Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on March 15, 2002, 10:09:05 AM
-
The news magazine "Prime Time" on ABC covered the issue of gay adoption last night. No, not adopting gays, but gay parents adopting children. The entire show was centered around this case let him stay (http://www.lethimstay.com/) and of course the "coming out" of Rosie O'Donnel (surprise surprise).
Some very compelling points were made in support of allowing gay couples to adopt. Actually only 3 States do not allow gays to adopt; Florida, Mississippi and Utah. The family in question is 2 gay nurses who have adopted 5 HIV positive children and have established a very structured and loving home environement.
There are thousands of children at risk and available for adoption. Should we limit the number of parents willing to take care of them?
-
I really expected some kneejerking all over this one....why not?
-
i'm actually against gay adoption, but might consider supporting it's legality.
why?
same sex couples don't concern me at all....who the hell cares.
it's just that having adopted parents is meant to simulate having real parents.
however, same sex unions do not produce offspring so paring a child with a same sex couple seems inconsistent.
the reason i might entertain the idea of supporting it is that some 11 yr old retarded black kid (for ex.) isn't going to be swooped up by a public seeking 6month old white babies.
in other words he may get better care and support from a gay couple than none at all.
-
It can't be worse than some of the foster care in this country. If they are willing to adopt, let 'em.
Homosexuality is not catching. Sexual molestation of children is illegal no matter what gender bias you might have. The prisons are chock full of heterosexual pedophiliacs... etc...
If it's a good home, it's a good home. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.
-
While I agree that being raised by a same sex couple might be better than foster care/orphanage, I also think that it is probably damaging in other ways. Kids are cruel to each other...how are these children viewed by their peers? What ramifications are there later in this person's life? Same sex parents are a relatively new occurence. It will be years before anyone could really make an honest assessment of the benefits/risks involved.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
While I agree that being raised by a same sex couple might be better than foster care/orphanage, I also think that it is probably damaging in other ways. Kids are cruel to each other...how are these children viewed by their peers? What ramifications are there later in this person's life? Same sex parents are a relatively new occurence. It will be years before anyone could really make an honest assessment of the benefits/risks involved.
Not as long as you think. My mother-in-law is gay. My wife (of 18 years and counting) grew up with it.
Hasn't seemed to hurt her nor our children.
Then again... anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, IMHO.
-
kids don't need the excuse of having gay or same-sex parents to taunt each other..
they'll create reasons if needed.
-
Im against it.
Monkey see monkey do.
Children see, learn, imititate.
Do you really think a child will have a "choice" at "sexual orientation" if he/she has been raised by a same-sex couple? watching dad1/dad2 french kissing.. or mom1/mom2 ?
Perhaps if they were limited to adopting a child of the opposite sex, the "effect" might be different, but thats just a wild argument.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Monkey see monkey do.
Children see, learn, imititate.
Do you really think a child will have a "choice" at "sexual orientation" if he/she has been raised by a same-sex couple?...
Not in this case - you are either born with it or not. Pretty-well studied subject. Some people are more or less bisexual and can suppress the "gay" part which gives rumors that it is a matter of "choice".
miko
-
You think they have a 'choice' when they are raised by a hetero couple? You poor, deluded man. You can't 'make' someone gay.
:rolleyes:
EDIT: Response to Tac, not miko.
-
95% of all sexual abuse against children is hetrosexual. Instances of gay sexual abuse (outside of the Catholic Church) are rare in comparison. Sorry, Tac, but if you think it's a matter of "Monkey see, monkey do" in order to determine your sexual orientation then I can only hope you were never in the Boy Scouts.
-
and 95% percent of the population are not studmuffins so whats your point?
-
Originally posted by Hobodog
and 95% percent of the population is Normal so whats your point?
huh?
Tac,
You should open the link and check the sociological evidence. Your theory doesn't pan out bud.
-
But Tahgut, doesn't Jesus hate studmuffins?
-
Originally posted by Hobodog
and 95% percent of the population are not studmuffins so whats your point?
My point is that if a child can have ANY adult in his life who is willing to nuture him then he's better off than having NO adult to offer him guidance, and sexual preference isn't even in the equation regarding fitness as a role model/ parent.
Hobodog, what's up with your use of the word "studmuffin?" And no, I never said 95% of the population in America is straight, what I said was that 95% of sexual assaults against minors are hetrosexual in nature, but actually I believe the ratio of gay people in America to be at 11%, so the vast majority of child molestations in America are hetrosexual in nature, so maybe gay couples raising children isn't the evil you percieve it to be.
-
Originally posted by Kratzer
You think they have a 'choice' when they are raised by a hetero couple? You poor, deluded man. You can't 'make' someone gay.
:rolleyes:
EDIT: Response to Tac, not miko.
Kratzer, give me a chance. In the words of Mike Tyson, I will f*** you until you love me.
-
Two homosexual parents is neither more nor less "right" than a single parent household. Children need a Mom and a Dad not just either or, nor do they need Mommy and Aunt Ellen or Daddy and Uncle Elfenwolf :D
If single parenting is so ok, then so should homosexual parenting. (However these folks that start families, are gay and don't "find out about thier natural born condition" until after producing a child and screwing the family unit IMO need to have their butts kicked). And if your wondering, yes I do believe children are a reason to stay married, the primary reason in fact.
-
Two rhetorical questions directed at the "No Way" faction:
Q1) Would your reaction be different if it were a lesbian couple wanting to adopt the child and if so why?
So what are you really afraid of? Two men in a commited relationship adopting a child? Should single fathers then be prevented from adopting or even raising children simply because of their sex? Should single mothers not be allowed to raise boys because of a lack of an adequate "male" role model and vice versa for girls? That reads as stupidly as is sounds in my head and is just as logical and reasonable as the arguments posted above against the adoption.
2) Why is something different so frightening to so many of you?
I've had friends with gay parents. Some friends raised in communes with dad and mum and 15 other parental figures who shared the duties of raising the children. I have friends who are single mothers and single fathers and some of my friends who have children are even married, (gasp, shock and sarcastic horror! yes! married!). None of them are any better or worse than each other. In most cases they parents do the best they could with the resources they had available and for the most part the kids all turned out fine, (I'm the exception and totally bugdiddly* or so my best friend tells me).
