Homosexual Marriage

[kyle_soule]

Aside from all the debate if it should be legal, this post is to raise another question.

Is society ready for homosexual marriage to be considered a legitimate form of legal binding?

If it is not, they will simply hinder their progress towards freedom, take black people [as slaves] for example. Would it have helped them any to say one day, this is how it is going to be, we are going to be free and we are going to have all the rights of white people. If they kept insisting this they would have never gotten anywhere. Homosexuals got a huge jump on their road to freedom, but I think it is in their best interest to lay low for some time before they surge forward. Winning a few minor battles, staying in the paper, getting positive press would all help them in their quest; right now, though, I do not believe society is ready to accept gays and lesbians entirely, yet.

[Zantra]

I think that you're right and society isn't fully ready to accept this. I think it will take at least another generation or two before they are fully acccepted. I do know that Hawaii has legalized it, but for the rest of the states, that's still a long ways off.

[Andy]

I think Homosexuals should be able to marry, but i dont think they should be able to adopt children because that would just screw with the kids heads at such a young age that it wouldnt be rite. If you dont want me to taslk about homosexuals adopting kids here then i will start a fresh theread for it, hope you dont mind.

[wuliheron]

Homosexuals already adopt children, and the children don't suffer as a result any more often than those of heterosexual couples. The simple fact is homosexuality is a physical condition, not a choice, consistently affecting some eight percent of the population worldwide. I would no sooner deny them the right to adopt children than I would deny a person the right because of the color of their skin or some other physical distinction.

That said, I still don't believe homosexual marrage will ever be fully accepted by americans any more than polygamy. The issue is not whether homosexual or polygamous relationships are any less intimate or meaningful than monogamous heterosexual ones, the issue is whether or not the majority can accomodate them any time in the forseeable future within the context of their traditional romanticized bigoted worldview. Self-evidently, they cannot and are often willing to drag their feet on the issue as hard as possible even when they have no serious moral objections.

Susan B. Anthony struggled her entire life to get women the vote and, yet, died without seeing the fruits of her labor. In comparison, hers was an easy task and one she willingly sacraficed such related issues as the rights of blacks to vote in order to gain the slightest ground for her cause. Today women still don't make as much money as men and are still divided by cultural tradition while Blacks are still discriminated against and institutionally oppressed. To suggest that homosexuals might enjoy some kind of unique distinction in such a classist, sexist, and racist society is the height of fantasy.

[Zantra]

I have to agree wul, that as much as we don't like to admit it, this is in many ways still a white, heterosexual male's world, and all others have a disadvantage to some degree. Sure it doesn't go on publicly, but hehind closed doors prejudice still rears it's ugly head. But progress takes time, and in time homosexuals will have the same rights as heterosexuals, just as women and race minorities will.

I was raised to be very liberal, and accepting of others. I was given free choice in my religion(or lack thereof) and to judge people by thier merits not by things in life which they have no control over. I was also raised to be objective, and not let bias cloud my judgement.

With regard to homesexuality, I've found that none of them has tried to "turn me", and none of them have tried to impose thier views on me.
I several gay friends and aquaintances. I'm still a full blooded heterosexual. Far from being the "gaymongers" praying on little kids, I've found them to be very intelligent, driven, and motivated. None are "flamers" persay, and you couldn't tell they were gay unless they volunteered it. Being able to tell someone is gay is a myth. I've found that most often people who are vehmenently opposed to homesexuality often have some deep rooted fears of it, and thus repel it as if it were a disease that they might catch. I've also found that most who are opposed to it, do not have any friends of that persuasion(most likely due to thier fears) and so don't fully understand the situation. Now of course there will be exceptions to every rule, but General rule of thumb is that they are who they are, and don't see it as an illness. They see it as a choice.

I have to disclaimer that these are my views and opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of PF.com... blah blah blah

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Andy
I think Homosexuals should be able to marry, but i dont think they should be able to adopt children because that would just screw with the kids heads at such a young age that it wouldnt be rite. If you dont want me to taslk about homosexuals adopting kids here then i will start a fresh theread for it, hope you dont mind.

This was my view, except I wasn't an advocate of homosexual marriage though. Then I read of studies that do demonstrate that children raised in a homosexual home are no more likely to be homosexual than a child raised in a heterosexual home.

I still cannot put down the idea of the more rooted studies that show children raised in a one parent home are less stable than children raised in a two parent home. These logically would bleed into the homosexual studies in that only one gender is present. The aforementioned studies either demonstrate a) a one parent house is independent of gender, simply the outcome of a single parent is often negative or b) the homosexual studies are inconclusive, at the least, or completely bias and incorrect.

I would put my faith in the studies with history, I still believe homosexual couples that raise a 'neutral' child will influence the child, if not sexually, then mentally.

Andy, I would appreciate it if you would start a new thread, and if you would like you could post this response in it as a quote to kick it off. I don't mind you raising the question here, it is somewhat related to the issue at hand.

wuliheron: I think you are very correct in everything you said, the only objection I have is this, woman are 'minorities' because they cannot compete as competively as males in the working world, this equality will only come when/if evolution chooses to make them stronger and such, which is not foreseeable. As for blacks, I agree, I don't think they will ever fully overcome that setback.

[Hurkyl]

The simple fact is homosexuality is a physical condition, not a choice

There are studies that offer strong evidence that homosexuality is not entirely decided by genetics, not to mention organizations that boast high success rates at changing willing homosexuals into heterosexuals.

[kyle_soule]

Is society more apt to accept a physical condition explanation of homosexuality or a biological explanation?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Is society more apt to accept a physical condition explanation of homosexuality or a biological explanation?

Based on what I've seen, people lean more towards the biological explaination that they are born that way.

But I don't think they are taking into account cases of extreme sexual trauma such as abuse, where people are driven to fear the opposite sex. This was also discussed in a previous post Here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3918&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

[radagast]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are studies that offer strong evidence that homosexuality is not entirely decided by genetics

While this is true, there is absolutely no evidence to support that anything, postnatally, influences sexual preference.


not to mention organizations that boast high success rates at changing willing homosexuals into heterosexuals.

If you define homosexuality as having sex with others of the same gender, then you can change people. Castration, physical intimidation, or simply socialogical conditioning.

That will not change their orientation, only their actions. These are not the same thing.

I would be hard-pressed to trust the word of many of these organizations. They have an agenda, in terms of altering the perception of existing reality, simply because it threatens their religiously held views.

I do not wish to disparage many of the sincerely religious people in the world, but anecdotally, I've known many, too many people that found pastors/preachers, the representatives of the faith, to be much more likely to expect special treatment, engage in questionable legal activities (when they would benefit finacially), and to have a much poorer level of honesty. I've experienced this, as a business person, and a number of other business people I know have also experienced this. The vast majority whom are christian.

In light of my experiences, pardon my skepticizm.

[radagast]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Is society more apt to accept a physical condition explanation of homosexuality or a biological explanation?

The vast majority of society, those whose religious views are not threatened by it, will accept the mounting evidence supporting the biological explanation.

Those whose religious views are threathened will ignore even the obvious, to avoid questioning their beliefs.

[wuliheron]

It isn't simply religious views or patriarchy unfortunately, it is an entire worldview that is at stake. In the US, for example, society is fairly tolerant of lesbianism yet incredibly intolerant of gay men. Studies of heterosexual men opposed to gay men have shown they tend to be the most tempted to commit homosexual acts and their opposition to homosexuality is as much a personal emotional affair as a theological and patriarchal affair.

Often I describe westerners as "free will bigots." The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is a long history of pushing blame and praise around according to the accepted social constructs of the day. If someone works hard all their life, even if this is simply their natural disposition, they are praised and glorified. If someone fits within the social mores of the day, again, they are praised and glorified even if this is simply who they are. If they don't fit within the social mores as gays do not, they are dengrated, imprisoned, or killed.

All of these actions are taken in the name of free will. Small wonder then that the west took the concepts of freedom and democracy to new heights. Unfortunately, it has also taken them to new lows.

The most taboo word in the Chinese language means divine love, they say the worst crimes in history have been committed in the name of God and some things should remain sacred. With the continuing advancement of the sciences and their growing contradictions to the ideas of free will bigots, the hypocracy is mounting beyond the point of what western society is capable of absorbing in my opinion. If homosexuals are ever to treated anything like equals in the west, it will no longer be the west as we know it today.

[kyle_soule]

The opposition of homosexuality is not limited to religion. There is potentially ones ethics at stake also.

If the ones that claim they have had excellent success with converting homosexuals to heterosexual are not bias to the point of distortion, then the studies, even if done by religious people -"with an agenda"- they are still are legitimate and could be reproduced by any group. So, the question isn't whether gays can be converted to straights, in this case, it is simply the validity of the ones doing the studies and converting.

In this I did not address the sexual aspect of homosexuality, because as radagast said sexual orientation can easily be changed, but no actual conversion has been made. I would trust that these studies do not extend into the physical sexual lives of the person(s) involved, I would assume the extent of the study would be mental conversion, and the sexual aspects of the conversion would come out in the mental portion.

Basically, I believe the studies claim they have whole conversions, mind and body.

The conversion of homosexuality has little to do with the physical or biological explanation. We can alter our inward biological makeup as seen from the outside; for example, one could have a social disorder and still control it outwardly to the point that nobody would know they have a social disorder.

[Zero]

The problem I have with all of your arguments, Kyle, is that you start from the assumption that there is something wrong with homosexuality, and work from there.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
The opposition of homosexuality is not limited to religion. There is potentially ones ethics at stake also.

If the ones that claim they have had excellent success with converting homosexuals to heterosexual are not bias to the point of distortion, then the studies, even if done by religious people -"with an agenda"- they are still are legitimate and could be reproduced by any group. So, the question isn't whether gays can be converted to straights, in this case, it is simply the validity of the ones doing the studies and converting.

In this I did not address the sexual aspect of homosexuality, because as radagast said sexual orientation can easily be changed, but no actual conversion has been made. I would trust that these studies do not extend into the physical sexual lives of the person(s) involved, I would assume the extent of the study would be mental conversion, and the sexual aspects of the conversion would come out in the mental portion.

