Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hawker238 on February 14, 2004, 06:24:13 PM
-
I didn't want to put this in the other thread because it was already full of arguments and debates, so its going here.
Do you think that a child age 10-18 going through middle and high school with two dads will turn out ok? I have no problem with gay marriage and such, but I feel that an adolescent's life is tough enough as it is. If I had homosexual parents, high school would turn into a daily hell. Gay parents can love, nuture, and raise a child well, but can that kid survive society in his adolescense?
-
People used to make the exact same argument against mixed race marriages.
-
when half the kids in high school are metrosexuals already i dont think it will matter. He will actually have the live journel with the most hits. Girls will flock to his emotional emo poetry crap, and will get laid all the time.
-
, there's a chnace that he might turn out gay:lol
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
when half the kids in high school are metrosexuals already i dont think it will matter. He will actually have the live journel with the most hits. Girls will flock to his emotional emo poetry crap, and will get laid all the time.
Haha, that's more true than anyone can possibly imagine. However, middle school could still be torture.
MT: I have absolutely no problem with people being gay and being parents, and I'm not making an argument here. All I'm wondering is if you guys think you could have survived high school with two dads.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
when half the kids in high school are metrosexuals
I've heard this trem a bunch but still don't quite get it. What, exactly, is a metrosexual?
-
Someone who dresses like a gay guy and is sensitive like a gay guy, but is straight. You'd have to be in high school to see. I see boys walking around wearing skin tight pants and tacky business suits every damn day....
I know I used gay as a very simplistic generalization, but get over it.
-
**** i cant even begin to dicuss this topic.
*** marrige is biblically wrong.
biblically marrige is a union between a man and a woman.
for you aitheists . it;s NOT a "marrige"
if you want it to be accepted by the government then it's a "gonvernment ordained union" or some ****.
either way it is NOT ****ing recognized by the church or God. END of dicussion. there is NO possible religous debate over the subject. God does NOT endorse ****** unions. never has never will.
if the govenrment wants to give benefits to **** then guess what... we elected them.
God says obey the leaders he has put above us...
well i will i guess. i have no choise but to vote otherwise.
took out deroggatory slang towards homosexuals to not offend others
sry skuzzy.
-
Originally posted by JB73
God does NOT endorse studmuffingot unions. never has never will.
How do you know?
Maybe some of the bible doesn't reflect God's will? Maybe it was written by ultra-orthodox patriarchs?
I'm an athiest by the way. Don't bother arguing about god with me, I can't really discuss it without voiding the argument.
Regardless, this thread is going off topic....
-
Originally posted by JB73
God does NOT endorse studmuffingot unions. never has never will.
Direct quote from Psalms 1:23.... (joke, don't look it up....)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Direct quote from Psalms 1:23.... (joke, don't look it up....)
Leviticus
[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
[23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
[24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you
-
you know what ,,, i broke my own rule.
pissed off and drunk i broke my own rule.
nevar enter a political/religous debate on a bulletin board. the opposition will only overwhelm you with assinine statements from oscure locals, or irrational thinking.
sorry for straying from my stance.
thread ignored
but i stand by my comments let it be known even if i dont respond in the topic any more
-
Irrational thinking?
Believing in something written by man proclaiming it to be the word of God sounds irrational to me.
-
Originally posted by JB73
**** i cant even begin to dicuss this topic.
*** marrige is biblically wrong.
biblically marrige is a union between a man and a woman.
for you aitheists . it;s NOT a "marrige"
if you want it to be accepted by the government then it's a "gonvernment ordained union" or some ****.
either way it is NOT ****ing recognized by the church or God. END of dicussion. there is NO possible religous debate over the subject. God does NOT endorse ****** unions. never has never will.
.
I guess it's a good thing that this is America and not some kind of christian taliban-run theocracy
-
Originally posted by thrila
Irrational thinking?
Believing in something written by man proclaiming it to be the word of God sounds irrational to me.
Of course:
Ra·tion·al
adj.
Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Of sound mind; sane.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
Faith ( P )
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Faith and logic are mutually exclusive.
-
I think people should get over the " a family consists of a father and mother " bull****...I know plenty of families (including my own), where a father should've been more than the guy who impregnated your mother.
People should be more concerned about the makeup of a parent...whether they're simply good people, rather than that ridiculous notion whether they're ok with God.
Like MT said: People used to make the exact same argument against mixed race marriages
then the problem is society, not those who are deemed different inside it.
Being teased at school doesn't take much effort...glasses, overweight, not being athletic etc etc..so having a minority as parents hardly qualifies you for special staus does it..
perhaps the real problem lies in the "traditional god fearing" families who teach their children intolerance
Tronsky
-
I remember being mercilessly teased at school due to my bronze Adonis physique, my superior intellect, and my telekinetic powers. If it weren’t for my superior emotional strength, my politically connected family, (dad had several judges in his pocket, and a couple of congressmen) my girlfriends, and my Ferrari, I don’t think I would have made it.
-
Fact of the matter is, society thinks it's wrong, therefore it will be wrong. Not even laws will change it. Some think it's ok, most think it's not. Since the majority of our society sees gay marriage is wrong, morally or religiously, it will remain that way because our society will not and can not accept it.
There's no point in debating...no matter what your opinion is. Our society says it's wrong, so it's wrong. Unfortunatly, it'll always be that way.
Same thing with race, too.
-
Tronsky, if you're inferring I'm a "traditional god fearing" person, that's pretty much a swing and a miss.
-
this thread is now lol
-
I believe the best a child can have is a loving mother and father.
To have two loving fathers or mothers is better than not having any love at all but I would add that I think homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior. Just my opinion.
-
perhaps the real problem lies in the "traditional god fearing" families who teach their children intolerance
Add my name to that list of "traditional God-fearing families". I'd also like to add I won't be handing rubbers to my daughters for their dates, sexually repressed as I am.
Some of you guys talk a pretty good show while you don't have kids. Things change when you grow up.
-
My opinions on homosexuality will change after I breed? Why is that?
-
There's no point in debating...no matter what your opinion is. Our society says it's wrong, so it's wrong. Unfortunatly, it'll always be that way.
That's more of a problem than you think. There is no absolute right or wrong as far as secular society is concerned, so everything is open to vote, over and over. The farther we sink, the more behaviors become acceptable. It won't be long folks will be arguing "genetic disposition" for every evil they commit. Then what can we do? Can't find a guy guilty for following nature, now can we?
Moral Relativism, here we come.
-
Yep, the end of the world is upon us. :rolleyes: <---damn haven't used that retarded thing in a while.
-
Pretty much, yeah. Wait'll you have kids, SOB. I hope you remember all of this when you do. Of course by then the age of consensual sex ought to be 10-12 years old, Michael Jackson will be hailed as a visionary, and we'll be talking about whether or not pedophiles can really sense the sexual orientation of infants.
-
So kieran how do you think a country should be run? A taliban-esque regime that has a very clear and strict ethos?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Pretty much, yeah. Wait'll you have kids, SOB. I hope you remember all of this when you do. Of course by then the age of consensual sex ought to be 10-12 years old, Michael Jackson will be hailed as a visionary, and we'll be talking about whether or not pedophiles can really sense the sexual orientation of infants.
Ok Kieren, I'm still trying to understand where you're coming from here. As much as you can "know" a person on an internet BB, you seem like a good guy. I'd be glad to have you as a neighbor. When the time comes, I intend to raise my kids in much the same way that I bet you raise yours.
That being said, I still can't see why you're so opposed to a marriage between two consenting adults, whatever their sex may be. I understand that you probably interpret the Bible in a fairly literal fashion (excuse me for jumping to a conclusion here); but some of us do not. Some people don't even recognize the Bible as anything more than a significant historical document. While allowing gay marriage may be against the Bible, you seem to believe that it will lead to the moral downfall of society. There are universal morals IMO, but there are ways to teach them that don't involve the Bible. People that don't necessarily believe the literal interpretation of the Bible aren't automatically murders because they do not believe in the Ten Commandments.
-
Originally posted by thrila
So kieran how do you think a country should be run? A taliban-esque regime that has a very clear and strict ethos?
I guess you got me there, big guy. Anyone religious is taliban, right? Does it really matter what justification I'd give to you?