50 years ago getting pregnant out of wedlock was a mortal sin and yet today single parent families are not only commonplace but accepted by society as "normal". How long before Same-sex parenting is generally acceptable.
But then again we are talking about Florida and Law, (throw lawyers into an argument in a state that had difficulty counting up who had the most votes in a presidential election and imagine the mess).
* It's a legal and non-slanderous term, go look up US case law.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
But Tahgut, doesn't Jesus hate studmuffins?
Hang on a sec. I'll ask him.....................nope he says he doesn't and all these conservatives are going straight to hell.:)
The point is not whether gay or even single parent homes are better for kids. Of course the 2 parent mom and dad arrangement is optimal.
What is happening in Florida is a crime because the kid in question was placed with these 2 gay men when he was HIV positive, and now that he is no longer HIV positive and eligible for "general adoption" he will be taken away from the only family he has ever known. The kid is 11 years old.
There are thousands of kids in substandard foster care that would benefit from a stable loving home. Why would the State of Florida limit the options of these kids?
-
A gay parent household is not perfect IMO.
But how many households are?
If the only thing "wrong" or "different" about a child's parents is that they were gay, I think that he or she would have a better home environment than about 90% of all kids.
Should we not let people keep or have kids if they (the parents) are alcoholics?
What if they are drug abusers?
Reformed drug abuser?
Felons?
Too old?
What if they have a dangerous job that could get themselves killed? Wasn't there a famous NASCAR driver who's 19 year-old son hit the wall and died last year? Sounds like bad parenting to me.... teaching your kid how to get himself killed...
What if they belong to that "weird" religion?
What if they are in the military and are stationed over-seas and aren't around their kids very much?
This list could go on and on...
It's easy to point fingers.
Basically the only criteria that should be used to determine that a parent is not suitable is one that clearly shows how the direct actions of the parent lead to neglect or abuse of the child.
eskimo
-
I always wondered how lesbians practice "Safe Sex"...I think I know now....
(http://home.earthlink.net/~ripsnort/Funnys/safe.jpg)
-
Homosexuality is a mental illness that needs to be treated.
That being said I'm torn on the idea of the mentally ill adopting kids.
I'm sure some gay homes are normal enough to raise kids but it would be the same as giving kids to an alcoholic or anorexic. Kids mimic what their parents do so what are they showing their kids?
-
Disclaimer:
The following is my opinion only. You are entitled you your own. The following opinions are based on the belief that no kid should be without a loving parental figure who is committed specifically to that child's welfare, for life, and who otherwise meets the adoption criteria.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Male homosexuals who seek to adopt should be allowed to adopt only children who are old enough to give informed consent, say 10 years old. This requirement would be waived in the case of kids who are retarded or brain damaged to the level where they are unable to give informed consent.
Female homosexuals who seek to adopt would be allowed to adopt kids from birth. This is an acknowledgement that women are biologically designed by nature to give birth and nurturing to kids.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
But Tahgut, doesn't Jesus hate studmuffins?
Do you think Jesus hates studmuffins?
-
Originally posted by hblair
Do you think Jesus hates studmuffins?
(http://www.ontario-cottage-rentals.com/_borders/bobber.gif)
-
No, that's what you were doing. :)
-
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prohphet...
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Homosexuality is a mental illness that needs to be treated.
That being said I'm torn on the idea of the mentally ill adopting kids.
I'm sure some gay homes are normal enough to raise kids but it would be the same as giving kids to an alcoholic or anorexic. Kids mimic what their parents do so what are they showing their kids?
Once again, the evidence shows this not to be the case Mighty1. Kids mimic yes, but EVERY gay man or woman is the product of a hetero relationship. So I guess heterosexuality causes homosexuality?
Kids raised by Gay people or couples are no more likely to be gay than those raised by straight couples. That is a fact. They DO tend to experiment more often though. That has also been shown. All that proves though is that despite the experimentation into homosexuality they still are 90% hetero. Kinda puts a dent in the choice theory.
-
I didnt say that midnight, yer quoting someone else ;)
I am not saying that a gay couple will abuse the child either.
Kids pick up things from their enviroment.. the first and most constant of those enviroments is the home.
This "gay gene" crapola is of no consequence imo. If you are genetically "coded" to be gay, you will be gay from day 1. Yet, not all gays have the gene. It can also be something a person can "pick up" by being exposed to it long enough, especially if you are very young.
Just look at the kids from all those white supremacy group maggots, or the hitler youth, etc etc.. you can find a lot of examples of how easy it is to make a child do things or believe in things just by being part of it or exposed to it.
Or religions if you look at it too. You can be raised as a ... and chances are that is what you'll believe in till the day you die, no matter if you later on "rationalize" that the religion you follow is not what you think is the truth. Its almost a cultural thing, you just cant shake it off.
I believe the kid should have a neutral stance from which to choose his sexuality. And a gay couple in my opinion just cant do that.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again, the evidence shows this not to be the case Mighty1. Kids mimic yes, but EVERY gay man or woman is the product of a hetero relationship. So I guess heterosexuality causes homosexuality?
[/b]
Didnt he say homosexuality was an illness? If so, then your statement would be as pointless as "hetrosexuality causes the flu"
Kids raised by Gay people or couples are no more likely to be gay than those raised by straight couples. That is a fact. They DO tend to experiment more often though. That has also been shown. All that proves though is that despite the experimentation into homosexuality they still are 90% hetero. Kinda puts a dent in the choice theory.
Uh...
1) sources?
2) "They DO tend to experiment more often"? wtf does that mean? Kids raised by gay people are more likely to try homosexual acts? If so, then the point is proven, that kids growing up with gays are "more gay" than other kids no?
-
This "gay gene" crapola is of no consequence imo. If you are genetically "coded" to be gay, you will be gay from day 1. Yet, not all gays have the gene. It can also be something a person can "pick up" by being exposed to it long enough, especially if you are very young.
I believe the kid should have a neutral stance from which to choose his sexuality. And a gay couple in my opinion just cant do that.
Gay gene? I wasn't aware that one had been found.
As to gayness being something you can pick up....that IMHO is incredibly naive. Is your sexuality a belief system? Seems biological to me. And saying that a hetero couple would be better at providing a "neutral stance" just doesn't hold water. Gay parents are not about producing gay children. They tend to be stable, and much more open minded about sexuality in general.