Basically, I believe the studies claim they have whole conversions, mind and body.

The conversion of homosexuality has little to do with the physical or biological explanation. We can alter our inward biological makeup as seen from the outside; for example, one could have a social disorder and still control it outwardly to the point that nobody would know they have a social disorder.

Radagast said sexuality can be changed? no you must be mistaken, because he was very clear to me on the point that people are born predisposed a certain way, and despite whatever social, moral, or life choice they make, it does not change thier innate preference.
Sure anyone can be "persuaded" to change. Of course combined wiht the right drugs, enough torture, and a great deal of patience, a man could be "persuaded" to cut out and eat his own liver. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still coersion.

Regardless of weather you think it's wrong, People who are gay generally do not, and you can no more change thier minds than a gay can "turn" a straight man gay. It's all about personal choice- free will, not determinism.

[Another God]

Why not let them do what they want?

Why the desire to control other people all the time, and yet claim that freedom is the driving principle?

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem I have with all of your arguments, Kyle, is that you start from the assumption that there is something wrong with homosexuality, and work from there.

You are correct, I start from how I see it, of course; you make opinions sound like bad things.

Radagast said sexuality can be changed? no you must be mistaken, because he was very clear to me on the point that people are born predisposed a certain way, and despite whatever social, moral, or life choice they make, it does not change thier innate preference.

Regardless of weather you think it's wrong, People who are gay generally do not, and you can no more change thier minds than a gay can "turn" a straight man gay. It's all about personal choice- free will, not determinism.

I am not mistaken at all. Radagast said:

"If you define homosexuality as having sex with others of the same gender, then you can change people...That will not change their orientation, only their actions. These are not the same thing."

and that is all I said he said, but it is clear my choice of words was misleading. "Orientation" simply meant the gender one engages in sexual relations with.

Well, of course it is free will, and I agree fully that it is free will. We have discussed the acceptance of homosexuals in society and how legitimate it is that people can be converted from homosexual to heterosexual, neither of these interfere with free will. Now, if these studies were on people that were FORCED into taking part then it would be hindering ones rights to free will.

Sure anyone can be "persuaded" to change. Of course combined wiht the right drugs, enough torture, and a great deal of patience, a man could be "persuaded" to cut out and eat his own liver. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still coersion.

You make it sound like the peoples in the studies were drugged, tortured and only after a long period of time did they finally 'change'. If this was not your intent, I don't see the validity of putting this in.

[Zantra]

You make it sound like the peoples in the studies were drugged, tortured and only after a long period of time did they finally 'change'. If this was not your intent, I don't see the validity of putting this in.

Nahhh.. just added it for affect. I can't comment on these studies seriously since I haven't seen them.

[Kerrie]

the fact of the matter is, homosexuality will always exist - regardless of it being a physical condition or not...I know some states acknowledge common law marriages, so why can't the government acknowledge homosexual unity? i know for a fact that Nike allows it's employess to put their partners -regardless of sexual orientation or a legal binding of marriage - on their health insurance and beneficiaries of their retirement plans...

while i can understand the ethics behind the homosexual union is questionable in our society currently, wouldn't we rather deal with the reality of it rather then shove it away? i want to teach my children acceptance of others, and another person's sexual orientation is not a factor in determining whether that person be moral or not...the union of two people who want to look after each other, support one another, and share a committment is, in my opinion, the basic concept of a marriage...

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
You are correct, I start from how I see it, of course; you make opinions sound like bad things.



If your starting point is incorrect, your conclusions will be incorrect. Since you and many others start out with the unsupported idea that homosexuality is wrong, of course your conclusions are flawed.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Kerrie
the fact of the matter is, homosexuality will always exist - regardless of it being a physical condition or not...I know some states acknowledge common law marriages, so why can't the government acknowledge homosexual unity?

Is this rhetorical, Kerrie? The supreme court and even the military have already decided homosexuals are entitled to certain rights.
The issue is homosexual marriage not simply some kind of recognized unity.

Any number of distinctive orientations will always exist including not only homosexuality but polyamorous relationships and whatnot. In the state of New York it is illegal to have sex with a chicken, and many consider homosexuality no less unnatural, or at least deviant, including some homosexuals themselves.

At some point the law demands lines be drawn as to who is and isn't a parent to a child, who is and isn't legally bound to share their income, etc. Note that some people whom the courts have decided have a common law marriage did not want to be married and were forced to pay considerable sums. As a result people have also invented the idea of prenuptual agreements.

Just as Mormons are not legally allowed to have more than one wife, cultural bias will never allow gay marriage imo. If homosexuals are lucky, they will gain some the rights of parents and married couples but nothing more. Actual acknowledgement of the validity of such a union is just too contrary to the patriarchal culture. Notably, homosexual men are given special statis in one of the two surviving matriarchal cultures in the world. As far as they are concerned, of course a man would want to be a women.

[Les Sleeth]

I hope no one minds if I continue the trend of this thread to include the several important related issues involved in the thread theme.

As Kerrie points out, homosexuality is here to stay. We need to accept that and not be hung up on how people choose to have sex as long as no one is harmed in the process. Zero is right too, why ever call it "wrong" and shame that . . . no one benefits from that.

But Wuli is right too to point out that homosexual marriage raises other issues, specifically child rearing. I have to disagree, however, with Wuli's implication that homosexual partners can raise children as well as hetersexual couples (and that's accepting homosexual couples do NOT contribute to homosexuality in children).

In no way has it been demonstrated that children will thrive with same sex partners, at least that is, as well as they will with both a male and female parent (and to make this fair, we have to assume all parents, gay and straight, are psychologically healthy). A full-fledged healthy male and totally female healthy woman will model, exhibit, and demostrate the richest qualities of their gender. How can a child possibly be exposed to that in same sex partners?

Further, a man and a woman produces a child, not man-man or woman woman. Nature itself establishes the rule of parenting. Why question or mess with 4.5 billion years of evolution simply because people are having parenting urges? Are we to subordinate the needs of children to adults' emotional longings?

I am all for allowing any sexual partnering consenting adults need or desire. But leave the children out of it.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I hope no one minds if I continue the trend of this thread to include the several important related issues involved in the thread theme.

As Kerrie points out, homosexuality is here to stay. We need to accept that and not be hung up on how people choose to have sex as long as no one is harmed in the process. Zero is right too, why ever call it "wrong" and shame that . . . no one benefits from that.

But Wuli is right too to point out that homosexual marriage raises other issues, specifically child rearing. I have to disagree, however, with Wuli's implication that homosexual partners can raise children as well as hetersexual couples (and that's accepting homosexual couples do NOT contribute to homosexuality in children).

In no way has it been demonstrated that children will thrive with same sex partners, at least that is, as well as they will with both a male and female parent (and to make this fair, we have to assume all parents, gay and straight, are psychologically healthy). A full-fledged healthy male and totally female healthy woman will model, exhibit, and demostrate the richest qualities of their gender. How can a child possibly be exposed to that in same sex partners?

Further, a man and a woman produces a child, not man-man or woman woman. Nature itself establishes the rule of parenting. Why question or mess with 4.5 billion years of evolution simply because people are having parenting urges? Are we to subordinate the needs of children to adults' emotional longings?

I am all for allowing any sexual partnering consenting adults need or desire. But leave the children out of it.

Perfect post! Mostly because I agree with everything you said[:)]

Although, I do not think anybody wants to tell homosexuals they can't have sex with whom they please, I agree that it is their business who they have sex with and there should be no laws prohibiting these rights.

If your starting point is incorrect, your conclusions will be incorrect. Since you and many others start out with the unsupported idea that homosexuality is wrong, of course your conclusions are flawed.

Now, as for the ones that consider it wrong, (response to LW) I wouldn't call shame down on them simply because that is there opinion, and a lot of the time that opinion is based on religion (to support the Biblical wrongness one can find numorous passages in the Bible condemning homosexuals, but I would rather not have this thread turned religious). One can also base their opinion on their own morals, and if they think according to their morals that homosexuality is wrong, then to them it is wrong. I don't think it is wrong, I think it can be changed though.

If it can be changed and in nature we do not observe homosexuality, then logically I think one CAN conclude that there is something wrong with the person. This doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, it is possible it can't be helped without help.

[Jonathan]

I too agree with LW Sleeth. I personally really have only one problem with homosexuals, and that is that they want to be married, but a marriage will involve a religion that frowns on homosexuality. It's really an oxymoron to me. If it doesn't already exist (ie. I'm too stupid to know), I think there should be introduced some nonreligious, but legally equal ceremony for homosexuals. Pretty much, a marriage with all else equal except no church and no preist. However if such a thing does already exist, with all the legal and financial benefits, (I don't think so though) the homosexuals should just shut up, why do they want God at their marriage if they are knowingly and deliberately disobeying Him? (Note: by 'delibrately' I don't mean their orientation is delibrate, I mean the living of a homosexual life style is, since they could be celibate [given the will power]).

[wuliheron]

Opinions are all good and well, but I will take the word of the experts in this case.

http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/apgl/documents/GLPCI_1.htm

"All too often, gay fathers and lesbian mothers are told by society and the legal system that they are "unfit" to be parents. Yet psychological research comparing the children of heterosexual parents to the children of lesbian and gay parents is clear and consistent, and tells a different story. "The good news is - THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES," says John Gonsiorek, president-elect of the American Psychological Association Division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues. Gonsiorek is the editor (with James Weinrich) of Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, a 1991 publication of Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California."

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I too agree with LW Sleeth. I personally really have only one problem with homosexuals, and that is that they want to be married, but a marriage will involve a religion that frowns on homosexuality. It's really an oxymoron to me. If it doesn't already exist (ie. I'm too stupid to know), I think there should be introduced some nonreligious, but legally equal ceremony for homosexuals. Pretty much, a marriage with all else equal except no church and no preist. However if such a thing does already exist, with all the legal and financial benefits, (I don't think so though) the homosexuals should just shut up, why do they want God at their marriage if they are knowingly and deliberately disobeying Him? (Note: by 'delibrately' I don't mean their orientation is delibrate, I mean the living of a homosexual life style is, since they could be celibate [given the will power]).

Not all marriages are religious, only those held in a church.