-
Tarmac, I know not everyone accepts the Bible as the truth, that's obvious. I live in the world, and I have to accept my morals cannot be forced upon others. Sadly, the reverse cannot be said.
It used to be I could count on common sense and a system of law to at least slow the inevitable. Sadly, that's not the case anymore. Massachusetts is about to send us all down the path, willing or not. I don't view it as a victory as some might. It makes me sad on two levels, first because it goes against my God, second because it goes against my system of government. Two branches of the government have just been rendered moot, and everyone thinks it's just great. Even if you don't care about the religious aspect of what is happening, the secular aspect should be scary enough.
-
bah, different arguments.
On the one hand, there's gay marriage. Anyone who thinks gays are going to "convert" should probably spend more time around them. As far as what they do with their lives, well, to be quite frank, in civil terms, gay couples have more to lose than to gain. They gain what? civil bennies? We're talking about a seriously affluent DINK demographic here. The deconomic impact is practically nil.
Of course, with marriage comes divorce. You can imagine hoiw nasty that's gonna be. Man we'll need a spinoff of divorce court just for all the extra issues.
On the other hand, there's the issue of having kids. YEah, from a pragmatic view, too many kids are growing up without any loving parents, let alone two. And, sure, I'm no expert, but the kids who lived with a parent and homosexual lover seemed well adjusted. but yeah, I'm sure the peer forces of adolescence aren't kind on them, just as they suck for anyone else who doesn't conform to the working-class-stiff norm.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Pretty much, yeah. Wait'll you have kids, SOB. I hope you remember all of this when you do. Of course by then the age of consensual sex ought to be 10-12 years old, Michael Jackson will be hailed as a visionary, and we'll be talking about whether or not pedophiles can really sense the sexual orientation of infants.
LOL, I can't help but like you Kieran, that was great. And I take it all back anyhow...I saw that on Monday, Fox will be airing "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee" and "The Littlest Groom" back to back, which made me realize that society is now doomed. I think I'm gonna go beat up a Christian now to let off some steam...probably everyone who's around will join in 'cause everyone loves a good Christian-bashing!
-
man SOB i liked you for the DR Pepper image in your avatar alone until that post lol
OH cht i poped into this thread again.. sry all... out again i swear
-
This should make up for any shortcomings on my part: http://www.dublindrpepper.com/
-
Happy, gay, joyous, whatever. I think families need to not be so serious. It brings down the kids man.
-
Originally posted by texace
Fact of the matter is, society thinks it's wrong, therefore it will be wrong. Not even laws will change it. Some think it's ok, most think it's not. Since the majority of our society sees gay marriage is wrong, morally or religiously, it will remain that way because our society will not and can not accept it.
There's no point in debating...no matter what your opinion is. Our society says it's wrong, so it's wrong. Unfortunatly, it'll always be that way.
Same thing with race, too.
WOOOW DUDE I gotta call you on this one.
You last statement SMACKS of racism(Same thing with race, too).
SO what are you trying to say?
A balck man should not be able to marry a white girl?
Or the other way around.
Good Lord people GROW UP.
There is but one RACE the Human Race It really Is that simple.
Just think of It that way.
Try It It will set you free.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Tronsky, if you're inferring I'm a "traditional god fearing" person, that's pretty much a swing and a miss.
Originally posted by hawker238
I'm an athiest by the way. Don't bother arguing about god with me, I can't really discuss it without voiding the argument.
Why would I infer that then?
Tronsky
-
Gosh, if marriage is defined as something that is church driven, does that mean that my atheist, non-religious wedding is invalid as well?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Gosh, if marriage is defined as something that is church driven, does that mean that my atheist, non-religious wedding is invalid as well?
As far as God sees It Yes.
But that dont matter to you anyway right.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Gosh, if marriage is defined as something that is church driven, does that mean that my atheist, non-religious wedding is invalid as well?
Yup, and people like you are why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. Ungodly Heathen.
-
Originally posted by JB73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leviticus
[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
[23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
[24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leviticus? :rofl
You need a better reference (and yes, there is one). Leviticus is crap.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
Oh... and teenagers are embarrassed about their parents even if they're hetero.
-
MrBlack...
It would really help that you read my post and interpret it for what it is instead of focusing on one word and running with it.
My post was refering to sociey's view of gay marriage. My "same thing with race" remark is there because a majority of our society still see minorities as inferior. See how the connection is made?
I'd advise you to engage your brain before putting your mouth into gear. I mean, you were a sniper...you should know that, right?
-
Originally posted by JB73
**** i cant even begin to dicuss this topic.
*** marrige is biblically wrong.
biblically marrige is a union between a man and a woman.
for you aitheists . it;s NOT a "marrige"
if you want it to be accepted by the government then it's a "gonvernment ordained union" or some ****.
either way it is NOT ****ing recognized by the church or God. END of dicussion. there is NO possible religous debate over the subject. God does NOT endorse ****** unions. never has never will.
Not to be argumentative, but when you say "God" and "church", exactly which god and church are you talking about?
We have a number of good citizens who don't worship your god or go to your church.
Furthermore, the majority of the founding fathers of this country certainly weren't christian -- they were deists.
It seems to me that decisions about how society works should be based on rational rule based systems. Since a belief in god is irrational (belief in a supernatural being), why don't we just agree to discuss this based on whether it's good for society without raising irrational and unprovable issues.
curly
-
SOB,
Yeah, I need to try to look on the brighter side of it all. Of course, I'd need to know what exactly that is. ;)
-
Originally posted by hawker238
How do you know?
Maybe some of the bible doesn't reflect God's will? Maybe it was written by ultra-orthodox patriarchs?
I'm an athiest by the way. Don't bother arguing about god with me, I can't really discuss it without voiding the argument.
Regardless, this thread is going off topic....
If you are an Athiest...why are you discussing The Holy Bonds of Matrimony?
-
You don’t choose to be gay.
If your kid was gay Kieran, then how do you approach that?
-
I'm an atheist, but I'm married. Marriage is about love and commitment, not religion.
-
Damnit, it wasn't about marriage. We all know its only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes the law.
Think of the children!
-
If it causes someone's head to explode citing biblical references, hellfire and eternal damnation, then that entertainment alone makes it all worth while.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Gosh, if marriage is defined as something that is church driven, does that mean that my atheist, non-religious wedding is invalid as well?
If you married another man it is......
-
MRBLACK: As far as God sees It Yes.
But that dont matter to you anyway right.
But what if I am agnostic and do believe in God, just not in religion, and certainly not the same hoopty vengeful God you believe in?
JB, the bible is writen by men. There is not a bit of holy or supernatural wizardry around it; the only paranormal lore that influenced it was purely in the drugged-up mind of some of its writers.
I have nothing against the bible and I believe it is a nice work of fiction with some good references for better living - but its not a rulebook on how all of humanity HAS to live. In fact, believing it is a rulebook that has to be enforced is downright dangerous and has caused QUITE a bit of suffering through history.
So if you wanna bring an argument against gay parenting, or any topic whatsoever, for your sake dont just bust in and say "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO" cause that is just as retarded and dangerous as saying "BECAUSE THE CORAN SAYS SO".
Irrational thinking?
Believing in something written by man proclaiming it to be the word of God sounds irrational to me.
Not to be argumentative, but when you say "God" and "church", exactly which god and church are you talking about?
We have a number of good citizens who don't worship your god or go to your church.
Furthermore, the majority of the founding fathers of this country certainly weren't christian -- they were deists.
It seems to me that decisions about how society works should be based on rational rule based systems. Since a belief in god is irrational (belief in a supernatural being), why don't we just agree to discuss this based on whether it's good for society without raising irrational and unprovable issues.
curly
All quoted for emphasis.
-
Creamo-
As far as I know, people don't choose to be axe murderers either. Yet we still have people arguing against the death penalty because of home environments and the impact they have on
the perps. So it appears we believe environment can contribute to something as extreme as murder, but can't possibly be involved in
sexual orientation. Interesting viewpoint.
-
What?! People that are gay are usually happy, normal, and not murdering Psychopaths with axes.
To compare them that way is insane, justified by only by your blind faith. Lol, you dip****.