Uh...
1) sources?
2) "They DO tend to experiment more often"? wtf does that mean? Kids raised by gay people are more likely to try homosexual acts? If so, then the point is proven, that kids growing up with gays are "more gay" than other kids no?
Hortlund, I provided a link at the top of this thread. The sociological studies are available through that link.
And yes some of the studies indicated that children raised by gays were more likely to experiment with gay sex. But these same studies also show that the percentage of gay children from gay parenting is the same as the general population.
"more gay"? WTF does that mean? People identify with their sexuality all by themselves. What percent gay are you before you become gay? This is just silly. There is a percentage of the general hetero population that experiments with homo sex. Always has been. We are talking about a small increase in that percentage here.
As to your 1st point, I chose not to answer Mighty1 about the Mental Illness issue and concentrated on the mimicing because it was a valid question. The American Psyciatric Association has stated quite clearly that homosexuality is NOT an illness. People who think it is are uninformed or ......well uninformed.
-
This thread is 57.8% gay.
-
Originally posted by hblair
No, that's what you were doing. :)
Just makin' sure you knew it. :)
Tossing a gif in was easier than typing.
-
"Gay gene? I wasn't aware that one had been found. "
Last i heard they were looking for it. Thats why I said its still crapola. Even if it does exist.
"Is your sexuality a belief system"
Its as much a learned behaviour as a "biological" drive.
-
Originally posted by Tac
"Gay gene? I wasn't aware that one had been found. "
Last i heard they were looking for it. Thats why I said its still crapola. Even if it does exist.
"Is your sexuality a belief system"
Its as much a learned behaviour as a "biological" drive.
Actually there ARE physiological differences between gay males and hetrosexual males which tends to support the argument that one can't help his sexual preferences. Researchers are trying to isolate this gene that controls sexual preference, and when they finally isolate and replicate it I hope they inject the gay gene into Tumor, Tac and hblair. I'll bet they'd change their tune then.
LOL Sheeesh, Tumor..."Uncle Elfenwolf?" Ya dick. :)
-
Tac,
From your argument a homosexual couple can't provide an environment for a child to start from a sexuality neutral position. Right? They'll see same sex affection, kissing etc.
Does this mean all children sould be removed from their parents at birth and raised in a special farm? Surely by your explanation the heterosexual couple will also pass a bias into the children? Or are you saying you'd prefer this bias and you'd hate to see children raised with the opinion homosexuality is ok and normal?
-
*SLAP* Elfen ;)
"From your argument a homosexual couple can't provide an environment for a child to start from a sexuality neutral position. Right? They'll see same sex affection, kissing etc."
Thats the way I see it yes. Same sex parents would hardly be good role models of sexuality imo.
"Surely by your explanation the heterosexual couple will also pass a bias into the children?"
Of course. Just in the same way a homosexual couple will.
"Or are you saying you'd prefer this bias and you'd hate to see children raised with the opinion homosexuality is ok and normal?"
Thats a loaded sentence. I wouldnt "hate to see children raised with the opinion homosexuality is ok and normal" , in fact, I think they should be taught its "ok and normal" as long as both parties are consenting.
Look at it this way. In a hetero couple the child can witness BOTH sexes at "work" (behaviour, etc). In a homosexual one, they can only witness 1 gender. Since a child tends to see and imitate and learn from his/her parents, which one do you think offers the kid more options.. which one really gives the child a more neutral grounds in which to choose (WHEN child matures enough to actually be able to choose). ?
At what age do kids even begin to look into their sexuality? 10 yrs for girls and maybe 12 for boys? Maybe a year or 2 earlier..kids these days! . In any case, its nearly an entire decade in which a kid forms up his/her personality, most of it influenced by what they've experienced. And more than half of that experience is at home. And by experience I mean what they see/hear and ideas they absorb from others (mainly adults).
-
It also depends on what other experiences they have. I'm not sure what happens in the US but children in Australia tend to spend a lot of time outside their immediate family circle.
Parents both return to work while the child's still young because access to child care is readily available. Child care is also very adventageous for yound children. They mingle with lots of other children and adults and have the benefit of a lot of learning. Perhaps i'm a little biased because my gf works in the child care industry.
I went a little off topic, but just as an example that children don't spend 10 years of their life learning exclusively from their parents. I can see your arguement about not having a paternal influence or a maternal influence, but what effect is this really going to have. Surely same sex couples wouldn't be allowed to have children if they didn't have a support network to beck them up. ie their family members. The children then have grandparents, aunties and uncles. You're never going to have the same environment as a heterosexual upbringing, but I'm not sure it makes such a terrible difference. Thats just my opinion though and at this point we've come down to opinions. I think it would be ok(but open to being proven wrong by practical examples) and you dont think it's the right thing.
While we're on a similar topic, whats your view on lesbian couples having access to IVF treatment(invitro fertilisation)?
-
"While we're on a similar topic, whats your view on lesbian couples having access to IVF treatment(invitro fertilisation)?"
ooh boy. Never really thought about that. To be fair, i'd say no. Both sides of the fence should be held to the same standards (aka my opinion in a hypothetical situation), be it single sex male couples or single sex female couples.
But then again, they would hardly need IVF to get pregnant do they? Thats what local colleges are for ;)
-
I agree with you, I'm totally against IVF for lesbian couples. That makes me sound a bit like a hypocrite, but my reasons are different. Basically i'm opposed to this because there are so many heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive naturally and have to wait in long cues to get access to IVF treatment.
Lesbians have chosen a lifestyle that excludes them from having children. They shouldn't have the opportunity to bump out heterosexual couples who are actually UNABLE to conceive through some physical problem. If lesbians want a child so bad they should swallow their pride and do it the old fashioned way. Or get a turkey baster.
This is a real topic down here, a lesbian couple really is(or was) lobbying to get access to IVF. I think they lost some appeal recently.
-
It's too bad we couldn't get a perspective on this issue from a gay person. Perhaps one of the Assassmans would care to comment?:)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hortlund, I provided a link at the top of this thread. The sociological studies are available through that link.
And yes some of the studies indicated that children raised by gays were more likely to experiment with gay sex. But these same studies also show that the percentage of gay children from gay parenting is the same as the general population.
