think there's no substitute for the traditional nuclear family.

So how about adoption? Better a child starve to death than being adopted by "Teh Gays"? And by the way, the research I posted clearly shows that there is a substitute to the nuclear family that seems to be working, so what was your point again?

Not that I'm one of these crazy pro-family people either, ideas like family holidays etc really creep me out, seems like a little cult or something.

It is hard for me to reply to this. Forum guidelines clearly dictate that I should attack your statement, not you as a person. But when you as a statement bring in craziness in relation to yourself those guidelines seem to be very grey of colour indeed. I think I will just leave it.

Also, I suspect that homophobia may be a perfectly natural reaction, wheras toleration is more something that has to be socially engineered. This is based of the purely anecdotal evidence that the more 'uneducated' people I know are very much homophobic (whether religious or not), but in the more educated environment of university, you would get castrated for saying anything remotely homophobic. But it makes sense really, it's natural to not like what's different, hence homophobia is natural

I dont quite get you here?

This means that you are aware that homophobia is more common among religious people and [removed] less educated persons, or did I misread you?

[Rhyfelwyr]

... but they should not be allowed to show their love to the world? You, for some reason, think you have a say in who people love and not? What would give you this right, I might ask?

Eh? I'm a libertarian, they can do whatever they like.

Source? Gay relationships has been very highly esteemed in some time periods. And your comment about bringing children into "it" is just tasteless, borderline hateful. You think gay children will have gay kids, or what? That they will somehow make them gay?

I was joking with the nuclear family bit, which I think was obvious, I know it only really developed from the 17th century, for economic reasons more than anything else. And I'm not sure what you think I am saying with bringing children into "it", I simply am simply questioning how ideal it is for a child to be brought up by two parents of the same sex. Single mums for example tend to say how they wish their children could have a male rolemodel.

That does indeed seem to be your only argument, and a tasteless one at that.

Oh don't give me that "tasteless" moral outrage crap, I thought given the fact you were willing to step out of the box a bit on issues with race etc might at least have meant you would spare me that.

So how about adoption? Better a child starve to death than being adopted by "Teh Gays"? And by the way, the research I posted clearly shows that there is a substitute to the nuclear family that seems to be working, so what was your point again?

Seems like you're trying to put words in my mouth, as I said many homosexual couples do a better job than their straight counterparts. I just think that the old nuclear family is the best when both parents are functioning properly. Would you get so mad if I said being raised by your grandparents isn't so ideal? Or a nanny if your parents are always at work or whatever?

It is hard for me to reply to this. Forum guidelines clearly dictate that I should attack your statement, not you as a person. But when you as a statement bring in craziness in relation to yourself those guidelines seem to be very grey of colour indeed. I think I will just leave it.

Well it's not really relevant to the thread but that's just what I think, I'm a very paranoid person when it comes to being made to conform etc. You really telling me some of these happy-clappy do-everything-together families aren't creepy as hell. It's just because they often tend to be evangelical, and I was arguing for the nuclear family, I thought you might think I was one of those nutters. I'm just a different kind of nutter.

I dont quite get you here?

This means that you are aware that homophobia is more common among religious people and less educated persons, or did I misread you?

Indeed it is. People seem to be naturally homophobic before it is educated out of them. Religious is not a factor, education (class even?) seems to be the key. All working-class people I know (the kind of people where I live) are homophobic, whereas people at private school I went to for a while, and university, are definitely not.

[Kadagar_AV]

said stuff

I think what got me started was the mentioning of them being "allowed" to do it in their private sphere. Does not sound very libertarian to me.

With that said, I do see your point. I do not accept some of your points (or even like them), however, the points were we disagree seem to be more about world view than anything else, thus a further debate between us seems kind of pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I know you are quite reasonable really. I also respect a lot of what you say. Just that our world views are so different that we wont solve this topic without going hideously off topic first ;)

So let us postpone this debate until later, when we sorted some other stuff (like my depraved life leading straight to hell and your anal-retentive religious views) *note, said with a BIG smiley*

PS: I much liked your second post. I can see quite a difference between that and some early posts you did. Is HoreTore holding a gun to your head? ;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't get me wrong, I know you are quite reasonable really. I also respect a lot of what you say. Just that our world views are so different that we wont solve this topic without going hideously off topic first ;)

So let us postpone this debate until later, when we sorted some other stuff (like my depraved life leading straight to hell and your anal-retentive religious views) *note, said with a BIG smiley*

I respect your views to, in particular it's refreshing to see someone that can think for themselves without the knee-jerk liberal-left/right-wing reactions.

Plus it's funny how we agree on little, less ideological things, like the thread on the attractiveness of different races.

But with different cultures I suppose... we end up with these big debates...

PS: I much liked your second post. I can see quite a difference between that and some early posts you did. Is HoreTore holding a gun to your head? ;)

I think I'm becoming all boring and moderate in my old age...