-
According to my Church of the Firm Boobie, all marraiges to ugly chicks (even those that become fat after marraige) are invalid in the eyes of God.
Homosexual marragies between non-believing men outside of the church are encouraged but not recognized, as that leaves more firm boobies for those within my parish.
We are currently working on a constitutional admendment to make our beliefs the law of the land, but at present there are still some obstacles to overcome.
It doesn't really matter because in the long run all non believers are cursed to an eternity of saggy breasts in the afterlife anyway.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
What?! People that are gay are usually happy, normal, and not murdering Psychopaths with axes.
To compare them that way is insane, justified by only by your blind faith. Lol, you dip****.
Won't matter what I compare them to, you were prepared to rip me on it regardless. I just made it easy to do what you planned to do anyway.
You're welcome.
Notice you didn't comment on the environment aspect of the post, but then... didn't really expect you to.
-
Oh please. I don't **** and load on your posts, this took me by surprise.
(Coock is a bad word here I guess)
-
Well, examine what I was trying to say instead of focusing on a comparison I really wasn't trying to make.
When the argument suits a certain camp, everything a person does seems to be attributed to their environment growing up. When it does not suit this camp's agenda, environment has nothing to do with the issue. I'm suggesting it cannot be both ways. No, I'm saying it straight out, it cannot be both ways. Either environment matters, or it doesn't. I think it does.
Stiehl claims, and Thrawn agrees, it's not as if gay parents will turn their kids gay. That's a pretty absolute statement that suggests gay parents couldn't if they wanted to. Perhaps sexual orientation can be influenced, perhaps it can't, but behaviors certainly CAN be influenced.
Seems to me we need to decide which way it is. If environment matters, we cannot allow gay couples to raise families. If environment doesn't matter, we need to start pulling switches on some death row inmates pronto, because there isn't anything we can do to save them. Notice the common thread here isn't homosexuality/murderer, it's the issue of the impact of home environment on behavior.
-
I solved my own problem. It was partially thanks to someone who called me a racist early on. But I've got it figured out now.
Thanks for the arguing.
-
I know not everyone accepts the Bible as the truth, that's obvious. I live in the world, and I have to accept my morals cannot be forced upon others. Sadly, the reverse cannot be said.
Kieran<~~very well said!!
most of my freinds grew up athiest,,and use to make fun of me for my beliefs once and a while,,because some teacher forced there beliefs on them,,one of them in perticular,,use to really laugh at me for my beliefs,,and about 3 years ago i hooked back up with him,,he now has kids and a family,,and he told me he was going to church,,i looked at him in shock,,and said really?,,he said ya,,alot of things have happend over the years,,and changed his mind on things
he use to be a hell raizer,,allways in trouble,,allways in jail,,because he didnt care about his life,,now he has kids,a family and a job,,has turned his life around for the better,,im proud that he did it on his own,,i never once preached to anyone who didnt wanna hear,,its useless!! the bible says dont preach apon death ears!! pretty much saying,,save your breath for those who will lisin
i dont beleve in gay marriges,,i think it will make alot of messed up kids,,i seen so many kids get made fun of because of there last name or picked on because of the clothes they wear,,you dont think they will get made fun of for having 2 dads that kiss? if you beleve that,,you didnt go to public school,,lol
-
Originally posted by Kieran
If environment matters, we cannot allow gay couples to raise families.
Why not? Because they might choose to raise their kids as gay and lead to the downfall of humanity and the reversing of the polarity of the earth's magnetic field or whatever other calamity they'll bring?
What if, like many reasonable parents would want to, they simply give the kid the emotional/mental tools to decide for him/herself if he or she is gay or straight? Those people shouldn't have a chance to have a family, because a few in their demographic group might raise their kids as gay?
By that logic, straight people shouldn't have families either since they might raise their sons to beat their wives.
-
Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
-
Kieran, that's a HUGE can of worms that no one in this thread can answer. It's not as simple as "does environment affect behaviors?" Of course it does. What you're specifically asking is "Will two gay parents be more likely to have a child that is gay?" The comparison to an axe murder is completely invalid, even in the sense of the environment comparison...assuming the environment that helped breed the anti-social behaviors was an abusive one.
Of course, I don't really have a problem with anyone being gay - nor do I have a problem with a gay couple raising a kid...even if they might influence the kid's sexuality. Though I don't think that'd be possible unless the kid had leanings toward homosexuality in the first place. All behaviors can generally be linked to genetics and environment, and I don't doubt this is any different. But the natural urge to procreate is pretty strong and unless you've already got the instinct build in that you dig the same sex, I don't think anything short of a terribly abusive environment is going to deviate you from what's natural for you. Frankly, I think the only reason a gay couple might be more likely to have an openly gay child is the fact that the child won't have a fear of being shunned by his loved ones. Of course, that's just my opinion - as I said, I don't think anybody here knows for sure.
And on the subject of axe murders, I don't know what "camp" i'm in, but if you kill someone without a damned good reason (ie: self defense or the like), you've given up your right to live with the rest of us. I really don't care if you had a bad childhood, are crazy, retarded, or whatever, you simply aren't fit to mingle amongst the rest of us.
-
Wow, I have never seen so many irrational and inane arguments in a single thread over such a stupid issue.
So what if the kid turns out gay? More of the opposite sex for all the heteros!
And with all the emotional candy bellybutton metros around, the difference between gay and straight isn't very distinct. They're both limp wristed *****es.
-SW
-
Shut up, studmuffin!
-
Yes Sir!
-SW
-
Wow, I have never seen so many irrational and inane arguments in a single thread over such a stupid issue.
Don't worry, I got a million of 'em!
Ok, since we can't get past the axe murder analogy, let's try single-parent families. Dan Quayle was laughed at for suggesting Murphy Brown was encouraging a pretty poor role model in single parenthood. "Ah, he's stupid, it doesn't matter!" Er... wrong. It matters, a lot. Looking at a segment of the population with a high incidence of single parents (blacks) we find the dearth of strong father role models has many negative effects on the culture, amongst them the ability to deal effectively with the opposite sex. This leads to a culture where it is commonplace for a man to abandon his family without a second thought. Oh, I'll get called a racist for saying that I'm sure, but it's true nonetheless.
It's like this... if you admit you aren't sure what impact something is going to have, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to jump right in and find out in some grand social experiment. I for one am tired of "enlightened" buttheads being totally wrong, and having the confirmation come far too late to do anything about it to reverse the effect. Look at our public schools- do you need to look farther than that to see the impact the so-called "enlightened" have had? Wanna look at all the bloated social programs that accomplish nothing but make segments of our society more dependent than ever and drain economic resources?
-
Yep, I agree that a two parent household with a mother and a father has been proven pretty well to be (in general) a better environment than a single parent household. It may even prove to be better than a two parent father/father mother/mother household. So what? So, single people can't raise a child either because it might lead to a problem child? Same with a gay couple? Are we breeding a master race here, where only the couples who have the highest chance of successfully raising a superkid get to breed?
It's not a social experiment, it's minding your own business and letting people live their lives. We're not waiting with bated breath wondering how little Timmy with turn out with Bruce and Tyrell, we simply don't give a **** because it's none of our business if they want to raise a child. And because that child MIGHT be a problem does not make it our business. Hell, YOUR kid MIGHT turn out to be a problem, but how you raise her ain't any of my business so I'll keep my nose out of it.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
It's like this... if you admit you aren't sure what impact something is going to have, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to jump right in and find out in some grand social experiment. I for one am tired of "enlightened" buttheads being totally wrong, and having the confirmation come far too late to do anything about it to reverse the effect. Look at our public schools- do you need to look farther than that to see the impact the so-called "enlightened" have had? Wanna look at all the bloated social programs that accomplish nothing but make segments of our society more dependent than ever and drain economic resources?
Bingo. If you don't know what impact something is going to have (which you can never forsee 100%), it doesn't make a great deal of sense to jump right in and find out in some grand social experiment - especially not by coercing your views on someone else that may not agree. Just because 51% of the population thinks something is "good" or "right" doesn't make it so. Same with 90% of the population, or any other majority.