Actually, this is all the evidence I need to be against homosexuals adopting kids. You only cross that line once. If you have tried it, you might be considered a bisexual at best, it is irrellevant whether you enjoyed the experience or not. Its like loosing your virginity, you cant say that it doesnt count just because it was bad sex and you were drunk etc.
So if I rephrase what you wrote above, this is what we get:
Children raised by gays are more likely to be bi or homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.
"more gay"? WTF does that mean? People identify with their sexuality all by themselves. What percent gay are you before you become gay? This is just silly. There is a percentage of the general hetero population that experiments with homo sex. Always has been. We are talking about a small increase in that percentage here.
[/b]
Uh..no there isnt. Because as soon as the "oh, but we are normal too, we just like to [insert whatever sexual act]" crowd starts experience with gay sex they leave the realm of heterosexuality and enter the land of bisexuality...some even drift on down the road to homosexuality.
It doesnt matter what you choose to call that sexuality, it is really very very simple
1) define sex (hehe, I always crack up thinking about a certain ex POTUS of yours when that subject comes up)
2) do a gender check on the person you are having sex with
Now, depending on that gender check, you are either a heterosexual, a bisexual or a homosexual. The difference between the last two is only the frequency of same sex encounters you want to put yourself through. It doesnt matter squat what you try to convince yourself that you are. Alot of people are in denial regarding their sexuality for a number of reasons, steps 1-2 will provide anyone with the hard facts of their sexuality whether they like it or not.
-
Lesbians have chosen a lifestyle that excludes them from having children. They shouldn't have the opportunity to bump out heterosexual couples who are actually UNABLE to conceive through some physical problem. If lesbians want a child so bad they should swallow their pride and do it the old fashioned way. Or get a turkey baster.
Why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay. Thats like saying "I choose to live my life hiding my true self from others, facing ridicule or physical harm if I don't, getting treated like I have a MENTAL ILLNESS, shunned by some, laughed at by others"......whoooeee Where do I sign up!!! :rolleyes:
Tac,
There is no question that children would benefit more from the experience of having parents of both sexes to model behavior. Not just sexual behavior, but all gender specific stuff. That is not the question here. Not all children have the opportunity to have that type of home. Some langor in the foster care system for years because most couples are looking for healthy white babies.
The State of Florida is taking a child from a loving home because the 2 men who have raised this boy for the entire 11 years of his life are gay. Do you really think the boy will benefit from this?
The State of Florida has NO PROBLEM with a single father or single mother adopting a kid. As long as they are not gay. So the modeling argument is not an issue with the State. This is a clear case of a religious issue becoming a State law and it should be overturned.
-
"The State of Florida is taking a child from a loving home because the 2 men who have raised this boy for the entire 11 years of his life are gay. Do you really think the boy will benefit from this?"
11 years.. i'd say its too late lol.
"The State of Florida has NO PROBLEM with a single father or single mother adopting a kid"
A single person can adopt a kid???? man, thats just messed up imo.
-
Hortlund, you are wrong.
Please read this (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#1)
especially this paragragh
Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents—as well as many adults—may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same gender, but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This is particularly relevant during adolescence because it is a time for experimentation—a hallmark of this developmental period.
That is from the American Psyciatric Association.
Now please try to look at the facts as presented and not to make an uninformed opinion, or to attack specific wording as lawyers are wont to do.
:)
-
Originally posted by gavor
Basically i'm opposed to this because there are so many heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive naturally and have to wait in long cues to get access to IVF treatment.
What the heck are you talking about? Oh, right - you are from Australia, comrade! With US private healthcare there is no wait to get access to IVF. Have $10,000 ready (some health insurance plans cover one try), go to the doctor and have the IVF cycle start right away. For cheaper one you may have to wait a couple of weeks.
If you have couples wait in long lines (american for "queues"), then your problem are not gays but socialism.
Demanding to reduce the number of paying customers - you are out of your freaking communist mind if you can suggest this on an american board with a straight face! Did you confuse us with North Korea or Cuba?
miko
-
Why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay. Thats like saying "I choose to live my life hiding my true self from others, facing ridicule or physical harm if I don't, getting treated like I have a MENTAL ILLNESS, shunned by some, laughed at by others"......whoooeee Where do I sign up!!!
Sorry about the wrong terminology target, you're right, they don't choose. I'd like to reword my statement. :(
What the heck are you talking about? Oh, right - you are from Australia, comrade! With US private healthcare there is no wait to get access to IVF. Have $10,000 ready (some health insurance plans cover one try), go to the doctor and have the IVF cycle start right away. For cheaper one you may have to wait a couple of weeks.
WTF are YOU talking about? What do you mean comrade? What gives you the right to accuse me of being from ANY political viewpoint, you dont know that about me. As a little point of interest for your fact starved post, we have a conservative government.
Since when was this an American only board? I've seen people from of a lot of different countries posting here. Thats a very arrogant statement you've made.
IVF is expensive and theres no guarantee it will work first, second, third time, or even at all. Where did I say 'reduce paying customers'? Did i say gay people were a problem? No. I was saying IVF was set up for couples who couldn't conceive naturally(yes i know that includes gay people) and I've always been of the opinion that IFV treatment is hard to get access too. It's a sticky problem and one that I only have a initial reaction to, maybe with more thought and some INTELLIGENT discussion i'll change my mind. Not veiled abuse.
-
OK, gavor.
I will gladly give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you happened to state that communist/nazi ideology
without realising what it was. If that is the case, I APPOLOGISE for the tone of my post.
I will try explain my points as logically as I can, no hard feelings.
Since when was this an American only board? I've seen people from of a lot of different countries posting here.
My statements did not address your right to post here. Just that it was a stupid thing to suggest a totalitarian market-control* strategy in a country based on free market economy.
I may have a right to post beef-preparation recipee on a hindu website or a stock investment advice on a North Korean one - I would be an idiot to do so! Any call "let's discriminantely prevent someone from buying something" would sound like an oxymoron to american public. Markets, demand, customers - it's the best thing that can happen - opportunity for profit and progress, for new jobs and satisfied demand. Why would anyone refuse that? Even arguments to limit firearms, drugs and abortions are not based on discrimination or shortage.
