3 of 5
3
Same sex marriage
Posted: 28 March 2013 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I don’t have time to look for it now, but I remember reading what seemed like reliable data (as far as I recall) showing that boys adopted into families that had gay members were more likely to be gay than boys adopted into straight families. I think it was TimB who posted it. I didn’t like it when I first saw it but there it was.

And I don’t know if I am being a hypocrite, as I stated over and over that what concerns me is my children. There are a lot of things other people do I don’t like, but as long as it doesn’t affect me or my kids (or doesn’t seem to have the potential to affect me or my kids) I couldn’t care less. Don’t forget, I am not a Humanist, or whatever it is that drives you, people, to turn into moral realists.

And if saying that I don’t wish for my kids to become gay makes me a homophobe, then be it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 08:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 28 March 2013 07:19 AM

I don’t have time to look for it now, but I remember reading what seemed like reliable data (as far as I recall) showing that boys adopted into families that had gay members were more likely to be gay than boys adopted into straight families. I think it was TimB who posted it. I didn’t like it when I first saw it but there it was.

And I don’t know if I am being a hypocrite, as I stated over and over that what concerns me is my children. There are a lot of things other people do I don’t like, but as long as it doesn’t affect me or my kids (or doesn’t seem to have the potential to affect me or my kids) I couldn’t care less. Don’t forget, I am not a Humanist, or whatever it is that drives you, people, to turn into moral realists.

And if saying that I don’t wish for my kids to become gay makes me a homophobe, then be it.

Actually it makes you an idiot, but that’s not your biggest problem.  Your children are as likely to mirror your intellect as your sexuality.  And that’s the real danger to them that you apparently overlook.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Careful here, Lois. The only reason I will not respond in a tone similar to yours is because I think I should take your age into consideration before I lose my cool. I won’t be this forgiving again, though.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 01:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
Lois - 28 March 2013 08:40 AM

Actually it makes you an idiot, but that’s not your biggest problem.

Lois, we have rules against using personal epithets like these. Please confine yourself to the arguments. Thanks.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Over the years I’ve known quite a few heterosexual couples (never known any single sexual couples) and it seems that between five and ten percent of their offspring have grown up to be gay.  I’ve looked for factors that may have caused their orientation but have never been able to identify any.  So George, you may wish to have your children be heterosexual and the probabilities are in that direction, but there is a small chance that one or more may not be, and I don’t know of any way you can bias it in the direction you desire.

By the way, I have a very good memory, so I couldn’t help but smile at Lois’ nasty comment to George, because long, long ago George was also warned about something similar.  LOL  It takes a while, but Doug does manage to condition most of us to become more courteous.  smile

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 05:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

If my kids are gay, they are gay. Not a big deal. But that’s not what we were talking about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what your last sentence in post #31 meant.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4809
Joined  2007-10-05
George - 28 March 2013 05:54 PM

If my kids are gay, they are gay. Not a big deal. But that’s not what we were talking about.

You’re the one who steered the conversation this direction.

George - 27 March 2013 04:12 AM

I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you’ll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.

I’d still like to see the peer-reviewed research confirming this because everything I found when researching gay marriage for my ethical analysis class contradicts what you are saying. The only research I am aware of that supports your opinion was published last year by Mark Regnerus of The University of Texas at Austin. His methodology was seriously flawed and his findings have met vehement criticism in sociological academia.

See this article at Inside Higher Ed.

[ Edited: 28 March 2013 06:04 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2013 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
George - 28 March 2013 07:19 AM

I don’t have time to look for it now, but I remember reading what seemed like reliable data (as far as I recall) showing that boys adopted into families that had gay members were more likely to be gay than boys adopted into straight families. I think it was TimB who posted it. I didn’t like it when I first saw it but there it was.

What about girls born into lesbian families? Don’t they matter? Aren’t you concerned about the percentages of these children that turn out to be lesbians?
...but really, if a higher percentage of these children become LGBT, so what. You should be more concerned that they grow up to become happy, functional members of the society they live in. Period.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2013 05:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

For the last time, I am not worried about anybody being gay, including my own kids; although I would be a little disappointed. (I guess just like I was a little disappointed that none of my kids got my wife’s light green eyes.)

But again, we were not discussing any of this stuff, or at least I wasn’t trying to. Maybe when I have more time I’ll go looking for the studies we discussed previously with TimB (?), and others I have come across showing that, for exame, boys who are raped by gays tend to become gay, which, again, seems difficult to explain unless we take the possibility of infection into consideration. But maybe I’ll just let it be, because I am seeing that I would have to spend most of my time defending myself for something I am not saying. It’s the same thing that happens when we talk about race here. It really gets tiring after a while.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2013 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26

George, you are implying in your comment that it would be a negative thing if a child were to be gay rather than straight. That is the only conclusion one can draw when you make the argument that an increased propensity to become gay among children of gay parents ( if such an increase tendency does exist and that had not been established here)is a reason against allowing gay marriages.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2013 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3155
Joined  2011-08-15

George, I found the post on homosexuality and found this from Tim:

FinallyDecided - 06 November 2011 06:48 AM
As a humanist, how do you view homosexuality? Especially when one tries to argue that the natural desire is for humans to procreate and ensure their genes are passed on? Even when any religious influence is removed from the equation, how is the homosexual to feel “normal,” biologically? For example, in reading an anatomy and physiology book, the author takes a stance that the reproductive organs exist for the sole purpose of, well, reproducing. How is the homosexual to reconcile this?

As a gay man, I try my best to feel one with mainstream society; however, even in secular society, I still feel the norm is for traditional family. Do humanist’s generally view the same sex couple and family just as valid? I have equated and justified same sex activity, that which does not have any potential to procreate, as similiar to heterosexual activity that also has no potential of procreating (i.e. oral sex, sex using a method of birth control) to be of a similar concept. After all, most of society does not devalue the heterosexual couple that participates in sexual activity that has no chance of procreating (i.e. when they habitually use a method of birth control or engage in a sex act that does not procreate). Should same sex sexual activity be viewed any differently, given that neither (in the aforementioned situation) has the intention of procreating? Do you all agree with my reasoning? Any further insight or views would be appreciated.

The world has done too well, IMO, in regards to procreating.  From my perspective, more same sex couples are a good thing.  They can adopt if they want kids.


His is the last sentence.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2013 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Jack,

I was referring to the links in that conversation, not what Tim had said. I don’t really care much about what people think is right or wrong.


macgyver,

I am not implying anything. I think I was quite explicit when I said I wouldn’t want MY kids to be gay had I have the choice. I wouldn’t want my kids to get circumcised either, but I couldn’t care less if every other kid is circumcised. Ask me, however, if I wished circumcision was illegal, and my answer would be ‘yes.’ Who knows, maye my kids will end up marrying a Jew one day who may insist on butchering my future grandson.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2013 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3155
Joined  2011-08-15

Jack,

I was referring to the links in that conversation, not what Tim had said. I don’t really care much about what people think is right or wrong.

You’ll find the posts under the title Homosexuality introd by Finally Decided, and there are 84 I believe including Tim’s remarks. it’s a pretty lively discussion too.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2013 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
George - 27 March 2013 04:12 AM

I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you’ll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.

This is your quote George. If you are not implying that gay is somehow an inferior outcome than why do we have to wait until we understand why gay parents lead to more gay children ( your contention not mine) before we allow gays to marry and have children? If gay and heterosexual children are to be viewed equally then the cause may be of academic interest but should not have any bearing on whether we give same sex couples the right to adopt kids.

As an aside, I don’t know this with any degree of certainty, but I do believe that same sex parents are already allowed to adopt children.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3