Homosexual Marriage: Is Society Ready for Legitimacy?

[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 don't think they should be able to adopt children because that would just screw with the kids heads at such a young age that it wouldn't be rite. If you don't want me to taslk about homosexuals adopting kids here then i will start a fresh theread for it, hope you don't 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 accommodate 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 their 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 their 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 their 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 don't think they should be able to adopt children because that would just screw with the kids heads at such a young age that it wouldn't be rite. If you don't want me to taslk about homosexuals adopting kids here then i will start a fresh theread for it, hope you don't 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 explanation 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

 

[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 their 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 their 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 their innate preference.

Regardless of weather you think it's wrong, People who are gay generally do not, and you can no more change their 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 acknowledgment 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]

DUH

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.