* I love that expression - "market control". In USA "control" usually meants "extermination" or "reduction" - as in pest control, weight control, etc. ;)
IVF treatment - while really quite simple - is a rather new development, quickly advancing. It is expencive and not assured. It often costs over $10,000 including few thousand worth of drugs per attempt - though small compared to the costs of raising a child. It is in great demand since many career women delay child bearing which increases chances of infertility. Also homosexuals use it to have children. In case of males it involves obtaining donor eggs and using a surrogate mother to carry the baby.
Doctors are attracted to that filed, colleges prepare more of them and the pharmaceuticals are only to happy to produce more of the required drugs. All that, combined with research (fueled by the profits), economies of scale and growing competition make the treatment more affordable and widely available every month.
That is the way it is working in US.
Other countries - Australia, Canada, etc. while more or less free market succumbed to the "feel good" temptation and introduced price controls on medical care and drugs. I would not say that your healthcare system is as nationalised as the one in former soviet union, but it is much closer in that direction.
With free capitalist market if you have a shortage/cost problem, all you have to do is wait or actually encourage the "culprits" - the extra money they make will attract competition that much faster and the problem get's resolved.
In a socialist economy when something seems too expencive, the restrictions are imposed - usually proce controls. Economical reasons for increase in production are eliminated and the bureaucrats in chrge of the system do not care to implement the increase - why would they care. They will get access if they need to or they can always go to US for treatment. It's the average Joe that experiences the shortage. Of course all those progress-crippling decisions were made with the best intentions at the time - to make something more available right away.
It was the same in Soviet Union. Allowing the people to open new business to satisfy demand would mean giving them freedom - out of the question.
Planning for the centralised introduction of the new stuff required work and competence - and they personally were not interested.
So the only solution remaining was to limit the demand - decide what the people should want! So with our "free" healthcare we did not have access to methods common in the west and what we had, we often had to pay bribes to get - some "free" healthcare!
As a little point of interest for your fact starved post, we have a conservative government.
You can label it what you want - I had "democratically elected government" in Soviet Union myself ;). But if what you say - This is a real topic down here, a lesbian couple really is(or was) lobbying to get access to IVF - is true, then your country is more totalitarian then the Soviet Union in this respect. Not only having good money and being a tax-paying citizen is not enough to buy a product/service one wants, you regulate whether someone should live or not!
Besides the personal rights, a person who is barred from having a child is as good as dead. What obligation does such person have to society? What stake does he/she have in the future of the society? What can society demand from such person? You think that it is an accident that suicide terrorists come from cultures where the practice of polyginy drastically cuts chances of many males to have children?
Your country may still have 1.1% populatin growth. Most western societies are on the decline. In US's 0.9% growth rate is 1/2 due to the immigration - mostly from 3rd-world countries - and 1/4 due to birth in families of immigrants from 3rd world countries. The rest 1/4 is probably due to our own welfare mothers. Having more children in the families of educated working people is a huge benefit - whatever the sexual orientation.
In US the court considers the adoption applicants for an existing child in carge of the state, may try to regulate abortion which may or may not be murder, but imposing limitations on breeding based on discrimination!? Even chinese impose it equally due to overpopulation, not because some people are better. Nazi are the only ones who actually did that in modern history.
Even if the children of homosexuals were guaranteed to be homosexuals, would they be any less valuable members of society? Recall all geniuses who were gay! How about the Alan Turing who made huge advances in science and saved millions of lives in WWII by breaking german codes!
Of course if you pose a question that having a child by one person necessarily prevents another one from having a baby due to shortage - then you have a need for decision. But that is the fault of your society as there is no reason for supply not to equal demand. The government would love to have one more power over us - right to decide who lives and who doesn't!
Here is the "communism" of your remarks:
No. I was saying IVF was set up for couples...
Do you own an IVF clinic? If so, you can set it up for anyone you want (if the laws allow you to discriminate between customers). Who decides what the other clinics were set up for? It is implied in your statement that someone is entitled to decide who deserves treatment and who does not and that no extra clinics should be opened to accomodate the demand from the "wrong" customers.
You do[/b] argue for reducing the number of paying custommers in order to reduce the demand - based on your cultural preferences that have nothing to do with the actual quality of children raised by homosexuals as compared by "normals". Even if that "quality" was somehow your concern which it obviously isn't.
Of course you may feel like you are entitled to make the decision because your taxes subcidise the healthcare in your country and your government regulates it - but that only makes you more responcible for the supply shortage. And actually constitutes communism. First nationalise something, then decide who gets access.
Lesbians have chosen a lifestyle that excludes them from having children...
Obviously it does not. Neither it does male homosexuals. It is you who want to exclude them from having children by barring their access to IVF. I bet you do not have a problem if a gay doctor performes the same IVF.
Is it so hard to mind your own business and let pople decide what to do - whether to buy, sell, produce, research, have kids, etc? It is to some.
In all the totalitarian societies the shortage was the fault of the government restrictions but the blame was cast on some group to divert the public anger.
In this respect your remarks are not so much communist as nazi. The communists blamed the political "class" enemies - capitalists, bourjeois and their "sympathisers", saboteurs, traitors, "leftists", "rightists", etc.
Nazis are the ones differentiating between people by their biology - mentally disabled, gays, gypsys, jews, subhuman, etc.
So you get my gist - wether intended or not you are not in good company - despite your likely good intentions. I respect you desire to have an intelligent discussion and hope this post clears my points in a non-offencive way.
If you are really concerned about your people getting access to this wonderfull treatment, you should work towards making it more available, not restrictive. You should have enough of it not only for any australian who wants it but available and cheap enough to serve people from other countries - it will bring you country a lot of money as well as good karma. Someone conceived in an australian clinic is less likely to wish a war with you. ;)
This post is not as clear as it could be due to time restrictions, but I hope I was civil. :)
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Not in this case - you are either born with it or not. Pretty-well studied subject. Some people are more or less bisexual and can suppress the "gay" part which gives rumors that it is a matter of "choice".
miko
No...there is NO evidence to support that Homosexuality is gentic at THIS time. The one guy who came "close" to proving it supposedly was busted on altering his data if I recall.
Not slaming you Miko just saying that as far I know it HAS NOT been proven to be anything other than deviant behavior.
xBAT
-
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a "cure."