The problem is, the existing laws regarding marriage, along with corresponding tax breaks, spouse benefits, tax deductions for children, etc, were a grand social experiment as well. You hold up government interference in schools as a prime example of social legislation screwing things up. The government's social legislation, in many other areas, has screwed things as well. By coercing people into a particular view, you deny them the opportunity to decide for themselves under the guise that the majority knows best. They don't. As the average voter a question about nearly anything and you'll see that.
My entire problem with opposition to gay marriage is that it's none of the government's business. The only reason that the government is now making laws permitting gay marriage is because it made the mistake of making laws prohibiting it. If it had just stayed the heck out in the first place, this would be a non-issue.
Nobody is asking you to declare your heterosexual marriage null and go marry a man, but you are asking them to declare their life committments null and go marry someone of the opposite sex if they want things like tax breaks, spousal benefits, and the like. The government (or the population, acting through it) does not know better than a lesbian/gay couple whether they should be able to marry, any more than the government knows whether you and your wife should be married. That decision is up to the people involved, and them alone.
-
You guys shouldn't worry about lil' ol' me, because I've already lost this argument. It merely becomes official in May. I don't have to like it, and I really don't, but that isn't going to change anything.
Tarmac, you're right, the government shouldn't be involved, but they are, and will be. I've never argued against that point. I've argued about the concept of gay marriage and where we're headed as a society. I've been out on this limb before, but dangit, I like the view I guess.
I'm not a very tolerant person in many ways. I guess that goes without saying.
-
So oppose the government's involvement to the issue as a whole, not just the homosexual aspect of it.
There, you don't have to be worried about anyone calling you intolerant or bigoted or any of those other terms that have lost all meaning due to lefty/righty social hijacking. :)
-
I was raised by my dad only, and I'm not a gun toting hip gangsta thats gonna break your daughter in, steal your stereo, and car jack you.
My sister was also raised by me and my dad with no mother figure that gets good grades at a tough private (catholic) institution and will be heading off to a nice college because of it.
Pretty much proving that raising a child depends on the parent's ability to effectively raise a child and not on their sex or how many of them there are.
-SW
-
Hey, I'm bigoted, intolerant, racist, etc. Mea Culpa. I don't lose sleep over it.
SW, you came out okay, I came out okay, but we both know our upbringing wasn't in any way "normal". You've told me about your upbringing, you know mine- it wasn't the Cleaver's.
Anyway, statistics are way against you on the issue.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Anyway, statistics are way against you on the issue.
Does that mean that people shouldn't have the right to try, though?
-
The statistics show that parents incapable of parenting, there are plenty of mother/father relationships that turn out horrible kids/murderers, result in extremely ****ty kids.
They don't go against my statement that its the quality of the parent(s) and their ability to do a good job as a parent in effectively raising a child.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Gosh, if marriage is defined as something that is church driven, does that mean that my atheist, non-religious wedding is invalid as well?
Chairboy, for a small shipping & handling charge, I can see to it that your wedding is retroactively sanctioned and blessed by the proper Authority.
-
No Tarmac, it doesn't.
And yes SW, there are plenty of hetero families that turn out crappy kids. But statistics do speak of which group is more likely to produce "normal" kids. That's what I'm saying.
Let's try to pull this back on track a little, because quite honestly my religious objection won't change.
Secular society is based on democratic vote- at least, I thought it was. This issue will not come to vote. I am also not happy about the courts being able to legislate as they are.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Secular society is based on democratic vote- at least, I thought it was. This issue will not come to vote. I am also not happy about the courts being able to legislate as they are.
Just when I thought I'd get some studying done tonight, you give me a whole new game to play. :)
Secular society is based on democratic vote, true. But democracy is a means, not the end. The end, according to our founding fathers and a lot of other smart people, is individual liberty. That's why we have the bill of rights, the constitution, and courts - so that people can't just vote away other people's individual liberty (or their own). Whether it works this way in practice is debateable.
To use one of Miko's examples, picture a situation with 5 men and one woman. The 5 men vote to gang rape the woman. The woman, obviously, votes against. Well, who has the democratic majority? Does that make the 5 right? Of course not.
In much the same way, our country's wealthy and productive citizens are slowly being gang raped by the poor/lefty/socialist voters of the country - through taxation for welfare and other social programs. Here, a lot of the righties are trying to continue to gang rape the invididual rights of a small demographic - homosexuals (ed: clarity).
That's the function of the courts and the Constitution - to safeguard the individual against the will of the masses and those put into power by the masses. In many cases, I wish that both the courts did, and the founding fathers had done, a better job.
-
Gay couples of either gender cannot produce gay kids. Homosexuality is not inherited nor obtained. It is a decision.
If a gay couple decides to adopt a kid, which is the basis for all the hoopty arguing, then someone assumes the kid will be gay, or will not turn out right for not having a mother or a father figure.
That is not true...
-
JB73: ...biblically marrige is a union between a man and a woman.
That is not entirely correct.
Biblicaly, marriage is a union between a man and one or more women (and their maids).
The jews were God's original chosen people and they were polygynous.
Jacob Married Leah and also Rachel and God was approving of it (Genesis 29 & 30).
Chairboy: Gosh, if marriage is defined as something that is church driven...
That's BS. There is obviously no church or religious ceremony that need to be involved for God to recognise marriage as valid - only the intent of the parties.
Jacob saw Leah only the morning after he slept with her thinking she was her sister Rachel, whom he wanted. So there was certainly no religious ceremony involved - or any ceremony besides the verbal agreement of the father and the husband;
29:21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give [me] my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.
29:22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
29:23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
29:24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid [for] an handmaid.
29:25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it [was] Leah: and he said to Laban, What [is] this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
But when Jacob did not treat Leah as well as Rachel - even though he did not love her and was tricked into marrying her, God made Rachel barren and gave Leah several sons.
Later He relented and gave Rachel sons too.
29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.
29:32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
30:22 And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb.
30:23 And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach.
miko
-
If all you got are religious reasons for gays not being allowed to marry then you have no arguement.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
I didn't want to put this in the other thread because it was already full of arguments and debates, so its going here.
Do you think that a child age 10-18 going through middle and high school with two dads will turn out ok? I have no problem with gay marriage and such, but I feel that an adolescent's life is tough enough as it is. If I had homosexual parents, high school would turn into a daily hell. Gay parents can love, nuture, and raise a child well, but can that kid survive society in his adolescense?
...as opposed to an upbringing without any parents at all?
Yeah, you'd survive.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Creamo-
As far as I know, people don't choose to be axe murderers either. Yet we still have people arguing against the death penalty because of home environments and the impact they have on
the perps. So it appears we believe environment can contribute to something as extreme as murder, but can't possibly be involved in
sexual orientation. Interesting viewpoint.
It's been tried (http://www.infocirc.org/rollston.htm) (influencing sexual orientation). A failure from the start (at 22 months) despite all stops being pulled, surgical remake, *everybody* lied to him starting with his parents.
-
Just an observation....
People say that you should become more conservative as you get older. Seems logical, more to lose, more perpective, more interest in the bottom line instead of the process.
I say that there are some issues that just become common sense.
Gun control for example. Silly to advocate the complete control of guns. Ain't gonna happen. So lets try to make the world safer through education and training.
Gay marriage is one of these no-brainers. If two people want to make a life together... well freakin let 'em.
-
...as opposed to an upbringing without any parents at all?
well,there are plenty of parents tring to get kids,,no kid today will go with out parents unless there in juvenile detention all the time,, my brother been on a waiting list for over 5 years for adoption,,gots a good full time job,,works hard,,makes good money,,owns a nice house,,great country location with school bus access,,and he is married,,but there are so many parents out there tring to get kids its ridiculous,,he mite never get a kid,,because there are millions of people,,including gay parents tring to get the same kids,,adoption is not easy and there is a good chance you will never get a kid,,no matter what age
-
There are about 500,000 kids out there who are "at risk" to never be adopted. They are too old, or have health issues or they are the wrong race. We need all the loving adults we can get to raise these kids.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There are about 500,000 kids out there who are "at risk" to never be adopted. They are too old, or have health issues or they are the wrong race. We need all the loving adults we can get to raise these kids.
So we will fix one problem by promoting another?