I think the major problem that could arise with religious marriages of homosexuals is foolish Priests or Pastors that ignore their doctrines or when a church is forced to marry gay couples.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Opinions are all good and well, but I will take the word of the experts in this case.

http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/apgl/documents/GLPCI_1.htm

"All too often, gay fathers and lesbian mothers are told by society and the legal system that they are "unfit" to be parents. Yet psychological research comparing the children of heterosexual parents to the children of lesbian and gay parents is clear and consistent, and tells a different story. "The good news is - THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES," says John Gonsiorek, president-elect of the American Psychological Association Division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues. Gonsiorek is the editor (with James Weinrich) of Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, a 1991 publication of Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California."

I think evolution would have picked up on this equality between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents long before John Gonsiorek, and if it was true then we would observe various species that engage in homosexual reproduction. So, the lack of this observation goes to show that somewhere in the natural line there is a problem with homosexual reproduction or the actual usefulness of homosexual reproduction is absent in light of heterosexual reproduction.

[Jonathan]

I can tell you why you don't see homosexuality in nature, it's because, even if they are equally fit parents, sperm+sperm is not equal to zygote, and egg+egg makes even less sense. It's hard for say, a homosexuality gene, to become a common trait when it's counter productive to to its own reproduction. It's like asking why suicide isn't seen throughout nature. A suicide gene is self-terminating.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I can tell you why you don't see homosexuality in nature, it's because, even if they are equally fit parents, sperm+sperm is not equal to zygote, and egg+egg makes even less sense. It's hard for say, a homosexuality gene, to become a common trait when it's counter productive to to its own reproduction. It's like asking why suicide isn't seen throughout nature. A suicide gene is self-terminating.
That's funny, because both suicide and homosexuality ARE seen in nature.

[Zantra]

I can't vouch for homesexuality, but suicide I KNOW is seen in nature with other creatures

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Opinions are all good and well, but I will take the word of the experts in this case.

http://www.france.qrd.org/assocs/apgl/documents/GLPCI_1.htm

"All too often, gay fathers and lesbian mothers are told by society and the legal system that they are "unfit" to be parents. Yet psychological research comparing the children of heterosexual parents to the children of lesbian and gay parents is clear and consistent, and tells a different story. "The good news is - THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES," says John Gonsiorek, president-elect of the American Psychological Association Division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues. Gonsiorek is the editor (with James Weinrich) of Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, a 1991 publication of Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California."

Wuli, I guess you've found some evidence after all, but I don't buy it . . . yet. I would want to know the attitudes of those conducting the study, the questions asked, etc. Sympathetic psychologists easily can skew results by the questions they ask and what they choose to look at. Also, how long did they observe the children? A whole life time? And to what depth of their lives did they investigate?

But the main reason I don't buy it is because it contradicts my personal experience of seeing how a child learns different things from a male and female. In fact, my observation is the healthiest children come from households where both male and female influences are strong on both the male and female children (i.e., not with one parent focusing more attention on a particular gender). So how are gay parents going to achieve this?

No matter what, a woman cannot be male, and a male cannot be a woman, at least not in real and natural ways. Again I must also cite the fact that billions of years of evolution are behind the parenting system we have, and so nature to some degree has selected that system as most advantageous to child rearing.

In my opinion, you don't mess with mother nature in an area as important as a child's development.

[Zero]

Why is there some assumption that a child raised in a same-sex marriage household will never interact with anyone but those two adults? The whole 'exposure to both genders' thing is a non-issue. Good parenting involves exposing children to LOTS of influences, which any couple can do.

Honestly, I just see you guys as closet homophobes who are grasping at straws.

[wuliheron]

If you really don't believe people should deviate from mother nature when it comes to raising children, then you need to join a small tribal hunter-gather group immediately. That is, after all, how we evolved.

However, I warn you that such tribes tend to be much more tolerant of homosexuals and share the childrearing. [8)] [:D] [8)] [:D]

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If you really don't believe people should deviate from mother nature when it comes to raising children, then you need to join a small tribal hunter-gather group immediately. That is, after all, how we evolved.

However, I warn you that such tribes tend to be much more tolerant of homosexuals and share the childrearing. [8)] [:D] [8)] [:D] HA! Good point! The closer to nature a culture is, the MORE accepting they are of homosexuality(and sexuality in general).

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
I can't vouch for homesexuality, but suicide I KNOW is seen in nature with other creatures Well, it exists from hermaphroditic frogs all the way up to dogs humping anything, male or female, that they can find. There are gay sheep too, from what I understand.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If you really don't believe people should deviate from mother nature when it comes to raising children, then you need to join a small tribal hunter-gather group immediately. That is, after all, how we evolved.

However, I warn you that such tribes tend to be much more tolerant of homosexuals and share the childrearing. [8)] [:D] [8)] [:D]

Not a very good point at all. When a homosexual couple can reproduce then they can raise their kids, because it would be natural. Is it intelligent for an adoption agency to say, "Why not just put the child in a homosexual home because, hell, we can't find anything better." As LW was demonstrating in a perfectly healthy heterosexual home you cannot get the same parenting that you can get in a homosexual home, no matter what some limited studies show, this is common sense. In reality we don't find a perfectly healthy home, though, but this shouldn't take away from the fact that the CHANCES of a heterosexual family raising a child better than a homosexual family is more likely and they can, at their best, raise the child better than a homosexual couple at their best.

Also, do you think that an all natural way of living is WORSE? You make a joke of the poor rearing of children, this is not funny. Many of children are not mentally sound due to poor parenting, but you and Zero seem to think this is humorous.

The closer to nature a culture is, the MORE accepting they are of homosexuality(and sexuality in general).

Why would a natural culture be accepting of things that won't [ever] aid the future of the species?

That's funny, because both suicide and homosexuality ARE seen in nature.

His post made clear the missing SUICIDE GENE, and I would be exceedingly surprised if you identified an animal with suicidal genes in it. Homosexuality is not a random dog humping other same sex dogs. Homosexuality would be the reproduction by same sex means.

Why is there some assumption that a child raised in a same-sex marriage household will never interact with anyone but those two adults? The whole 'exposure to both genders' thing is a non-issue. Good parenting involves exposing children to LOTS of influences, which any couple can do.

Honestly, I just see you guys as closet homophobes who are grasping at straws.

The majority of the childs life will be influenced entirely by its parents, ever notice how children and parents have many of the same beliefs and such?.

Expose them to lots of influences?, so we no longer raise our children? We just throw them out and say look around pick what you like, if you happen to find some druggies, vandals, etc. so be it, it's just an influence that, as you say, is good for them. Any parent can easily expose a child to LOTS of influences, but it's foolish to think that is good parenting.

These studies can hardly be thorough enough to be considered fact due to the enormous resources needed to fund and continue such a long-term project. To me, it seems like many of you have simply adopted your opinions on the claims of others so-called "studies" which result to nothing more than short-term, and ultimately weakly supported opinions, casual observations in a semi-controlled environment.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

What is obvious is that children growing up with their parents being bigots is both unhealthy and immoral. But you don't see me going around passing laws that prevent homophobes from getting married and adopting children.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
What is obvious is that children growing up with their parents being bigots is both unhealthy and immoral. But you don't see me going around passing laws that prevent homophobes from getting married and adopting children.

That's cute how you picked up on Zero's accusation[;)]

This thread isn't about bigots though, you should start one if you feel you have something to say. In fact, your post doesn't have anything to do with the topic of homosexuals.

The nearest relation I can find is, it isn't healthy for bigot homosexuals to adopt children either, but that doesn't make much sense, because that is obvious. There is a screening process, you don't just walk into an agency and say I want that one and they give you the childs papers and you are on your way.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
That's cute how you picked up on Zero's accusation[;)]

This thread isn't about bigots though, you should start one if you feel you have something to say. In fact, your post doesn't have anything to do with the topic of homosexuals.

The nearest relation I can find is, it isn't healthy for bigot homosexuals to adopt children either, but that doesn't make much sense, because that is obvious. There is a screening process, you don't just walk into an agency and say I want that one and they give you the childs papers and you are on your way.

My point is that the same arguments against homosexual adoption and marraige now are the same arguments that the klan, republican congressmen, and other assorted bigots used thirty-forty years ago when interracial marriage was illegal. Oh, won't somebody think of the children! Oh, they'll grow up being either niggers or nigger lovers like their parents. You don't see two different species in nature acrossin', therefore it ain't natural, and therefore it should be outlawed.

Now, it's fine with me if you think that homosexuals are immoral, and sick and unnatural. It's also fine with me if you think blacks are lazy and shiftless and degenerate. But who in the hell are you to tell me who I'm allowed to love and consider a part of my family?

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
My point is that the same arguments against homosexual adoption and marraige now are the same arguments that the klan, republican congressmen, and other assorted bigots used thirty-forty years ago when interracial marriage was illegal. Oh, won't somebody think of the children! Oh, they'll grow up being either niggers or nigger lovers like their parents. You don't see two different species in nature acrossin', therefore it ain't natural, and therefore it should be outlawed.

Different races aren't different species[;)] Think of mules, it isn't unheard of for slight variations in species to reproduce, even though mules are sterile, it is still natural that they can be made.

Now, it's fine with me if you think that homosexuals are immoral, and sick and unnatural. It's also fine with me if you think blacks are lazy and shiftless and degenerate. But who in the hell are you to tell me who I'm allowed to love and consider a part of my family?

I don't think it is immoral or sick to be homosexual. As for the blacks, those words are your opinion, you can't say we think that, only you. Nobody is trying to say homosexuals cannot be homosexuals. The intent of this thread was to question if society is ready for homosexuals, and it has shifted to different topics, but not once has it been said homosexuals shouldn't be able to have sex or love eachother. As for who is a part of your family, those children that are up for adoption are raised by society, so naturally society should be able to dictate who is fit, by means of the adoption agencies screening. Consider the child at the adoption agency to be part of your family if you would like, you simply shouldn't have the natural right to raise the child in an unnatural family unit, IMO.