Not slaming you Miko just saying that as far I know it HAS NOT been proven to be anything other than deviant behavior.
Well xbat....where might this proof be?
-
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/parker.gif)
-
Originally posted by batdog
No...there is NO evidence to support that Homosexuality is gentic at THIS time. The one guy who came "close" to proving it supposedly was busted on altering his data if I recall.
Not slaming you Miko just saying that as far I know it HAS NOT been proven to be anything other than deviant behavior.
xBAT
Really? Ever hear of "Gender Dysphoria"?
Believe it or not, gender is not a simple as black or white, male or female, noodle or vagina. There's a full spectrum between male and female and it has little to do with the physical reproductive parts that might be present (or not).
Try tolerance. One can seldom go wrong with tolerance.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Really? Ever hear of "Gender Dysphoria"?
Believe it or not, gender is not a simple as black or white, male or female, noodle or vagina. There's a full spectrum between male and female and it has little to do with the physical reproductive parts that might be present (or not).
Try tolerance. One can seldom go wrong with tolerance.
wtf kinda weird movies do you watch sandman? "there is a full spectrum between male and female" yeah...right...what kind of scary experiences do you have in this area?
I know that there are occasions where children has been born with "both sexes" is that what you are referring to here?
And it is still not proven that homosexuality is genetic. And (as we all know) it is not up to someone to prove that it isnt genetic,it is those who claim that it is genetic that has to prove their theory. That has not been done, and I doubt it ever will.
Think about it, if homosexuality was genetic...how would those genes spread or in other words...how would gay people have kids? And before someone says insemination, let me ask how the genes were passed down the generations in the past?
The entire theory is flawed.
-
...and if it isnt genetic, then it is either environmental or choosen.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
...and if it isnt genetic, then it is either environmental or choosen.
No, it is an abnormality of genetics, much like a trout that has two heads or someone who is born blind, but the trout with two heads or the blind person STILL has to deal with their lot in life, so why make it harder on them? Gay people have no choice in sexual preference, and to anyone who refutes this and believes we can actually be MADE to be gay- well, how bout a kiss, big boy? (Hmmm...no takers...)
Personally I deal with people head to head rather than body to body. I don't give a rat's bellybutton what trips your trigger and it's none of your business what trips my trigger either. We all give up so much of ourselves voluntarily by proclaming ourselves to be "gay" or "straight" and when it comes right down to it sexuality is a non-issue.
If you are willing to provide a home to a foster child who needs guidance and direction in his/her life then I don't give a rat's bellybutton WHAT you get off on, as long as it's not children like the one you just "adopted."
If all of you who are so opposed to gay adoptions would open up YOUR homes to foster children instead of sitting on this BB and clucking like hens like you do on EVERY issue then maybe we wouldn't even be having this discussion, huh? Either put up or shut up.
-
Hortlund,
Once again you are so very wrong.
At the risk of having one of you knuckleheads equate homosexuality to a disease again, please check this link (http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/tay-sachs.asp) .
This is a genetically transmitted disease that is almost 100% fatal prior to puberty. It has mounds of evidence proving its genetic links. The persons contracting this illness have NO WAY of passing it on to their children, they never live long enough to have any. How could this disease possibley continue Hortlund? The logic is equivelent to your statement.
Think about it, if homosexuality was genetic...how would those genes spread or in other words...how would gay people have kids? And before someone says insemination, let me ask how the genes were passed down the generations in the past?
The entire theory is flawed.
Somebodies theory is flawed. :cool:
-
Oh please.
You cant just say that I'm "so very wrong", post a link to something completely unrelated, and then leave it at that.
In fact, I'm not sure I understand what you are aiming for here. Let me try to explain my point more clearly. Please tell me what part you disagree with of these:
1) Homosexuality is either genetic, environmental OR chosen.
2) It has not been proven that homosexuality is genetic.
3) 1 and 2 gives: It is possible that homosexuality is environmental and/or choosen.
4) Studies show that children in homosexual relationships are more likely to experiment with gay sex. Studies also show that the percentage of gay children from gay parenting is the same as the general population.
5) Children raised by gays are more likely to be bi or homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.
[edit] note if you will that 5 is the logical conclusion from 4. So if you want to agree with 4, and disagree with 5, you will have to come up with something *really* smart to say.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The news magazine "Prime Time" on ABC covered the issue of gay adoption last night. No, not adopting gays, but gay parents adopting children. The entire show was centered around this case let him stay (http://www.lethimstay.com/) and of course the "coming out" of Rosie O'Donnel (surprise surprise).
Some very compelling points were made in support of allowing gay couples to adopt. Actually only 3 States do not allow gays to adopt; Florida, Mississippi and Utah. The family in question is 2 gay nurses who have adopted 5 HIV positive children and have established a very structured and loving home environement.
There are thousands of children at risk and available for adoption. Should we limit the number of parents willing to take care of them?
My wife and I watched this *coverage* by Diane Sawyer. It was the usual story.
First, they find a heartwrenching, compelling story. Have the liberal side told by a sophisticated educated person (O-Donnell) who will give their account of the situation with a feel-good, sometimes laugh, sometimes cry, saga of a tear-jerking story. Ocassionally pan the camera over to the interviewer (Sawyer) who can give the needed ooo's and ahh's. Then, of course have the other side covered with a couple of sound bytes from the conservative guy that'll paint him in a bad light (gotta have that so those stupid ppl out there in TV land will know the right decision to make)
That piece should have been called "Rosie O 'Donells story", because that is what it was. It was in no way an even handed attempt to give both sides their say. O'donnell was on camera at least 75% of the show. That should tell you something.
Here's my viewpoint on gay adoption: I don't really have one.
Now, as for homosexuality, disease or no? Well, IMO it sure aint natural. I think some people are obviously more inclined to be gay than others. Gene related? maybe so. Because some people are inclined to have sexual relations with the same sex does that it make it ok? Or is that considered sexual relations at all? Doesn't it take male/female to have sexual realitons? Don't gay men have "intercourse" by putting the noodle in another mans rectum? Take a big step back. Look at it from far off. What does putting a noodle inside a rectum do? Is that not where fecal matter is ejected from the body? Is this healthy? No. Is it practical? Me wouldn't think so. But hey, I'm one of those stupid conservative guys.