What's wrong with promoting marriage, discouraging divorce and teaching abstinance?
A man loving another man doesn't really promote the family does it?
Or is homosexuality good for us as a society....My Two Dad's kinda promotion thru the school systems a good thing too?
Just curious:)
-
There are about 500,000 kids out there who are "at risk" to never be adopted.
get rid of the system and maybe these kids would be adopted,,,my brother wanted any kid,,no matter the age,,or race or sex,,he just wanted a kid for him and his wife to raize and give them a good home to inherit,,and a life,,,but unless that kid is allready related to you,,or knows you from freind of the family,,there is a small chance you will ever be able to adopt a kid,{its all luck} he went threw hell,,just to get on a waiting list,,a list that he may never get a kid from,,list he has been on for years,,he will never see a kid
everyone makes it seem like all you have to do is say,,hey!! i wanna adopt a kid and they give you one,,,nope,,lol,,its not that easy,,you can have a great house,,great family,,good clean record,,and still never see a kid,,,,been there done that with him,,his wife cant have kids,,and he has been tring for over 9 years to get appoved,,his home and record was appoved,,finaly he got on a list,,and been there ever sence,,i think he has finaly gave up,,,but i think he still gots his fingers crossed
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There are about 500,000 kids out there who are "at risk" to never be adopted. They are too old, or have health issues or they are the wrong race. We need all the loving adults we can get to raise these kids.
I guess the assumption is that gay men and women would adopt these children if only they were allowed to marry? You think this is going to make one iota of difference to these kids? No way. The same kids are going to be left behind regardless. Very much a straw man.
-
I dont like homos.
-
Originally posted by Rude
A man loving another man doesn't really promote the family does it?
Families seem to do just fine without promotion.
-
I'm wondering how many of us were invited into our parent's bedroom for a demonstration of how to have sex?
All gays had straight parents... heterosexuality obviously causes homosexuality.
ROFL.
-
No use trying to talk sence to these guys MT. Half of them still believe you can catch the gay like a disease.
-
No Frogman, some of us are blown away by the state of absolute denial some of you live in. As if parental behavior has no influence on a child's behavior... sheesh...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Families seem to do just fine without promotion.
What world do you live in?
You're telling me that with a divorce rate of over 50%, the American family is doing just fine?
-
Rude: What world do you live in?
You're telling me that with a divorce rate of over 50%, the American family is doing just fine?
Sandman is right.
Families really do just fine without promotion.
It's exactly when the interventionist welfate state promotes the socialist values and lifestyle that the family institution deteriorates.
miko
-
Regardless of the "religious" and morality rhetoric which many want to wrap around the "gay" marriage debate, the real issues are the legal issues which define the rights and obligatiosn of a "marriage."
Calling a "gay marriage" a "Civil Union" would work if in deed that code of law were exactly the same as the code of law defining marriage....law makers don't do that. Civil Unions do not grant the same legal rights as a "marriage."
Perhaps it's time that Marriage laws are removed altogether, and people create their own civil contracts. This way, they can live how ever they want, and agree to whatever rules suit their way of life and beliefs.
Abolish the federal marriage tax penalty and tax people as if they were individuals.... and abolish any other special government programs that discern an individual as married or unmarried.
-
Isn't marriage defined as pooling two peoples' monies into one household and living like a couple?
If that is the case, I don't see what the gender issue has to do with it. :D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
No Frogman, some of us are blown away by the state of absolute denial some of you live in. As if parental behavior has no influence on a child's behavior... sheesh...
And if your child is gay, it's your fault? And I see no fault, but for sake of argument...
Denial indeed.
-
Originally posted by Rude
You're telling me that with a divorce rate of over 50%, the American family is doing just fine?
No. I'm telling you that it's not the place of government to concern itself with marriage and the promotion of it. Even if we agree that there is a problem, the government shouldn't attempt to fix it even if it could.
You conservatives keep forgetting that you want LESS government. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Even if we agree that there is a problem, the government shouldn't attempt to fix it even if it could.
Holy crap Lions! Did sandman, the lefty from the left coast, just say what I think he said?
Please, tattoo that statement onto your forehead and look at it often. :)
-
Originally posted by Creamo
And if your child is gay, it's your fault? And I see no fault, but for sake of argument...
Denial indeed.
For cryin' out loud, try to understand. Just try. I am not saying a person cannot be gay without influence. I am saying children are influenced by their parents' behavior.
-
And Im saying if your children are GAY, it's a born trait.
It would damn near kill you, I know, but still. It has zero to do with upbringing.
Are they taking the Wally World Aqua-Fun Slide straight to hell then?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
And Im saying if your children are GAY, it's a born trait.
It would damn near kill you, I know, but still. It has zero to do with upbringing.
Are they taking the Wally World Aqua-Fun Slide straight to hell then?
You cannot prove this. Thrawn will pop in any time with the Canadian government's research, but the supposed genetic trait is only theorized.
-
Dont buy the genetic bit. Nurture in this case, is what I subscribe to.
Rationalize it all you want - its an abnormality that could probably be cured with enough therapy and a willing patient.
-
Of course I can't, but there are hundreds of perfectly sane gays lined up in San Fran to get married, and how many are born axe murderers?
Can you prove your "God's" Word, or is it faith?
No, you make a feeble goof on Thrawn. The modern day disciples kinda suck.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
For cryin' out loud, try to understand. Just try. I am not saying a person cannot be gay without influence. I am saying children are influenced by their parents' behavior.
You're right some are - not all.
Parents do influence bigotry, racism, and stupidity.
The religous right wing is a good example of this!
Ok... so if the parents are not gay and the child turns out to be gay.... How did the parents influence that? What is that proof of.
But if the parents are gay and the child grows up to be gay - you'll say that's because of the parents?
I worry more for children who seem to be in "moral" homes but are really being molested by their "parents."
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You cannot prove this. Thrawn will pop in any time with the Canadian government's research, but the supposed genetic trait is only theorized.
Source: WebMD (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2953_531.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348})
Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors. In other words, there are many factors that contribute to a person's sexual orientation, and the factors may be different for different people.
However, homosexuality and bisexuality are not caused by the way a child was reared by his or her parents, or by having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex when the person was young. Also, being homosexual or bisexual does not mean the person is mentally ill or abnormal in some way, although there may be social problems that result from prejudicial attitudes or misinformation.
-
Alot of people go crazy supressing their sexuality. they think the feelings they feel are bad,evil satans work! so they must kill kill kil.
Like hoover.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Holy crap Lions! Did sandman, the lefty from the left coast, just say what I think he said?
Please, tattoo that statement onto your forehead and look at it often. :)
FWIW, I'm more libertarian than liberal. :aok
-
You know another thing the bible calls an abomination right?
Eating shellfish
Yes thats right, according to the bible eating shellfish is right up there with gay marriage.
Better start passing laws banning the eating of shellfish if we are going to make laws banning gay marriage.
-
At this rate, the government is going to start making priests use shellfish in their religious ceremonies. ABOMONATION!
-
Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors. In other words, there are many factors that contribute to a person's sexual orientation, and the factors may be different for different people.
Whew. For a second there I thought you had some proof.
-
Originally posted by thrila
Irrational thinking?
Believing in something written by man proclaiming it to be the word of God sounds irrational to me.
HEHE you big spit dweeb. :)
I agree whole heartedly..............
Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book that is admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
neighbor.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Whew. For a second there I thought you had some proof.
There are only two medical proofs... birth and death. The rest is just statistics. :)
Here's some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_basis_for_homosexuality
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I live in the world, and I have to accept my morals cannot be forced upon others. Sadly, the reverse cannot be said.
I just cant get past these words of yours. How does a free citizens choice force you to accept their morals?
Do you not believe in the constitution?
It is you who wish to force others to accept your values. This is glaringly apparent. Anyone one who doesnt conform to your religious beliefs is forcing their beliefs upon you? Yet you would prefer the law of the land to follow your beliefs which would force them upon others.
Allowing people to marry whom they choose is a simple matter of freedom for all and nothing more.
-
Hey, I'll readily admit there just might be a genetic link to homosexuality. I think it's wrong to argue it as a fact, therefore negating any behavioral arguments. First, it isn't "fact"; second, it wouldn't negate behavioral effects if is true.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I just cant get past these words of yours. How does a free citizens choice force you to accept their morals?