[Zantra]

The real issue here is "are homsexuals good parents?" Will they influence thier children to follow in thier footsteps? Well seeing as how a large amount of homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents, you can't automaticall assume that they would influence thier children. That's a prejudice which simply isn't true. Good parents are good parents, and bad parents are bad parents, irregardless of thier sexual orientation. If they are good parents, they will allow thier children to make thier own choices without influencing thier decisions.

It's my personal believe that anyone who believes that gay parents adversely affect thier children are both narrow-minded and prejudice. "they'll turn them gay" is not a fact, it's an opinion, and one based on lack of information at that. It IS no better than saying "oh well mixed couples will turn thier children into black people".. blah blah blah. Merely a step or two away from racism. Show me the scientific study please where children of gay parents became gay adults. Otherwise, it's simply uninformed, racist conjecture with absolutely no basis in fact.

[wuliheron]

I dont't believe for a minute that the real issue is whether or not gays make good parents or not. If it were the real issue, people would not be debating it so hotly.

Gays have been discriminated against, beaten, and killed just because of their sexual orientation. This has been done by right wing religious nuts, atheists, and people from every spectrum of american life. Disney and other large corporations have extended them benefits to their partners and received a great deal of press as a result.

The real issue is the US is full of free will bigots, especially men, who reject and deny their own sexual desires on a consistent basis. When polled the most adamently anti-gay men in the US are also quite honest about being the most tempted to have sex with another man. Along with free will bigotry comes hypocracy.

So tobacco kills, its a choice isn't it? So most fatal car accidents involve alcohol, its a choice isn't it? So most pot smokers are peaceful, lock them up and keep it illegal. So most gays are perfectly good citizens, deny them their human rights! Hypocracy and bigotry in the name of free will. War is peace after all.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Different races aren't different species[;)] Think of mules, it isn't unheard of for slight variations in species to reproduce, even though mules are sterile, it is still natural that they can be made.


No ****, Sherlock. It's just crap that bigots come up with. Like the idea that homosexuality isn't natural. And homosexuality in nature isn't just random humping dogs. There are plenty of examples of life long monogamous homosexual relationships in those animals that have monogamous relationships, such as geese.

Not that it's important. The whole homosexuality is bad because it's not natural is a stupid spurious argument anyway.
[b]

I don't think it is immoral or sick to be homosexual. As for the blacks, those words are your opinion, you can't say we think that, only you. Nobody is trying to say homosexuals cannot be homosexuals. The intent of this thread was to question if society is ready for homosexuals, and it has shifted to different topics, but not once has it been said homosexuals shouldn't be able to have sex or love eachother. As for who is a part of your family, those children that are up for adoption are raised by society, so naturally society should be able to dictate who is fit, by means of the adoption agencies screening. Consider the child at the adoption agency to be part of your family if you would like, you simply shouldn't have the natural right to raise the child in an unnatural family unit, IMO.

The topic of interracial marriage is a valid comparison. A majority of americans felt that blacks were unfit to be wed to whites, and thus made it illegal. And today in every state in the country it's illegal for gays to get married because bigots have passed laws against it. There is not one good reason why somebody's significat other can't be allowed visitation rights, or marital tax benefits, or insurance claims, or inheritance rights, but there's an organized bigotted movement out there that denies millions of people these things.

It's absolutely disgusting. It's unamerican. And thiry to forty years from now school kids in history class will be looking back in disbelief at how the rights of so many people were denied because of narrowminded nazi bigots.

[Zantra]

Much the same thing was done with racsim against blacks- history is cyclic. The same attitudes were prevelant about 40 years ago against blacks. Now we've realized the error of our ways, and attitudes overall have changed drastically. Much as the attitudes against women have drastically been altered from 100 years ago. In another 50 years we'll probably regard homosexuality with the same respect afforded to blacks and women. Until then, people will fight against change. Like seeks out like, and repels different, so people will rebel against people or ideals that differ from thier own. I said it before and I'll repeat- knowing the path is different than walking the path, and people are ultimately afraid of "becoming gay" more than they are repusled by the act itsself.

What really makes me laugh is the irony of minorities against things like homosexuality. Because let's face it- unless you're a white heterosexual male in America, chances are you've faced some type of discrimination in the past. In some cases even if are that demographic. People scream bloody murder when it happens to them, but then turn around with thier own bias and discriminate. The entire human race still has a long way to go when it comes to judging someone on thier individuality, and not on some generalization. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes- For every generalization, or bias, or prejudice that could be produced, chances are I could present an exception to that rule, because everyone in this world is a uniquie individual and not subject to generalization. That is the ultimate form of acceptance and tolerance, and we won't see that in our lifetimes.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
The topic of interracial marriage is a valid comparison. A majority of americans felt that blacks were unfit to be wed to whites, and thus made it illegal. And today in every state in the country it's illegal for gays to get married because bigots have passed laws against it. There is not one good reason why somebody's significat other can't be allowed visitation rights, or marital tax benefits, or insurance claims, or inheritance rights, but there's an organized bigotted movement out there that denies millions of people these things.

It's absolutely disgusting. It's unamerican. And thiry to forty years from now school kids in history class will be looking back in disbelief at how the rights of so many people were denied because of narrowminded nazi bigots.

Two things- first want to point out that in Hawaii gay marriages ARE legally binding.

Secondly I wanted to point out Los Angeles as an example. It's one of the most racially, sexually, and otherwise diverse city in the country (new york being a possible exception). Anyhow, here interracial relationships and marriages are extremely common. And so is homosexuality. I've found here that people are generally much more accepting of such things than in other parts of the country such as the midwest and south. Even though things are accepted in LA, if you were to go to any town in say, Iowa(not picking on iowa if anyone's from there) and an interracial couple walked into a restaurant, there would be absolutely no acceptance. Same applies to homosexual couples. Yet if the same situation happened at a popular LA eatery, you'd find no resistance whatsoever. Eventually the rest of the country will catch up, but for now it's still a regional thing.

[BoulderHead]

Majority prejudice rules. It doesn’t have to make good sense to be implemented, although when looking through the ol’ tinted lenses it might appear well reasoned...

I wonder if what bothers some is the fear that the adopted child would be used for sodomy, which is not to say that child molestation and incest does not occur within traditional family units. Anyway, are there not laws to deal with child abuse that could be applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals?

I’m inclined to believe if heterosexual couples can produce homosexual children that homosexual couples can also raise heterosexual children. If you’re going to allow by law for couples to receive some benefit after exchanging a few vows and signing on the dotted line then I don’t see how the sex of these people making such a commitment should matter.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Majority prejudice rules. It doesn’t have to make good sense to be implemented, although when looking through the ol’ tinted lenses it might appear well reasoned...

I wonder if what bothers some is the fear that the adopted child would be used for sodomy, which is not to say that child molestation and incest does not occur within traditional family units. Anyway, are there not laws to deal with child abuse that could be applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals?

I’m inclined to believe if heterosexual couples can produce homosexual children that homosexual couples can also raise heterosexual children. If you’re going to allow by law for couples to receive some benefit after exchanging a few vows and signing on the dotted line then I don’t see how the sex of these people making such a commitment should matter.

If gay teenagers said they didn't want to live with a heterosexual mom and dad because he was afraid they'd turn him "straight", we'd laught at him right? If he said he was afraid they'd force him to date women, or watch them kiss, handhold, or otherwise act as a couple we'd think that was nuts, correct?

So you see where I'm going with this....

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
The real issue here is "are homsexuals good parents?" Will they influence thier children to follow in thier footsteps? Well seeing as how a large amount of homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents, you can't automaticall assume that they would influence thier children. That's a prejudice which simply isn't true. Good parents are good parents, and bad parents are bad parents, irregardless of thier sexual orientation. If they are good parents, they will allow thier children to make thier own choices without influencing thier decisions.

It's my personal believe that anyone who believes that gay parents adversely affect thier children are both narrow-minded and prejudice. "they'll turn them gay" is not a fact, it's an opinion, and one based on lack of information at that. It IS no better than saying "oh well mixed couples will turn thier children into black people".. blah blah blah. Merely a step or two away from racism. Show me the scientific study please where children of gay parents became gay adults. Otherwise, it's simply uninformed, racist conjecture with absolutely no basis in fact.

It is not at all like saying mixed couples will turn their children into black people, because there is a white person in the mix, there is no heterosexual in the homosexual mix, so the comparison is invalid. This happens to be like nothing else. Show me the scientific studies that demonstrate children aren't influenced sexually by their homosexual parents.

I wouldn't even say this is the root of the question, I don't care if a child turns out homosexual, what I care about is whether a child turns out screwed up and not mentally balanced. That link Wuli provided was more or less an interview with a guy, no statistics or any hard concrete findings, I wouldn't call that a scientific study.

One might find it interesting that there is also the possibility of bias. GLPCI Network—The Newsletter of the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International Summer 1992. Interesting.

EDIT: Imagine the social stigma a child would recieve from peers if they had homosexual parents, this alone should be cause for concern with letting homosexuals adopt children.

It appears that all of the research done on homosexual parenting is done by individuals or groups with a vested interest in the outcome. You can provide a paper on why there are no negative outcomes and I can provide a paper that show there are negative outcomes. So, to all thsoe that think what they say is factual and nonbiased, it becomes clear that all views at the current time are simply opinions, that can be backed up by scientific studies with flawed methodology.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I’m inclined to believe if heterosexual couples can produce homosexual children that homosexual couples can also raise heterosexual children. If you’re going to allow by law for couples to receive some benefit after exchanging a few vows and signing on the dotted line then I don’t see how the sex of these people making such a commitment should matter.

I think the issue is still to hot to push for homosexual benefits, which is the root of this thread. Companies that may feel very strongly against homosexuals due to religious or morals views would be forced to accept them and give them benefits and I think this will only cause friction and problems.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
It is not at all like saying mixed couples will turn their children into black people, because there is a white person in the mix, there is no heterosexual in the homosexual mix, so the comparison is invalid. This happens to be like nothing else. Show me the scientific studies that demonstrate children aren't influenced sexually by their homosexual parents. Show me where homosexuality is wrong or harmful, from someone other than homophobic bigots.