And on top of all that, I'm Christian, the Bible says it's sin so that's what I gotta believe. Now, does this mean I would be disrespectful to a gay man if I worked with one? Of course not. Being a homosexual is no bigger than any other sin. But from the Christian angle you have to consider it sin.
-
Originally posted by hblair
Now, as for homosexuality, disease or no? Well, IMO it sure aint natural. I think some people are obviously more inclined to be gay than others. ...
And on top of all that, I'm Christian, the Bible says it's sin so that's what I gotta believe. Now, does this mean I would be disrespectful to a gay man if I worked with one? Of course not. Being a homosexual is no bigger than any other sin. But from the Christian angle you have to consider it sin.
Of course it's natural. Check out the rest of your barnyard animals. Plenty of gender confused behavior going on there. Abnormal... certainly. Unnatural?
As for the Bible... I think the only restriction on homosexuality comes from the book of Leviticus. Go ahead and research all the prohibitions in that book. You can't just pick the parts that suit you.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I always wondered how lesbians practice "Safe Sex"...I think I know now....
Hehe, Rip's post didn't get a response, but I thought it was the most enlightning in this thread ;). WOW, I gotta check out the OC more often, this is fun reading ... whoops, popcorn is ready, BRB ...
Cya Up!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh please.
You cant just say that I'm "so very wrong", post a link to something completely unrelated, and then leave it at that.
In fact, I'm not sure I understand what you are aiming for here. Let me try to explain my point more clearly. Please tell me what part you disagree with of these:
1) Homosexuality is either genetic, environmental OR chosen.
2) It has not been proven that homosexuality is genetic.
3) 1 and 2 gives: It is possible that homosexuality is environmental and/or choosen.
4) Studies show that children in homosexual relationships are more likely to experiment with gay sex. Studies also show that the percentage of gay children from gay parenting is the same as the general population.
5) Children raised by gays are more likely to be bi or homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.
[edit] note if you will that 5 is the logical conclusion from 4. So if you want to agree with 4, and disagree with 5, you will have to come up with something *really* smart to say.
I guess I will just have to explain the connection between my link and your statement. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.
You said, " if homosexuality was genetic...how would those genes spread or in other words...how would gay people have kids? And before someone says insemination, let me ask how the genes were passed down the generations in the past? The entire theory is flawed."
I then posted a link to a website explaining a genetic disease that has continued to exist despite the people who have the disease being unable to pass it on. I thought this might provide some insight into the possiblity that if homosexuality was genetic it could still continue to exist, in the same manner as this disease, and that your logic was flawed.
As to your points 4 & 5 I guess you missed my earlier reply to your contention that experimentation equalled orientation. Here is the quote again:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents—as well as many adults—may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same gender, but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This is particularly relevant during adolescence because it is a time for experimentation—a hallmark of this developmental period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is from the American Psyciatric Association.
The link is in an earlier post, I apologize for being unable to copy it again to this reply.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I then posted a link to a website explaining a genetic disease that has continued to exist despite the people who have the disease being unable to pass it on. I thought this might provide some insight into the possiblity that if homosexuality was genetic it could still continue to exist, in the same manner as this disease, and that your logic was flawed.
[/b]
Perhaps this would be a good time to bring up the differences between genetic diseases, and genetic traits? I still maintain my view that the link you quoted is completely irrelevant to our present discussion because
a) even in that link there are no evidence of genetic heritage of that disease (fact), and
b) I simply pointed out that homosexuality is not proven to be genetic (fact), and the entire notion is flawed (personal opinion)
Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents—as well as many adults—may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same gender, but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This is particularly relevant during adolescence because it is a time for experimentation—a hallmark of this developmental period.
That is from the American Psyciatric Association.
[/b]
Yes, hmm... so do you realize that the passage you quoted from the American Psychiatric Association and "my" quote is not in conflict with each other?
The APA argues that an individual might not consider himself to be homosexual, even if he is, or he may consider himself to be a homosexual even if he is not. I simply stated that anyone having same sex relations is either a homosexual or a bisexual, regardless of how that person chooses to lable himself.
So you agree then...with points 4 and 5, with the clarification you quoted from the APA..that even though people are homosexual or bisexual, they might consider themselves to be something else.
-
Perhaps this would be a good time to bring up the differences between genetic diseases, and genetic traits? I still maintain my view that the link you quoted is completely irrelevant to our present discussion because
a) even in that link there are no evidence of genetic heritage of that disease (fact), and
b) I simply pointed out that homosexuality is not proven to be genetic (fact), and the entire notion is flawed (personal opinion)
Disease - Trait, no difference in terms of the genes ability to continue its existence. You didn't simply point out that homosexuality is not proven to be genetic, it hasn't, you also made a logic argument based on the gene's ability to pass on to the next generation. I pointed out how this logic was flawed. If you really need proof as to the genetic heretige of Tay-Sachs then please research it yourself. It is extremely well documented and I don't feel like reinventing the wheel.
So you agree then...with points 4 and 5, with the clarification you quoted from the APA..that even though people are homosexual or bisexual, they might consider themselves to be something else.
LOL, NO! Nice try though. I find your attempt to redefine the quote from the APA humorous at best. Read the first line of the quote.
"Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation."
You still want to define an "experimenters" orientation for life and this is in direct opposition to the APA.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Of course it's natural. Check out the rest of your barnyard animals. Plenty of gender confused behavior going on there. Abnormal... certainly. Unnatural?
The ability to reason is also natural for humans isn't it? Because animals act on their instincts, does that mean we should? Some animals eat their young.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
As for the Bible... I think the only restriction on homosexuality comes from the book of Leviticus. Go ahead and research all the prohibitions in that book. You can't just pick the parts that suit you.
Leviticus is Old Testament, only intended for Jews before Jesus death. It doesn't apply to anyone today, it's historical reference, not law to live by. NT brought everyone else into the picture. Paul's letter to the church at Rome (Romans 1:27) is what I'm referring to.
-
The Bible may indeed say that homosexuality is a sin. The trouble is, this is the only basis the State of Florida has for restricting Gay parents from adopting.
The State could have had a spokesman on the show, however only one FL legislator decided to speak. He had no clear reason for denying the adoption of this boy other than he "felt it wasn't right".