Do you not believe in the constitution?
It is you who wish to force others to accept your values. This is glaringly apparent. Anyone one who doesnt conform to your religious beliefs is forcing their beliefs upon you? Yet you would prefer the law of the land to follow your beliefs which would force them upon others.
Allowing people to marry whom they choose is a simple matter of freedom for all and nothing more.
Get in line, brother. No pushing.
To a believer, it's like this; the world is the world, we have to live in it to a point, but we are to remember we are a people apart. I don't expect to conform to your way of thinking on this issue, and I don't expect you to conform to mine. I tend to be a bit proactive, and I see where this is heading WRT what happens next. Gay marriage isn't simply about gays getting married; it's about normalizing the behavior, making it acceptable to all. To what lengths the gay movement will go to feel satisfied it is mainstream is what concerns me. I see a time where the ACLU or courts tell churches how they have to run in order to be fair to citizens of this country. Outlandish? Maybe not. Examples already exist in our society of government interference in supposed autonomous institutions.
-
Sure, for some people homosexual behavior is a matter of choice. For some, it might not be (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2953_532.htm?z=2953_00531_6501_00_12).
-
The exact cause of gender identity disorder is not known,
Thank you, I rest my case. That's about as credible as "sexual addiction".
-
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/callingboys14.jpg)
-
All I know is Mr.Black owes me a milkshake for taking the heat off of him for a little while. ;)
-
(http://www.bartcop.com/gif/hoover.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Thank you, I rest my case. That's about as credible as "sexual addiction".
As I stated earlier, there is no medical proof. There is simply the possibility.
For me, it's enough that it might not be a matter of choice and that homosexuality isn't contagious.
Live and let live seems like the best course.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You know another thing the bible calls an abomination right?
Eating shellfish
Yes thats right, according to the bible eating shellfish is right up there with gay marriage.
Better start passing laws banning the eating of shellfish if we are going to make laws banning gay marriage.
Will you marrie me frogman?
JB73 is teh suck.
We can still play GI Joes.
Bibel nevar said anything about that
-
Spam time.
"1. Neurological Differences.
According to LeVay & Hamer (1994) the medial preoptic region of the hypothalamus which is involved in the regulation of male-typical sexual behaviour is clearly different in homosexual males. This structure contains several nuclei, one of which, the interstitial nucleus (INAH3), is on average bigger in men than women. This nucleus has been found to be 2/3 times smaller in homosexual males - the same size as seen in women. It has also been reported that the anterior commissure in homosexual men is very similar to that of females i.e. larger than that of heterosexual males (Allen & Gorski, 1992).
If this difference is correct then how may it come about? LeVay (1993) points out that this structure in rats (referred to as the medial preoptic nucleus) is highly susceptible to hormonal modification during a critical period of development lasting from a few days before to a few days after birth. Before of after this period altering hormonal levels can induce no changes in size. This indicates that hormonal factors may be important for the development of sexuality. In support, Roselli et al., (2002) studied rams who exhibited exclusive homosexual behaviour and found that analogous regions of the preoptic hypothalamus resembled more closely that of typical females than males.
2. Hormonal Differences.
It was originally assumed that homosexuality resulted from the individual lacking the male hormone testosterone and thereby being influenced by circulating female hormones. So, testosterone supplements were given to homosexuals and while sexual desire was increased, the object of that desire did not change in any way. If fluctuating levels of testosterone do not influence sexual orientation, such preferences must have been established early in development and this could take two forms:
An increase in circulating levels of a hormone during the critical period of sexual differentiation of the brain.
An alteration in the receptivity of certain cells to specific hormones.
Dörner (1976) formulated a "dual mating centre" theory in which he argued that in the rat the medial preoptic nucleus regulated male sexual activity, while the ventromedial nucleus mediated female sexual activity. The morphological differentiation of these nuclei lies under the control of prenatal hormones - if levels of androgens are high then the male centre will develop strongly; if androgens are low then the female centre will predominate. If the female centre predominates in a male individual (due to an early lack of testosterone) then that individual will become homosexual. In a series of experiments on rats, Dörner showed that altering levels of various hormones at the critical times could indeed alter the morphology of these structures and create male ‘homosexual’ rats. However, there are various problems with this theory:
‘Homosexual’ male rats behaved like female rats (i.e. showed lordosis). Human homosexual males behave like males (i.e. take an active role in sex).
‘Homosexual’ female rats could not be created in the same manner. Similar experiments in female monkeys given androgens early in life created an increase in aggression and male-like play fighting, but had little effect on sexuality.
Early manipulation of hormones in animals not only affects sexual activity but also the structure of the genitals. Human homosexuals have gender-appropriate genitalia.
Dörner et al., (1980) proposed that maternal stress is a key factor in the aetiology of male homosexuality. In support he noted that among males born in Germany between 1934 and 1953, an unusually high proportion of homosexuals were born during or immediately after the war (1941-1946). Dörner et al., (1983) also found that 75% of the mothers of homosexuals, compared to 10% of the mothers of heterosexuals were able to recall stressful episodes during pregnancy. However, similar studies failed to find any relationship between prenatal stress and homosexuality (Schmidt & Clement, 1990).
Ward (1984) found that by stressing pregnant female rats, their male offspring showed reduced masculine-typical sexual behaviour and increased female-typical sexual behaviours. These males also demonstrated less-masculinised play behaviours. However, in a large scale longitudinal study of more than 13,000 pregnant women and their offspring Hines et al., (2002) assessed stress both pre- and post-natally and gender role behaviour when the children were aged 3½. While they did find a relationship between maternal stress and female gender role behaviour (more masculine), the effect was small and additional factors (such as maternal education, presence of older brothers) played a bigger role. There was no effect of maternal stress on boys gender role behaviours.
If stress is not the key prenatal event then what else could 'create' homosexuality. In many studies since the late 1980's Blanchard has argued that male sexual orientation correlates with the number of older brothers, each older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by around 33% (Blanchard, 2001). As older sisters has no such effect on sexuality, this effect has been termed the 'fraternal birth-order effect'). This relationship is not influenced by parental age, birth intervals and the number of older brothers or sisters has no effect upon female sexual orientation. This effect has been hypothesised to result from a maternal immune reaction, a reaction which is only provoked by male foetuses, and which increases with every male foetus carried. A likely candidate for this immune response is the H-Y antigen only expressed by male foetuses and triggers the release of antibodies by the mother immune system. When triggered the maternal antibodies interfere with neurological sexual differentiation, the stronger the immune response the greater the chance of abnormal neurological sexual differentiation.
Williams et al., (2000) found that males with more older brothers had a lower 2D:4D ratio (higher testosterone exposure) than males with fewer or no older brothers. However, while Robinson & Manning (2000) confirmed that the digit ratio of homosexual men was lower than that of heterosexual males, they did not find a relationship between fraternal birth order and 2D:4D.
Ellis & Ames (1987) also argued that sexual orientation is determined by the degree to which the nervous system is exposed to testosterone and its metabolite estradiol while sexual differentiation of the brain is occurring. During this organisational phase, testosterone serves to firstly masculinize the genitals and then to masculinize the brain. So human sexual orientation may be determined between the middle of the 2nd month and the end of the 5th month of gestation; overlapping this period and extending by 2-3 more months is the phase during which sex-typical behaviour patterns are organised. Several predictions can be generated from this theory:
Homosexuality should be more common in males: this is supported.
Homosexuals should show demasculinized behaviours: homosexuals often show some male-typical behaviours and some feminised behaviours.
Non-gender typical behaviour should be evident from birth: this is supported.
Homosexuality should be non-randomly distributed along family lines: there is evidence that homosexuality is heritable.
There need not be major differences between circulating hormonal levels in later life: some evidence for and some against.
Attempts to alter sexual orientation after birth should fail: none have yet proved successful."
Con't
-
"3. Genetic Studies.