I wouldn't even say this is the root of the question, I don't care if a child turns out homosexual, what I care about is whether a child turns out screwed up and not mentally balanced. That link Wuli provided was more or less an interview with a guy, no statistics or any hard concrete findings, I wouldn't call that a scientific study.

One might find it interesting that there is also the possibility of bias. GLPCI Network—The Newsletter of the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International Summer 1992. Interesting.
Uh huh. So why do all the national medical and phychological associations agree with them? Last I checked, the AMA and APA are pretty conservative in their views, generally.

EDIT: Imagine the social stigma a child would recieve from peers if they had homosexual parents, this alone should be cause for concern with letting homosexuals adopt children. Again, this is an argument that holds little water. You seem to be in support of bigotry, in that you suggest that the bigots should get to bully people, and their attitude should be given ultimate authority.

It appears that all of the research done on homosexual parenting is done by individuals or groups with a vested interest in the outcome. You can provide a paper on why there are no negative outcomes and I can provide a paper that show there are negative outcomes. So, to all thsoe that think what they say is factual and nonbiased, it becomes clear that all views at the current time are simply opinions, that can be backed up by scientific studies with flawed methodology. Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? The policy of the AAP towards homosexual parents (http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html) includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Why is there some assumption that a child raised in a same-sex marriage household will never interact with anyone but those two adults? The whole 'exposure to both genders' thing is a non-issue. Good parenting involves exposing children to LOTS of influences, which any couple can do.

Honestly, I just see you guys as closet homophobes who are grasping at straws.

Sounds like McCarthy screaming "communist" at anybody daring to think about things outside of what is politically sanctioned.

Personally, I have never cared a hoot about what someone does sexually. Homosexuality is rather tame compared to horse and dog lovers, necrophiliacs and scat enthusiasts.

When you shout "homophobe" at those of us concerned about how children should be influenced as they grow, it seems you are more concerned about homosexual image than children's well being.

If homosexuals could raise children perfectly fine, then I would be perfectly fine with it. I doubt it because of my life experiences, not because I have some closet paranoia about homosexuality. It sounds like you are the one with some agenda.

[Zero]

My only agendas are freedom, equality, and tolerance. All parents influence their children in some ways, often unpredictable ways. That holds true of heterosexuals too...and I think homosexuals may in fact have an easier time in being parents, and being married as well. When they do it, it is because they WANT to, without alot of the societal pressure to do it, as in hetero couples.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I think the issue is still to hot to push for homosexual benefits, which is the root of this thread. Companies that may feel very strongly against homosexuals due to religious or morals views would be forced to accept them and give them benefits and I think this will only cause friction and problems.

Completely incorrect. What it does, is force people to deal with the issue instead of trying to sidestep it or ignore it. It also opens new avenues. People who are forced to interact with homosexuals who had no previous interaction and thus, uninformed views, may find thier opinions changing if they are forced to interact with homosexuals.

But let's induldge you for a moment. So your belief is that we should not force people to interact with other people who are homosexual because it causes friction. Following your line of reasoning, we must also ban blacks from working, because it might severely affect the working environment for KKK members. And also women shouldn't be able to interact, because there are still those people who think a woman's place is in the home, and forcing them to work with women would cause friction. So how many other people should we segregate from the office in the interests of harmony?

Well boy, you'd better have hard workers there, because it's going to be you and 3 other white, heterosexual males running the entire company based on your philosophy[;)]

[Zantra]

Uh huh. So why do all the national medical and phychological associations agree with them? Last I checked, the AMA and APA are pretty conservative in their views, generally.

Hmm, it would appear that evidence supporting my argument presents itsself. Unless someone wants to contest the conservativism and imperical studies of these organizations.


Again, this is an argument that holds little water. You seem to be in support of bigotry, in that you suggest that the bigots should get to bully people, and their attitude should be given ultimate authority.

Children will always find reasons to ridicule thier peers. If it wsan't homosexuality, it would be because the kid's overweight, or too smart, or too small, or too dumb, or too something else. But using young bullies to make your point is shaky ground to say the least.

Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? The policy of the AAP towards homosexual parents (http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html) includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group. [/B]

Again must agree here that the American phsychiatric Association is not known for it's radical liberalism by any stretch. Any studies or findings that are upheld by these organizations should be held up as fact until otherwise disproved. It doesn't get much more solid than this.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
My only agendas are freedom, equality, and tolerance. All parents influence their children in some ways, often unpredictable ways. That holds true of heterosexuals too...and I think homosexuals may in fact have an easier time in being parents, and being married as well. When they do it, it is because they WANT to, without alot of the societal pressure to do it, as in hetero couples.

But for whom? Are we to be more concerned about homosexual self esteem than what is best for children?

I think you make too light of the fact that nature has firmly estblished male and female as the parenting standard. It is not comparable to cite tribal sociology . . . that is not genetically determined. Male-female parenting is about as deep and consistent as evolution gets.

Zero, I wish you knew me . . . I do not judge someone for their sexual preferences as long as no one is harmed. But our children are our future . . . we need to be really, really careful there.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[B]Sounds like McCarthy screaming "communist" at anybody daring to think about things outside of what is politically sanctioned.


A comparison could also be made of the people against homosexual marriages to various groups such as the KKK who didn't want "thier kind" mixing with "our kind" and viewed blacks as lower than dirt. And everyone who befriended blacks were deemed as "$$#ger lovers"


If homosexuals could raise children perfectly fine, then I would be perfectly fine with it. I doubt it because of my life experiences, not because I have some closet paranoia about homosexuality. It sounds like you are the one with some agenda.

Personally, my agenda is equality, and making people see the glaring similarities between bias against homesexuals and our past biased agaist blacks, women, and even further back, pertaining to religion.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But for whom? Are we to be more concerned about homosexual self esteem than what is best for children?

I think you make too light of the fact that nature has firmly estblished male and female as the parenting standard. It is not comparable to cite tribal sociology . . . that is not genetically determined. Male-female parenting is about as deep and consistent as evolution gets.

Zero, I wish you knew me . . . I do not judge someone for their sexual preferences as long as no one is harmed. But our children are our future . . . we need to be really, really careful there. Actually, exclusively male-female relations is an abberation, isn't it? Don't many tribes historically have their children raised by one gender or the other exclusively at some point in their lives. Doesn't nature contain everything from abandoned offspring all the way to communal parenting?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zantra
A comparison could also be made of the people against homosexual marriages to various groups such as the KKK who didn't want "thier kind" mixing with "our kind" and viewed blacks as lower than dirt. And everyone who befriended blacks were deemed as "$$#ger lovers"

???? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.

Originally posted by Zantra
Personally, my agenda is equality, and making people see the glaring similarities between bias against homesexuals and our past biased agaist blacks, women, and even further back, pertaining to religion.

Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!!!!!!!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
???? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.

But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?

Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.



Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!!!!!!!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations. These emotional pleas to 'protect the children' are useless unless you show that they need to be protected! There is zero evidence that a same-sex 2-parent household is harmful for children. In fact, there may be some benefits, like an added level of tolerance being taught.

Why are you so afraid of homosexuals, Sleeth?

[Andy]

If you where a child that was brought up by homosexual parents do you not think that if any of the other children found out about this at school that they would bully you for it? Kids can be very cruel when it comes to bullying and i see this as a case where although the parents themselves wouldnt have done anything wrong they wouldnt be able to stop the bullying that the kid would receive, it is the way of the playground to pick on the kids that are different.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you where a child that was brought up by homosexual parents do you not think that if any of the other children found out about this at school that they would bully you for it? Kids can be very cruel when it comes to bullying and i see this as a case where although the parents themselves wouldnt have done anything wrong they wouldnt be able to stop the bullying that the kid would receive, it is the way of the playground to pick on the kids that are different. By thins logic, black children should have remained segregated, Christianity shouldn't exist(not all bad, I suppose), and women should still be barefoot and pregnant.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
Completely incorrect. What it does, is force people to deal with the issue instead of trying to sidestep it or ignore it. It also opens new avenues. People who are forced to interact with homosexuals who had no previous interaction and thus, uninformed views, may find thier opinions changing if they are forced to interact with homosexuals.

Why must all lack of interaction with a group cause uninformed views? Is there something magic in talking to a homosexual that allows you to see everything so much more clearly? Of course whether they find their opinions wrong or right, that is irrelevant because we cannot predict how they will react.

But let's induldge you for a moment. So your belief is that we should not force people to interact with other people who are homosexual because it causes friction. Following your line of reasoning, we must also ban blacks from working, because it might severely affect the working environment for KKK members. And also women shouldn't be able to interact, because there are still those people who think a woman's place is in the home, and forcing them to work with women would cause friction. So how many other people should we segregate from the office in the interests of harmony?

I'm not sure I follow. Blacks, and woman? Are they homosexual? I thought this was a homosexual thread, it appears as if a black person and/or a woman have no choice in the matter of their gender or colour of their skin, so how is this following MY reasoning when I have never mentioned anything but homosexuals? You make it appear as if all negative views of all kinds of people that anybody could have are also my views. KKK members are violent towards blacks, I am not saying workers will be violent towards homosexuals, your example doesn't even compare.

Well boy, you'd better have hard workers there, because it's going to be you and 3 other white, heterosexual males running the entire company based on your philosophy[;)]

You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals].

Don't many tribes historically have their children raised by one gender or the other exclusively at some point in their lives.

Their entire childhood? No, as you said, at some point in their lives.

Again, I wonder what the agenda of the American Academy of Pediatrics is, besides the welfare of children? The policy of the AAP towards homosexual parents includes this statement: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual" That isn't a partisan group, or a gay rights group.

From the AAP's Policy StatementABSTRACT. Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.

What we see here is their attempt to provide legitimate proof for the legalization of legally recognized parents. This seems to be marriage. One also must note that there are also a sufficiently equal number of professional literature (which happen to be only nine in this website) that contradict this statement. It would appear as if they had vested interest in the results though.

[Andy]

If you had the choice who would you rather be adopted by, homosexuals or hetrosexuals?