The main reason really is, as I said in another thread recently, I guess with being in the more 'tolerant' environment and having actually seen gay people, I realise they maybe aren't really all rapists/paedophiles/prostitutes/whatever like I used to think they were. At first, I really didn't believe the guys here when they said they weren't.

Don't hate on me too much for it though, even in my old posts I'm a moderate compared to people in RL. My old best friend went to some pretty crazy Baptist church and said he hopes all gay people will burn in hell, another guy (not really religious) says things like he wants to line them up and shoot them.

Looking back that's pretty shocking stuff and way out of touch with what you see for the enlightened minds on this forum, but really this is what things are like outside the world of the educated elite.

[Beskar]

Teh gays can do what they want in their own private sphere, I'm not so sure I like children being brought into it. Because as you all know, the nuclear family has existed throughout all of human history.

I thought they existed since August 1945?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree, that is why atheism should spread more, so we get more people taking responsibility.

My experience is that taking responsibility is more a matter of character than belief.

Or were you one of those Christians holding on to that silly belief that christianity has a somewhat good impact on sexual morals? I am just joking of course, I am sure you are an educated man and well read up (you are aware of, say, teenage pregnancy rates among Christians compared to atheists?).

Sincere Christian morality does have a good impact on sexual morality, insincere mouthing of society's mores does not. I am aware of the statistical reality in America, but I am also aware that it is a particularly American phenomenon, not repeated to the same degree elsewhere in the developed world.

Did you know that most teenage pregnancies in Britain are poor people?

But maybe we should leave religion out of this, to not turn it into a flame fest.

Maybe we should, but you brought it up.

So what was your point, to make it clear, mate?

You want us all to live in celibacy until marriage, and gays not to have kids, unless they marry (which they should not be allowed to do? Kind of a catch 22 you got going for you there. Or?)

Anyway, you might want to elaborate on your point, I am afraid I didn't quite get your views on homosexuality and children.

My point was very simple: This data can be used to support a variety of conclusions, only one of which supports homosexual parents over heterosexuals. What if I were to produce a data set demonstrating that parents who remained abstinant produced better children than those who jumped into bed with anything that moved?

At the end of the day, if you don't have sex you can't get pregnant. So if you have sex and get pregnant don't come crying to me, or pretend you aren't responsible.

[Kadagar_AV]

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, No matter the fun it would bring me, I will leave the religious debate aside. Sorry for bringing it up..

As to your second point... Let's skip the "who is BETTER" point altogether, shall we? And focus on my main point, that gays are valid parents.

I think some people got stuck on "who is best", and lost the main point...

Are you arguing that gays are not valid? Or are you not? With the research at hand

[Megas Methuselah]

I don't mind gay people adopting kids (no more than other couples), provided said kids have access to their culture of birth.

Otherwise, it's genocide.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, No matter the fun it would bring me, I will leave the religious debate aside. Sorry for bringing it up..

I doubt you would derive anything other than brief enjoyment out of debating religion with me, I'm really a very boring and technical theologian.

As to your second point... Let's skip the "who is BETTER" point altogether, shall we? And focus on my main point, that gays are valid parents.

I think some people got stuck on "who is best", and lost the main point...

Are you arguing that gays are not valid? Or are you not? With the research at hand

Well, all you've really demonstrated is that well prepared homosexual parents are better than unprepared heterosexual ones, which is why I countered with well prepared heterosexual parents. The problem with your point, in my view, is that it lies in a lack of care/sexuality morality/whatever you want to call it, on the part of heterosexuals in their sexual activity. As it is not possible for homosexcuals to accidently concience, expect with large amounts of alchohol, this is never a problem for them.

So I can use your data to push an ultra-conservative agenda in which we burn the promiscuous at the stake for everyone's benefit.

If you want me to say homosexuals don't make bad parents, yes ok, and? At the end of the day that doesn't argue for well prepared and adjusted homosexual couples being as good as well prepared and adjusted heterosexual ones, because no one will dare do the research.

We can't leave aside the "better" part of the argument because that is the crux of the issue. What is best for our children?

It should really be the driving force behind our society, and sadly often isn't.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

You couldn't prove that either. People tend to over-ascribe explanative power to survey instruments and correlational studies. They are useful tools but have their limitations. It is feasible to pound in a nail with a shovel -- but you're much more likely to screw it up instead. Try a hammer. Each tool has its place in the kit.

Kad:

It does NOT automatically mean that the archaic or strict moralist positions are wrong (though I believe they are). It does SUGGEST that such positions, on this issue, aren't accurate and sets up the basis for a study that COULD give you the proof you seek. TinCow is very much correct about the kind of setup that would be needed to make that claim.

Frags:

Didn't see your post. I'm disinclined to award stars or balloons simply because someone agrees with me (unless you also thereby DISagree with Banquo or CA -- I'll give you a star just for tweaking them a touch....