Bailey and Pillard (1991) interviewed 115 gay males and their twin brothers (MZ and DZ), and a further 46 gay males with their adopted brothers. They found that 52% of the MZ co-twins, 22% of the DZ co-twins, and 11% of adopted brothers were either homosexual or bisexual. In a later study Bailey et al., (1993) carried out a similar study in female homosexuals and found similar results, i.e. 48% of MZ co-twins, 16% of DZ co-twins, and 6% of adopted sisters were either homosexual or bisexual.
4. Childhood Behaviours.
The connection between early effeminate behaviour in boys and subsequent incidence of homosexuality has been of interest for some time. Studies have typically failed to find consistent differences between homosexual and heterosexual adults in sociocultural factors such as parenting styles, indicating that homosexuality may be inborn and not created. However, most of the studies have been retrospective, and the few prospective studies have used small populations and have been limited to short observation periods. Zuger (1984) carried out a long-term follow-up of 55 boys showing early effeminate behaviour. They were first seen between the ages of 3-14 when they displayed symptoms of effeminate behaviour. The children were seen again approximately 27 years later and were questioned on their sexual preferences. The results were that 73% were homosexual, 6% were heterosexual and 21% were bisexual.
Another study by Green (1985) compared two groups of boys on measures of gender identity in childhood and adolescence. One group consisted of 66 clinically referred boys whose behaviour showed clear signs of gender identity disorder, and 56 boys who were demographically matched. During childhood, extensive data was gathered on the boy's sex-typed behaviours, relationship with other children, and relationships with parents. In adolescence, a sexual orientation score was determined, and 68% of boys in the referred group demonstrated significant homosexual / bisexual orientation, whereas none of the boys in the control group did. These studies indicate that homosexuality is not gradually learned but is present from a very early age.
Why does homosexuality persist?
Genes persist when they improve their owner's ability to reproduce, forming attachments to the same sex would decrease one's chances of reproducing, and we would thus expect that such behaviours would die out over a few generations. Some possible explanations:
1. Some individuals do not become aware (or do not accept) their homosexual orientation until later in life, often following reproduction. According to LeVay (1996) around 67% of female homosexuals have children (similar to that of heterosexual women) but only 27% of homosexual produced children (60% of heterosexual men do so).
2. Does a homosexual gene confer a reproductive benefit on a heterozygous carrier (i.e. who only have one copy of the gene)? Males are disadvantaged in that they have a single copy of the X or Y chromosome, if a single disadvantageous gene is present then it may be sufficient to be fully expressed. Is this why homosexuality is more prevalent in males? For females this is not a problem as a deficient gene carried on the X chromosome will have a ‘good’ version on their other X chromosome. Some researchers have suggested that the sisters of homosexual men have more offspring, or that they may be more physically attractive but this has not been confirmed. Miller (2000) argued that sexual orientation is polygenic and during development these genes alter the sensitivity of the male brain to hormones which shift certain regions in a female direction. Single alleles confer sensitivity, empathy and kindness (traits which females prefer in males) while possessing several alleles would produce homosexuality.
3. McKnight (1997) points out that the basis of our social organisation is co-operation amongst relatives. Theories of the evolution of homosexuality have therefore focused on possible advantages of this behaviour for relatives i.e. by helping one's relatives with raising their children rather than reproduce. However, this kin selection hypothesis is not confirmed as there is no evidence that homosexual’s near relatives have more children, and that homosexuals favour their kin more than heterosexuals.
4. Baker & Bellis (1995) point out that all humans have the capacity for bisexuality and that many children’s first sexual encounters are with their own sex. Homosexual sex provides an opportunity for sexual novices to practise for later heterosexual behaviours. Those who experiment in this way will become more competent heterosexual lovers thereby enabling them to seduce more females and reproduce earlier. "
http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/HBlec04.htm
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Gay marriage isn't simply about gays getting married; it's about normalizing the behavior, making it acceptable to all. To what lengths the gay movement will go to feel satisfied it is mainstream is what concerns me. I see a time where the ACLU or courts tell churches how they have to run in order to be fair to citizens of this country. Outlandish? Maybe not. Examples already exist in our society of government interference in supposed autonomous institutions.
Boy oh boy....I accept that your religious beliefs are mainstream even though I disagree with it. Its is about personal freedom to live life the way you want. Yours and mine. I am happy with you living the religious dream. But you arent happy with others living their dream.
I wonder how you would look at this situation if the positions were reversed.
-
Originally posted by osage
Will you marrie me frogman?
JB73 is teh suck.
We can still play GI Joes.
Bibel nevar said anything about that
hot
-
Thrawn, the bulk of that seems to be reducible to "may", "seems", "if", "like", etc. Seems a little short on "is".
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Thrawn, the bulk of that seems to be reducible to "may", "seems", "if", "like", etc. Seems a little short on "is".
Well that's not really surprising, "is" doens't exist in the scientific world, not when it comes to theory. And the standing theory is just that, the theory with the most valid explanation at the time.
Right now there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is biologically and genetically drive. And I have yet to see any biological or genetic evidence that it isn't. So unless someone comes up some the theory stands...at least within this debate on this board. ;)
-
Well that's not really surprising, "is" doens't exist in the scientific world, not when it comes to theory.
Uh... that's kind of the point I was making. It isn't fact, it's theory. People speak as if it is fact.
Now, now, now... you'd be the first to jump down my throat if I forwarded theory as fact. ;)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Rude: What world do you live in?
You're telling me that with a divorce rate of over 50%, the American family is doing just fine?
Sandman is right.
Families really do just fine without promotion.
It's exactly when the interventionist welfate state promotes the socialist values and lifestyle that the family institution deteriorates.
miko
Again Miko...you're off base.
Family promotion by the state is not what I referred to.....traditionally, families themselves, schools and churches promoted family values....of course, you'll probably find something wrong with that as well.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Again Miko...you're off base.
Family promotion by the state is not what I referred to.....traditionally, families themselves, schools and churches promoted family values....of course, you'll probably find something wrong with that as well.
Traditionally, yes. And then the government interfered with families through welfare programs, interfered with schools through mandated curriculums, and is now trying to interfere with churches through the "faith-based initiative" BS.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No. I'm telling you that it's not the place of government to concern itself with marriage and the promotion of it. Even if we agree that there is a problem, the government shouldn't attempt to fix it even if it could.
You conservatives keep forgetting that you want LESS government. ;)
Then by the same logic, it's not the place of government to concern itself with those who choose an unnatural realtionship.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You know another thing the bible calls an abomination right?
Eating shellfish
Yes thats right, according to the bible eating shellfish is right up there with gay marriage.
Better start passing laws banning the eating of shellfish if we are going to make laws banning gay marriage.
The above so clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding the scriptures and the hardness of your heart.
-
If your state, nation, community recognises homosexuals as free people able to fully participate in its society then discriminating against them having children is just the same as discriminating against any other group.
Republican parents may raise republican kids.......christian parents may raise christian kids .....homosexual parents may raise homosexual kids , if there is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality then there is nothing "wrong" with teaching it as an edict for life.
Those that would wish other wise would be discriminating. Then you may as well ask should the rights of one group be less/more than another?
In fact the question comes back to the quality of parenting not their gender, race, colour or creed.
IMO high quality parenting is about a balanced caring education (upbringing) enabling the child free (of doctrine) to make choice.
If you prescribe to the theorem that Homosexuality is gentically derived the end reasoning is the same..............
Just as black parents may raise black children........then homosexual parents may raise homosexual children........or not as the case may be.
-
Rude: Again Miko...you're off base.
Family promotion by the state is not what I referred to.....traditionally, families themselves, schools and churches promoted family values....of course, you'll probably find something wrong with that as well.
Only with promotion by schools. Most of the schoold are government-run and liberal-controlled. The actual promotion of the family is the furthest from their mind and they could not do it even if they wanted to.
Of course when anyone mentions the "family promotion" now, the first that comes to mind is the recent Bush's spending initiatives, which are going to be crewed up by republicans and then taken over by liberals.
miko
-
Tilt: IMO high quality parenting is about a balanced caring education (upbringing) enabling the child free (of doctrine) to make choice.
That does not make sense. People make choices based on the existing structures of their mind - choice-making machinery. Children lack such machinery and thus are not capapble of making choices. In fact biologically, children start blank and are programmed to uncritically accept the input untill a certain age.