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule

What we see here is their attempt to provide legitimate proof for the legalization of legally recognized parents. This seems to be marriage. One also must note that there are also a sufficiently equal number of professional literature (which happen to be only nine in this website) that contradict this statement. It would appear as if they had vested interest in the results though. Can you show us professional opinions that contradict what I posted? Oh, and show me an agenda, besides the welfare of children...I am waiting with baited breath over here.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you had the choice who would you rather be adopted by, homosexuals or hetrosexuals? I don't see a distinction...I would prefer good parents, which could be anyone, really(except Christian Science whackjobs and other child abusers).

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Can you show us professional opinions that contradict what I posted? Oh, and show me an agenda, besides the welfare of children...I am waiting with baited breath over here.

As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

[Andy]

If you had the choice of being adopted either a perfectly good homosexual couple or a perfectly good hetrosexual couple who would you rather be adopted by?

I think that the vast majority of people would choose the hetrosexual couple, but a young child wouldnt have this choice.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
If you had the choice of being adopted either a perfectly good homosexual couple or a perfectly good hetrosexual couple who would you rather be adopted by?

I think that the vast majority of people would choose the hetrosexual couple, but a young child wouldnt have this choice. Why should it matter? I don't see it as being important either way, and I don't understand why you do.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions. You could have scrolled to the bottom...and I'm not sure what you mean by unbiased. Generally, the APA and the AAP would tend to use unbiased studies, don't you think? The bias, of course, is in huge evidence on your side of the issue. The ONLY evidence I have seen against homosexuality has come from religious sources.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
???? It's not the same at all. If someone is against something out of predjudice, and it really doesn't matter what, then one can legitimately accuse him/her of bias.


Ok then how do you definte prejudice? You're saying that someone being gay cannot be a good parent- that is prejudice and bias.


But, what also goes on is that those on the receiving end of predjudice can become over-sensitive, and so paranoid that they pounce on anything that vaguely resembles predjudice, whether it is or not, screaming "unfair." What is one to do then, walk around on eggshells so as not to offend anyone?


Ok the then where do we draw the line between political correctness and the rights of people? If you're trying to tell someone else what they can do with thier children, that's infringing on personal human rights. If they were trying to influence your children, that would fall in your court. But the bottom line is that it's thier RIGHT to raise children because it doesn't harm others (which I realize is the debate).


Actually I do try to be mindful of people's sensitivities until, that is, an issue comes along that is more important than people's fragile egos.

So then what qualifies you to tell someone they're not fit to be a parent? This isn't about egos, it's about people's right to be a parent.



Your intentions may be noble, but your priorities are wrong. Before explaining what I mean, first let me acknowledge that children are in a lot of horrible situations right now, and a good home with any variety of parents or caregivers would be an improvement. But I assumed we were discussing the ideal of parenting, and how, if we have the opportunity, we’d select what a standard parenting situation should be.

With that in mind, then I say equality in this issue should become a concern only after we do what is best for the children. Why should children have to sacrifice even one iota so gays, blacks, women, or any other group can feel equal? I mean, what about the severely mentally handicapped? They are prejudiced against too, so why shouldn’t they adopt kids? Unfair!!!!!!!

Social fairness, equality and all that kind of idealist stuff is utterly irrelevant to what is best for parenting children. So I think you need to rearrange you priorities a bit. Work for equality and eliminating prejudice where that is done, and look at what is best for children separately from all other considerations.

First, I do believe that the children's best interests should be kept at heart. And I believe having a 2 parent home is in thier best interests. Your argument is based on the faulty premise that being raised by 2 parents of the same sex is bad for the child.

Yet in society we have excepted exactly that. Ever see "my two dads" or "full house"? Both were TV sitcoms in which 2, and 3 men respectively raised a family. No they were not gay, just friends or related. Society doesn't view 2 parents as wrong- it views 2 GAY parents as morally incorrect because they go on the assumption that the parents will teach the values of homosexuality to thier children. This is false, and the studies be the APA and AMA have shown that.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Why must all lack of interaction with a group cause uninformed views? Is there something magic in talking to a homosexual that allows you to see everything so much more clearly? Of course whether they find their opinions wrong or right, that is irrelevant because we cannot predict how they will react.

Because sexual preference aside, they are people, just like you and I. They go to school, they have careers, and they have friends and family. You're generalizing someone soley based on thier sexual preference which is just one aspect of a whole person. And what can you tell me of gays from personal experience. You're saying that you base all your views on other people's experiences. That's a biased view.


I'm not sure I follow. Blacks, and woman? Are they homosexual? I thought this was a homosexual thread, it appears as if a black person and/or a woman have no choice in the matter of their gender or colour of their skin, so how is this following MY reasoning when I have never mentioned anything but homosexuals? You make it appear as if all negative views of all kinds of people that anybody could have are also my views. KKK members are violent towards blacks, I am not saying workers will be violent towards homosexuals, your example doesn't even compare.


Oh I see, so now we're soley basing discrimination on weather they can HELP thier "disadvantage" So if someone "can't help what they are" then it's bad to discriminate against them. Now I'm following your reasoning. There is a very relavant theme in my post of discrimination. My point is that prejudice against blacks and woman is the same as prejudice against homosexuals. Some would make the argument that they can't help it because they were born that way-so you would be contradicting your own beliefs by discriminating against them. And people ARE violent against homsexuals, or have you just had your head under a rock for the last 20 years?


You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals].


I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

Last time I checked, medical science, and psychology were based on imperical unbiased research and evidence.

Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

Again and again and again you are saying things that have nothing to do with what is being said.


NOBODY IS TRYING TO SAY HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT BE HOMOSEXUAL!

You will keep using this argument because you will not accept what we say, what I mean by this is you think we think this certain way and you are attacking that certain way you think we are seeing. This will probably even be misquoted as simply "you will not accept what we say". I suppose it is pointless to even keep posting because you quote something I say and use the same response no matter what I actually say.

This was what you quoted, perhaps you didn't look at it:

"You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals]."

Now, tell me where in there I say homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be homosexual?

You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

They sure do Zero and this does not pertain to any one of us, try again, it was a great contribution, a PM to Zantra would have been infinitely more appropriate.

[Zero]

No, Kyle...you just claim that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
No, Kyle...you just claim that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else.

Everyone doesn't have the right to adopt.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Everyone doesn't have the right to adopt.

Yes, they do, unless you can provide a convincing argument otherwise. Since you haven't bothered to do so...what would you like us to think about the reasons behind your attitude?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Zero
You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

Not trying to say that people should be denied the right to hate other people, as long as that hate doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

There's a big difference between hating someone and beating them up, or denying them the same freedoms as everyone else.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
Not trying to say that people should be denied the right to hate other people, as long as that hate doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

There's a big difference between hating someone and beating them up, or denying them the same freedoms as everyone else.

Yeah, I don't care about anyone's internal attitude. The problem is, some people want to legislate the restrictions that they set on their personal lives to affect everyone else.

[Hurkyl]

And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

Well, where is the explanation? I understand that anti-homosexual legislation is discriminatory, and SHOULD be removed. Where is the case for it, that isn't based on some religious or 'moral' grounds?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Again and again and again you are saying things that have nothing to do with what is being said.


NOBODY IS TRYING TO SAY HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT BE HOMOSEXUAL!

You will keep using this argument because you will not accept what we say, what I mean by this is you think we think this certain way and you are attacking that certain way you think we are seeing. This will probably even be misquoted as simply "you will not accept what we say". I suppose it is pointless to even keep posting because you quote something I say and use the same response no matter what I actually say.

This was what you quoted, perhaps you didn't look at it:

"You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals]."

Now, tell me where in there I say homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be homosexual?

[b]

They sure do Zero and this does not pertain to any one of us, try again, it was a great contribution, a PM to Zantra would have been infinitely more appropriate.

Ok I think you're missing my point here. As Zero pointed out, it's not that you're saying they don't have the right to be who they are, it's that you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else, such as adoption. You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on thier sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to pick on you kyle. Yours is a common view. In fact, being raised in the midwest, I'm quite used to this point of view. I'm simply pointing on the common lack of ability of many people to regard someone with a blind eye thier sexual preference. Do you believe a homosexual would be less capable of performing tasks at work? Less capable of functioning in society in the same manner a heterosexual person does? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself what gives you cause to believe they can't function as normal parents? Do you see all homosexuals as radicals bent on forcing thier views and beliefs on anyone they can? If not, then what leads you to believe they would force thier views on thier children. Should people with odd fetishes such as bondage not be parents because they might unduly influence thier children with respect to that fetish? These are just questions that you have to answer for yourself.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok I think you're missing my point here. As Zero pointed out, it's not that you're saying they don't have the right to be who they are, it's that you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else, such as adoption. You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on thier sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim

I would add that I am equally concerned with the sourse of teh study as I am with the sourse of the degrees of the people who do the studies. If you got a degree from a religious diploma mill, and did the 'study' for a religious group, then I will reject it out of hand. I'll buy research from certain religious schools, like Notre Dame, of course.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Zero
I would add that I am equally concerned with the sourse of teh study as I am with the sourse of the degrees of the people who do the studies. If you got a degree from a religious diploma mill, and did the 'study' for a religious group, then I will reject it out of hand. I'll buy research from certain religious schools, like Notre Dame, of course.

right and that's why I say unbiased. Religously influenced schools all have the influence and belief of those religions present in thier studies. They are deemed as very conservative, and will not consider alternatives, scientific in nature though they may be, as valid.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

What is it that you feel isn't being understood about these types of legislation? I thought I understood them fairly well, but what am I missing?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
right and that's why I say unbiased. Religously influenced schools all have the influence and belief of those religions present in thier studies. They are deemed as very conservative, and will not consider alternatives, scientific in nature though they may be, as valid. Of course, they start out backwards from real scientific study, in that they pick the idea they want to prove, and then pick and choose from the information, in order to support their beliefs.

[Hurkyl]

What is it that you feel isn't being understood about these types of legislation? I thought I understood them fairly well, but what am I missing?

That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts. Which can't be said for you...or can it? Have I missed you posting a fact or a link?

[kyle_soule]

Of course, they start out backwards from real scientific study, in that they pick the idea they want to prove, and then pick and choose from the information, in order to support their beliefs.

Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...

You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on thier sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct.

I didn't say I didn't want to work with gays, in fact, I said I would hire them.

You said "Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god." Zero over here is denying religious groups are capable of scientific research, so why would I want to provide the studies when they will not be accepted? You also label religious research as biased.

I will sort through some pages and tomorrow present scientific studies to support my views.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
[b]

Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...



Strong statement...what do you base it on? I have a BASIS for rejecting the work of anti-gay groups, do you claim that the AAP is an actively pro-gay group, and if so, what is your evidence?

[Andy]

Strong statement...what do you base it on? I have a BASIS for rejecting the work of anti-gay groups, do you claim that the AAP is an actively pro-gay group, and if so, what is your evidence?

The AAP cant be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.


[;)]

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Andy
The AAP cant be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

By the same token they can't be seen as pro-gay, which would offend a great deal of people. the only neutral stance is a objective unbiased one. If they were going to taint results, they'd swing in favor of the anti-gay stance as it is still the prevelant one in american society. Take our president for exaple. Though he's made some token gestures to the gay community in order to retain thier votes, the white house still stands by "family values" which is another politically correct way of saying he's anti-gay without actually saying it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
The AAP cant be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this. That is nonsense, and you should know it. Anyone who isn't supporting you position must be actively biased towards the opposite? Come on! I don't think the AMA, APA, or AAP are powerless organizations. They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations. If they say something is so, you can bet your money that they are simply following the evidence.

[Hurkyl]

They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations.

...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
...

I should rephase: "questioning without serious evidence." Every organization, and its individual members, can make mistakes, of course. The difference is, we can be pretty sure that none of the real medical groups can be accused of being actively, aggressively pro-anything. The same cannot be said of religious organizations, which by their own definition CANNOT and WILL NOT do unbiased proper science.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zantra
You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on thier sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to pick on you kyle. Yours is a common view. In fact, being raised in the midwest, I'm quite used to this point of view. I'm simply pointing on the common lack of ability of many people to regard someone with a blind eye thier sexual preference. Do you believe a homosexual would be less capable of performing tasks at work? Less capable of functioning in society in the same manner a heterosexual person does? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself what gives you cause to believe they can't function as normal parents? Do you see all homosexuals as radicals bent on forcing thier views and beliefs on anyone they can? If not, then what leads you to believe they would force thier views on thier children. Should people with odd fetishes such as bondage not be parents because they might unduly influence thier children with respect to that fetish? These are just questions that you have to answer for yourself.

I can't speak for Kyle, but I think your points are really off the mark for why I have reservations about homosexual parenting.

Before explaining them let me say that in my opinion you are not being realistic about the studies done supporting gay parenting. I believe in general the science community is very liberal about such things, and would wish to find ways to help get prejudice out of society if they could. It is noble, but is it correct?

Those studies are virtually impossible to do properly with a small sampling and in a few years. It is psychological testing to begin with, and already that makes it exremely difficult to isolate all influences at work. How are you going to test the effects of everything else that has gone on in the child's life? And how can you tell what happens over a lifetime?

To say no differences have been observed doesn't mean there aren't differences. The science community has told us bovine growth hormone has no negative consequences . . . is it just the igorance of the general population that resists that stuff? Or do they sense in those hormones some potential long-term affect on them undetected as of yet in the laboratory?

Let's not be naive about the difficulty of discovering what we need to about this.

Getting back to exactly what my concern is, and it is not the effects of homosexuality on kids, or the possibility that homosexuality is a physcological problem which kids might be subjected to . . . as some have pointed out, nobody, whatever their sexual preference, is perfect.

My concern is sanctioning, no, actually equating same gender parents with the natural situation. You seem so determined to exhibit love and equality to all humanity that you are unable to analyze this problem objectively.

I am saying that a child has a complex physiology which includes various proportions of hormones, certain leanings in brain development, and particular susceptibilities to outside influences. The early life exposure to both mixes of those factors found in healthy males and females might be the optimum way to develop them in a balanced manner. I suspect this for two reasons. The first is my observation of children raised in homes where both the male and the female are strong (and healthy) influences.

Second, logically it makes sense to me too that the many billions of years of evolution it took to establish two-gender parenting is a lot more trustable than the latest social trend in creative parenting, especially when it might be for no other reason than to pump up the self esteem of some oppressed element of the population.

So I say again, let's not be too quick to mess with mother nature.

[Zero]

Liberal: Any person, study, fact, or point of view that does not agree with the farthest right-wing view.

Also, Sleeth, you have already used that 'it is unnatural' argument once, and it is just as wrong as is was yesterday as it is today. There is NO SINGLE STANDARD for parenting in the natural world.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
[b]

Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...

[b]

I didn't say I didn't want to work with gays, in fact, I said I would hire them.

You said "Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god." Zero over here is denying religious groups are capable of scientific research, so why would I want to provide the studies when they will not be accepted? You also label religious research as biased.

I will sort through some pages and tomorrow present scientific studies to support my views.

Boy oh boy I'm looking forward to the 'scientific evidence'...woohoo!

[Andy]

That is nonsense, and you should know it. Anyone who isn't supporting you position must be actively biased towards the opposite? Come on! I don't think the AMA, APA, or AAP are powerless organizations. They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations. If they say something is so, you can bet your money that they are simply following the evidence.

Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? dunno the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? dunno the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

Wow...your proof is Eddie Murphy?!?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Liberal: Any person, study, fact, or point of view that does not agree with the farthest right-wing view.

It's funny you think you have me pegged. Just like my friends who believe I am a screaming liberal. And do you know why? It's because I don't agree with maintaining any single stance . . . liberal, conservative or even moderate (boring). I like to poke holes in all of it when I can because I think maintaining a perspective distorts judgement no matter how brilliant or noble it might be.

What I do believe in is reality and what works best in reality . . . no matter what that turns out to be. If it includes God, so be it; if it doesn't, that's it. Why argue and resist the way reality is and works? Are homosexual parents as suited as heterosexual couples to raise children? What the hell do I care what turns out to be the best . . .let's just do what is best. But are you sure that's what YOU want? Or are you on some cause to prove homosexuality is every bit as "normal" (and abnormal) as straight?

I seldom meet anyone free from the desire to define/describe reality in ways that accommodates their tastes, insecurities, ego, causes . . . the list goes on. They always have it all neatly built into their philosophies, along the facts and evidence lined up to support it.

Originally posted by Zero
Also, Sleeth, you have already used that 'it is unnatural' argument once, and it is just as wrong as is was yesterday as it is today. There is NO SINGLE STANDARD for parenting in the natural world.

Now there is a brilliant argument: "You are wrong . . .there is no single standard . . ." Should I counter with, "I am right, and there IS a single standard"? C'mon Zero, at least say something, and stop treating me like I am a nitwit bigot because I have concerns.

It is no light matter to me that heterosexual couples are the standard, and a standard well established by biology.

We all know, for example, the primary differences in gender (particularly behavior) is the particular balance of hormones male and females have. To me, evolved biology appears set up (whether by natural selection or God or both) to work with distinct genders, and that includes how offspring are raised.

I firmly believe hormonal balance can be affected by one's psyche (in fact, it is certain for some hormones). I also believe the primary and powerful influence parents have, especially in the early childhood, are important to devoloping both a balanced psyche and the homones that accompany it.

That, and that alone, is what I see as a problem. I have no hidden fear, I just want what is best for child raising. No fear except, that is, for something I think I am witnessing in this thread.

And that fear is seeing sentimentality for an oppressed group by liberal minded people (which I myself am), and the oppressed group themselves wanting full social acceptance, unconsciously collaborating to skew, spin, ignore, and preach in order to push ahead with something they want because it seems "fair" and props up their self esteem.

Speaking for myself, I won't be bullied or shamed into accepting something I have genuine concerns about. Children are too impressionable, and do have needs hardwired into them. I want to be careful there. And you know, we aren't talking about that couple here and there who might do it, we are talking about socially sanctioning it so all can do it. Making it a norm. In no way do I feel okay about doing that yet.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It's funny you think you have me pegged. Just like my friends who believe I am a screaming liberal. And do you know why? It's because I don't agree with maintaining any single stance . . . liberal, conservative or even moderate (boring). I like to poke holes in all of it when I can because I think maintaining a perspective distorts judgement no matter how brilliant or noble it might be.

What I do believe in is reality and what works best in reality . . . no matter what that turns out to be. If it includes God, so be it; if it doesn't, that's it. Why argue and resist the way reality is and works? Are homosexual parents as suited as heterosexual couples to raise children? What the hell do I care what turns out to be the best . . .let's just do what is best. But are you sure that's what YOU want? Or are you on some cause to prove homosexuality is every bit as "normal" (and abnormal) as straight?

I seldom meet anyone free from the desire to define/describe reality in ways that accommodates their tastes, insecurities, ego, causes . . . the list goes on. They always have it all neatly built into their philosophies, along the facts and evidence lined up to support it.



Now there is a brilliant argument: "You are wrong . . .there is no single standard . . ." Should I counter with, "I am right, and there IS a single standard"? C'mon Zero, at least say something, and stop treating me like I am a nitwit bigot because I have concerns.

It is no light matter to me that heterosexual couples are the standard, and a standard well established by biology.

We all know, for example, the primary differences in gender (particularly behavior) is the particular balance of hormones male and females have. To me, evolved biology appears set up (whether by natural selection or God or both) to work with distinct genders, and that includes how offspring are raised.

I firmly believe hormonal balance can be affected by one's psyche (in fact, it is certain for some hormones). I also believe the primary and powerful influence parents have, especially in the early childhood, are important to devoloping both a balanced psyche and the homones that accompany it.

That, and that alone, is what I see as a problem. I have no hidden fear, I just want what is best for child raising. No fear except, that is, for something I think I am witnessing in this thread.

And that fear is seeing sentimentality for an oppressed group by liberal minded people (which I myself am), and the oppressed group themselves wanting full social acceptance, unconsciously collaborating to skew, spin, ignore, and preach in order to push ahead with something they want because it seems "fair" and props up their self esteem.

Speaking for myself, I won't be bullied or shamed into accepting something I have genuine concerns about. Children are too impressionable, and do have needs hardwired into them. I want to be careful there. And you know, we aren't talking about that couple here and there who might do it, we are talking about socially sanctioning it so all can do it. Making it a norm. In no way do I feel okay about doing that yet.