The only basis for preferences in children are inborn character traits - levels aggressiveness, phycopathy, introversy, courage, lazyness, etc. It would be sirrational to let children develop according to their prevailing character traits instead of teaching them to control those traits.
Unless a parent thinks that his doctrines are deficient (then why adhere to them), why allow a child to get them randomly of from mass media instead of from the family culture?
miko
-
Gays are Mentally ill!!
You wouldn't walk into a nut house and hand a kid to one of the patients would you? NO!
So why hand kids to Gays?
You want to be Gay fine be Gay but stay away from the kids.
You support Gays adopting kids well then maybe you need to stay away from kids to.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Gays are Mentally ill!!
By who's definition?
-
You know, there have been tests done to see if gays can influence kids to become gay, even lying to the kids about their genders and treating them as such.
It doesn't happen...homosexuality is a choice and in some cases a disorder. It is not inherited and it cannot be taught or influenced. If you aren't gay, there's little chance you'll become gay associating with other gays. It doesn't happen. Sorry to burst the bubble of the "For the Kids" people out there.
People are more afraid gays becoming pedophiles and sexually assaulting the children they adopt, as demonstrated by Mighty1's blathering. People cannot accept the fact that gay men or women might actually try to live a decent life and raise a family. I say as long as the kid isn't assaulted, what's the big deal?
Oh yeah...the Bible says it's wrong.
Can't you Christians let those that want to go to Hell if they desire? If you say that the world is the world. must you denounce those that think differently than you? There is nothing wrong with gay marriage...not one thing I can think of. I refuse to bring religion and morals into it because that is strictly opinionated. I have different morals than you and such and such.
The issue everyone has is morality and the fact that these gay couples might *gasp* adopt children. They fear, as we have seen here by the most opinionated among us, that the kids might grow up gay.
So? Why bother whining about it? You're not going to change it...you're not going to make a difference. The protestors in Mass. sure as hell didn't.
I say let it happen. There's nothing wrong with it. Morality and religion be damned...there's nothing wrong with it...
-
Originally posted by Rude
Then by the same logic, it's not the place of government to concern itself with those who choose an unnatural realtionship.
Of the people, by the people, for the people...
1. There is enough science to doubt that homosexual behavior is simply a matter of choice.
2. Homosexual behavior isn't unnatural. It's abnormal.
-
When I was five years old I came across a copy of Playboy and had a physical reaction. I had no exposure to sexaulity previously, and in fact asked my mother what was happening :) I have never had a similar physical reaction to seeing naked men in the school shower, etc. Maybe it's different for some of you, and your heterosexuality is a concious choice, but it has never been for me and it's hard to imagine a homosexuals orientation is a choice either.
Charon
-
Originally posted by JB73
**** i cant even begin to dicuss this topic.
*** marrige is biblically wrong.
biblically marrige is a union between a man and a woman.
for you aitheists . it;s NOT a "marrige"
if you want it to be accepted by the government then it's a "gonvernment ordained union" or some ****.
either way it is NOT ****ing recognized by the church or God. END of dicussion. there is NO possible religous debate over the subject. God does NOT endorse ****** unions. never has never will.
if the govenrment wants to give benefits to **** then guess what... we elected them.
God says obey the leaders he has put above us...
well i will i guess. i have no choise but to vote otherwise.
took out deroggatory slang towards homosexuals to not offend others
sry skuzzy.
So as a good christian and (if you are personally christian) you use the F.. word alot _
-
I know as a teacher I don't want to be the parent of anyone else's kids. Society THINKS that's my job, but it isn't, nor should it be.
-
Well Texace, it's kind of like this... I have to live in this country just like you do. I have to raise my kids in it. If something is happening that is against my beliefs, I have the right speak out against it. You don't have to agree with that viewpoint, and in fact I don't personally pose any threat to you or your beliefs. Now I know it'd be a lot more convenient for me to shut up and act like I believe you are right, but I don't, so I won't.
If this issue comes to vote I will vote against it in a heartbeat. If it doesn't (and it doesn't look as if it will) I won't. See how simple that is. I'm more than happy to wind you up some more about my beliefs if you want to ask about them, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't matter very much.
BTW, I am against abortion and reparations, too. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Of the people, by the people, for the people...
1. There is enough science to doubt that homosexual behavior is simply a matter of choice.
2. Homosexual behavior isn't unnatural. It's abnormal.
Main Entry: un·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "&n-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal
Pronunciation: (")ab-'nor-m&l, &b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal
: deviating from the normal or average
I stand by unnatural....you're playing games now.
Science? Truth? Reality?
We all make choices....while our faulted nature might indeed bring cause to think of unnatural and perverse things, we make a choice, or are ill prepared by those who raise us to make the right choices.
-
Kieran, The fact that you want the gov't to continue to restrict the rights of American citizens does make you a threat to my beliefs.
I'm sure that there are a lot of people that would frown on my parents marriage. I know that there are people that would give me dirty looks when I'm with my son and his mother. They have their right to feel that way, they don't have a right to stop us because they feel that it's "wrong".
Votes on who gets freedom and equality? I thought it was supposed to be for everyone.
-
Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Our nature is flawed....to defend it or to lift it up as some beacon of righteousness is perverse....is the above anything of which any of you would be proud of?
I do not hate homosexuals....I hate the perverse lifestyle.
How some of you can defend something so unnatural and perverse is beyond me....unless of course, you simply fish or posess a reprobate mind yourselves.
-
jesus was gay.
-
Originally posted by Rude
How some of you can defend something so unnatural and perverse is beyond me....unless of course, you simply fish or posess a reprobate mind yourselves.
There's a difference between defending the act and defending someone's right to decide for himself if the act is perverse.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
There's a difference between defending the act and defending someone's right to decide for himself if the act is perverse.
No problem there....I'm not their judge...folks have freedom of choice.
-
Originally posted by Furious
jesus was gay.
Nice try
I do sincerely hope you do not mean that.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
If this issue comes to vote I will vote against it in a heartbeat.
And here we have the crux of your value system.
I vote for all Americans to have the same rights.
You would vote for abridging the rights of Americans that live the kind of life you dont approve of.
Im thankful that we have a system that will in the end uphold the values of our constitution etc. Free choice and rights for all to pursue happiness.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well Texace, it's kind of like this... I have to live in this country just like you do. I have to raise my kids in it. If something is happening that is against my beliefs, I have the right speak out against it. You don't have to agree with that viewpoint, and in fact I don't personally pose any threat to you or your beliefs. Now I know it'd be a lot more convenient for me to shut up and act like I believe you are right, but I don't, so I won't.
If this issue comes to vote I will vote against it in a heartbeat. If it doesn't (and it doesn't look as if it will) I won't. See how simple that is. I'm more than happy to wind you up some more about my beliefs if you want to ask about them, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't matter very much.
BTW, I am against abortion and reparations, too. :D
Kieran, I never said I wanted you to follow my beliefs and I wasn't putting yours down. None of my post was directed specifically at you and the last thing I need s for you to pretend I'm right.
I never said I was, and I'm sorry if my post made you think that. I don't claim to be right and I don't intend to be, but I do intend to post my own beliefs, same as you.
I do like debating, though...kinda fun. :D Sorry Kieran. ;)
-
Originally posted by Rude
I do sincerely hope you do not mean that.
If he were gay would that take anything away from his message?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Then by the same logic, it's not the place of government to concern itself with those who choose an unnatural realtionship.
It IS the place of Government to ensure that all Americans receive equal rights and protection under the law... including Tax law.
-
Originally posted by stiehl
Kieran, The fact that you want the gov't to continue to restrict the rights of American citizens does make you a threat to my beliefs.
Let me rephrase; I am no more a threat to your beliefs than you are to mine. I can deal with that, so should you.
-
Texace-
Don't worry, I am not angry at all, and it is I who should apologize if I sound that way. I tend to be confrontational in debate. That isn't always a good thing. No harm on my end.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Main Entry: un·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "&n-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal
Pronunciation: (")ab-'nor-m&l, &b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal
: deviating from the normal or average
I stand by unnatural....you're playing games now.
Webster's won't cut it. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031225377X/qid=1077149250//ref=pd_ka_1/103-8593010-6007026?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)