While your position is well thought-out, and obviously you really, really mean it, it is nevertheless a purely emotional response, with no empirical data to back it up.

[Zero]

I just thought I would add...there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding about gender roles. The fact is, people exist along a large spectrum, and there is nothing like a single way to 'be a man' or 'be a woman'. All the claims about a child needing a man and a woman raising them seem to have the assumption that a man acts a very specific way, and that a woman likewise can only be certain things. Why do people harp on that idea, when there is no way that a male/female union can be guaranteed to provide that?

Also, has anyone heard of aunts and uncles?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
While your position is well thought-out, and obviously you really, really mean it, it is nevertheless a purely emotional response, with no empirical data to back it up.

A bit of a contradiction there . . .well thought out and purely emotional aren't compatible in my opinion. Yes, it is well thought out because I care a lot about people systems. I gave you established facts (evolution, gender, hormonal balance), reason, but little empirical data because I don't think there is anything reliable yet to cite.

I remember a couple of years ago someone published that genetics might determine sexual preference. Here in Northern California where I live, every homosexual who got the chance was stating that as fact, not possibillity. Now tell, me what was behind that rush to call it truth if not emotion? No Zero, it is you who is responding emotionally. I am looking at this with objective eyes.

Originally posted by Zero
...there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding about gender roles. The fact is, people exist along a large spectrum, and there is nothing like a single way to 'be a man' or 'be a woman'. All the claims about a child needing a man and a woman raising them seem to have the assumption that a man acts a very specific way, and that a woman likewise can only be certain things. Why do people harp on that idea, when there is no way that a male/female union can be guaranteed to provide that?


I agree, to a point. There is a stereotype that has developed for each gender which is based on what society in the past deemed male and female. That sterotype reinforces certain traits and discorages others, usually because it was seen in the best interests of the society. Like emphasizing violence to a pit bull, we can emphasize machoness to men, for instance, and so get them to fight wars, or endure brutal conditions to build, explore, overcome, etc.

Today we are learning one doesn't have to exaggerate gender potentials to be a man or woman. But that doesn't mean there aren't genuine differences. They are just more subtle than we've understood in the past.

I don't think homosexuality is understood yet. Living in a town with a very large lesbian population, next to a town with a large gay population, and having a ton of friends, I get lots of exposure to same sex energy. In some it really looks like opposite gender hormones are at work. A recent study I saw also definitely found in a small percent of the population children born with opposite gender hormonal balances.

However, how does that explain macho gays and feminine lesbians? Also, talking to my gay/lesbian friends who look to be hormonally balanced normally, I hear a lot of talk about unresolved issues with a parent (particularly non-acceptance). I could easily see someone eroticizing that issue (humans can eroticize just about anything).

My point is that since we don't understand it, I don't think we can predict the effect of it on childrearing. And the reason I worry about this particular thing is because I see it as a gender issue possibly affecting the early formative input from parents to children. And the reason I give as much weight as I do to my concern is because of the very powerful way evolution has estblished the family unit.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
*snip* And the reason I give as much weight as I do to my concern is because of the very powerful way evolution has estblished the family unit.

LOL, here you go again with the nonexistant evolution/culture confusion.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I can't speak for Kyle, but I think your points are really off the mark for why I have reservations about homosexual parenting.

Before explaining them let me say that in my opinion you are not being realistic about the studies done supporting gay parenting. I believe in general the science community is very liberal about such things, and would wish to find ways to help get prejudice out of society if they could. It is noble, but is it correct?

Those studies are virtually impossible to do properly with a small sampling and in a few years. It is psychological testing to begin with, and already that makes it exremely difficult to isolate all influences at work. How are you going to test the effects of everything else that has gone on in the child's life? And how can you tell what happens over a lifetime?

To say no differences have been observed doesn't mean there aren't differences. The science community has told us bovine growth hormone has no negative consequences . . . is it just the igorance of the general population that resists that stuff? Or do they sense in those hormones some potential long-term affect on them undetected as of yet in the laboratory?

Let's not be naive about the difficulty of discovering what we need to about this.

Getting back to exactly what my concern is, and it is not the effects of homosexuality on kids, or the possibility that homosexuality is a physcological problem which kids might be subjected to . . . as some have pointed out, nobody, whatever their sexual preference, is perfect.

My concern is sanctioning, no, actually equating same gender parents with the natural situation. You seem so determined to exhibit love and equality to all humanity that you are unable to analyze this problem objectively.

I am saying that a child has a complex physiology which includes various proportions of hormones, certain leanings in brain development, and particular susceptibilities to outside influences. The early life exposure to both mixes of those factors found in healthy males and females might be the optimum way to develop them in a balanced manner. I suspect this for two reasons. The first is my observation of children raised in homes where both the male and the female are strong (and healthy) influences.

Second, logically it makes sense to me too that the many billions of years of evolution it took to establish two-gender parenting is a lot more trustable than the latest social trend in creative parenting, especially when it might be for no other reason than to pump up the self esteem of some oppressed element of the population.

So I say again, let's not be too quick to mess with mother nature.

Ok you have some valid points here. I do agree that no parent is perfect, and that our society is predicated based on a male and female two parent home. But even those dynamics are changing. Nowadays approximately 40 percent of american households(may be slightly off on this statistic- it's from memory) are single parent households. And this is not restricted to america. It's spreading all throughout the world, allbeit slower than here. Then there are the latckey kids. Both parents working full time jobs, because let's face it, in today's economy the days of Dad working a 9-5 while june cleaver cleans up the house and sends the kids off with thier lunches is dead, dead, dead. It's been replaced with Dad working his butt off while mom works one or two part time jobs and goes to school. So the term "equal parenting time" no longer applies. It's be a parent when it's convenient, or else ship them off to the babysitter, daycare, or whatever method allows them to bring home the bacon. So you're right- no parent is perfect, but that is the price people pay nowadays to have the 2nd sports car, or put little jimmy through college at a rate that is at leas 7 percent above national gpd growth. Little jimmy may have to fork over an average of 200k for his bachelors degree by the year 2015.

My point to all this is that today's society has changed from the "ideal" family situation that it was 40 years ago. the post nuclear family is a rarity, and it would seem that if 2 people can spare enough time between them to give little jimmy a better quality of life and the benefits of a 2 parent household, then weather they are man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man, if they have the commitment to be a good parent, when so many parents are NOT good parents nowadays- I'm all for it. Especially when you weigh it against the issues of hetro households these days. It may not be morally accepted, but which is it? 2 gay parents who love and care for jimmy, or 2 parents who are divorced and bounce jimmy around like a ping pong ball? It's essentially the lesser of 2 evils.

Now you say that it's "unnatural" and whatnot. But 50 years ago people would have considered single parent households completely unnatural. It's just not right that a boy or girl should be without his father or mother. 50 years ago people also said it was "unnatural" for people of different races to intermix- "it's not god's design, or creation's intentions" were common phrases during that time period- that is if it was even dared to be done.

We are evolving as a society. We are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered. It's the progress of change, and it's innately human t do so. What's funny is that 50 years from now I know there will be something new and groundbreaking socially from the next generation and I'll be sitting where you are saying that it's just "not natural" or at least thinking it. However the next generation will be that much more accepting of homosexuals because it is the natural progression of society to first reject,, then carefully guard against, and finally aceept new ideals that seem radical. To kiss someone in public now is "no big deal" assuming it's done tastefully. Now go back 100 years and do that- see if everyone in view doesn't just turn and stare.

Progress is inevitable my friend, and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Andy
Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? dunno the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

I saw that one- eddie murphy "raw" and it was totally hilarious[;)]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, here you go again with the nonexistant evolution/culture confusion.

There's that brilliant rebuttal is again. From now on I will just answer you with " IS TOO!!!!!!!"

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
There's that brilliant rebuttal is again. From now on I will just answer you with " IS TOO!!!!!!!"

And that would be different how, exactly?

[Andy]

I saw that one- eddie murphy "raw" and it was totally hilarious

The video i was refering too was the Delerious video, and to zero's comment i never said that Eddie Murphy was evidence i only used him and the audiences reaction to his jokes as an example.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
The video i was refering too was the Delerious video, and to zero's comment i never said that Eddie Murphy was evidence i only used him and the audiences reaction to his jokes as an example. LOL, I was just giving you crap, dude![6)]

[Andy]

Very few things on this forum cant be taken seriously, especially with some of the members we have here.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Andy
The video i was refering too was the Delerious video, and to zero's comment i never said that Eddie Murphy was evidence i only used him and the audiences reaction to his jokes as an example.

Didn't see that one- and I was only referring to it in passing

[dschou]

quote:

"We are evolving as a society. We are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered...Progress is inevitable my friend, and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it."

not so fast. homosexuality has been accepted before. a more accurate term in place of progress is regress. but i digress...

you shouldn't equate every change with progress (and you do this with statements like "we are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered").

the reason why this cannot be done is that most changes are not progressive. in short, there is nothing new under the sun - its all been done before, ad nauseum.

[FZ+]

you shouldn't equate every change with progress (and you do this with statements like "we are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered").
But every change is progress, as progress is only relevant with a defined direction. The key is to define it as more in tune with the will of the majority, than to define it in terms of an absolute code. Society must change, but it should change in the way people want, that works with the word, instead of trying to make it stay the same.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by dschou
quote:

"We are evolving as a society. We are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered...Progress is inevitable my friend, and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it."

not so fast. homosexuality has been accepted before. a more accurate term in place of progress is regress. but i digress...

you shouldn't equate every change with progress (and you do this with statements like "we are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered").

the reason why this cannot be done is that most changes are not progressive. in short, there is nothing new under the sun - its all been done before, ad nauseum.


Homosexuality was accepted before religion intervened. Only then was it seen as wrong, I believe. That was part of the whole social upheaval, but that's for another post and too lengthy to go into.

I agree that every change doesn't necessarily bring social advancement. But I define social advancement as an accepted social value that does not bring personal harm, squash freedoms such as speech, and force people to think and believe a certain way. I believe that homosexuality meets these criteria.