For those of you who haven't gone to the link, these 2 gentlemen have taken 5 children into their home that NOBODY wanted. All were HIV positive or addicted infants with histories of abuse. They have sacrificed careers and huge amounts of time to give a loving home to these kids. Now after 11 years one of the kids is no longer testing HIV positive. The State of Florida is saying "You can take care of sick unwanted kids, but as soon as they are healthy they cannot live with you". How can you possibly justify this position?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How can you possibly justify this position?
Why would I want to justify their position? :)
-
I personally believe that gay parents can be just and loving and caring as any others. Being gay doesnt mean you are mean or cruel. Nevermind gay male's tendency to be attracted to boys, or their tendency to indoctrinate these same young men into their deviant and dangerous lifestyle choice. Nevermind the embarassment these children will suffer when their classmates find out the truth. Nevermind that homosexuality is a treatable mental illness...why treat it as what it obviously is when we can just pretend it is an "alternate" and healthy lifestyle.
But...if a skinhead can adopt then why not let anyone.
:rolleyes:
I guess i am just a knucklehead...i mean anyguy that can look at another guys hairy donut and etc. etc. etc.. is not insane at all... he is just another variation of normal??????????:D:eek:
I think it is fairly obvious that homosexuality is a mental illness...anyone who doesnt think so is probably a gay and in denial... hehe
I just cant wait to see what this gets me
-
its only about our hesitations of their credibility.
well i dont like that idea , but if you will keep it in US, do it as you wish......
i hope that you will no send some specnaz to our small country after 50 years , becasue we will not tolerate that :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The Bible may indeed say that homosexuality is a sin. The trouble is, this is the only basis the State of Florida has for restricting Gay parents from adopting.
the Bible is sux
no one respect it anymore nor here neither in US
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
the Bible is sux
no one respect it anymore nor here neither in US
u r an idiot ... but thanks for playing
======
I'd let Rosie adopt me, can you imagine the weekly allowance?? :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Try tolerance. One can seldom go wrong with tolerance.
tell this to the europeans in 1939 as the nazi's rolled into Poland....
-
oh man was Rosie declaring herself a vagitarian a suprise!
-
HONG KONG — The bride wore a black tuxedo and sported a fake mustache; the groom was resplendent in a white wedding dress and accompanying veil.
The maid of honor, a man, stole the show in a tangerine-colored frock with matching parasol.
A gay man married a lesbian woman friend in Hong Kong on Monday in order to try to claim housing benefits available only to heterosexual couples.
Noel Chen, 28, dressed as the bride and Yeo Wai-wai, 25, the groom as the couple were declared man and wife at a registry office in the territory.
They promptly announced they had no intention of living together, having long had same-sex partners who also intend marrying in order to claim housing benefits.
Homosexuality is legal in Hong Kong, but only couples of opposite sexes are eligible to apply for subsidized rental housing. (Reuters News)
-
Thanks for the good reply miko. I'm not sure I agree with your summising i'm a nazi or my country is totalitarian but I also write my replies at work. Some of what I mean to say isn't clear as I rush to get my thoughts down. I agree IVF should be freely accessible to anyone who can afford it.
Sorry I took so long to reply, it was a busy weekend and I've been sick the past 2 days. I'd love to post more but i'm still not feeling 100%.
-
Originally posted by N1kPaz
tell this to the europeans in 1939 as the nazi's rolled into Poland....
Pick a better example. The Nazis were some of the least tolerant people in history.
-
I hate it when conservatives give up their strongest suit (common sense). There wouldn't be any children to adopt, if the guy that fathered a child didn't take a powder.
Children need love and attention. A lot of love and attention. If gays are willing to take the responsibility. And the ASS&^%$# that parented the kids are not. That makes this is a no brainer. Thank God for the willingness of the gays
-
whoopee HB, your militant religious turd views are one step closer to me agreeing with Mr. Fish, and I don’t want to dissolve my faith in the Methodist Church, which btw has provided hope, faith, and a true goodness in my life, for various reasons.
My Minister is married, and by having a family he teaches good values, and seems to NOT to preach about lifestyles that mean anything other than being good Christians, and being good folks mostly. No ‘hail mary’s’ no over the top ceremonies. Just be good. Don’t steal, or diddly up yer neighbor in real life. Simple. Could 2 men raising a orphan be any different?
You Gay bashers are out of your minds. Priests are raping male children, preaching ‘No Condoms’ for 3rd world starved countries while they die horrible in a diseased infested Hell on Earth, promoted by Bible Thumping idiots.
And telling gay’s they aren’t human in the proper biblical way? Shame on you. You’re the deliverers of the pain you preach to abolish.
To be Gay is genetic you sick religious tards. Blame God. If you don’t, (you don’t) so just say you don’t and agree and it’s a “choice” they mistakenly made and hate them.
You pointless, sick, bastard.
-
Damn Creamo, I like you again. On secont thought when I'm in Reno for the Air Races let's hook up- I'll buy you a beer.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
To be Gay is genetic you sick religious tards.
Yet another stunning display of pure eloquence. Once again it is proven that if you use strong language, you automatically win any discussion...
How the /%¤ would you know whether being gay is genetic or not? If you can prove that statement, please post your evidence, otherwise learn to realize that just because you might think that something is true, doesnt automatically make it true.
And when you say genetic, do you mean a genetic disease or a genetic trait? Do you understand the difference between those two?
Who said gays arent human btw?
-
Yet another stunning display of pure eloquence. Once again it is proven that if you use strong language, you automatically win any discussion.
I have enough fools to beat on Hort, don't encourage me to administer bashing on the obvious misconstrued.
Strong language might be a shock, you’ll clue in with time.
-
Report Suggests Homosexuality is Linked to Genes (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-nyt.html) written by Dr. Dean Hamer (http://rex.nci.nih.gov/RESEARCH/basic/biochem/hamer.htm).
Be sure to take a look at his list of recent publications.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
whoopee HB, your militant religious turd views are one step closer to me agreeing with Mr. Fish, and I don’t want to dissolve my faith in the Methodist Church, which btw has provided hope, faith, and a true goodness in my life, for various reasons.
My Minister is married, and by having a family he teaches good values, and seems to NOT to preach about lifestyles that mean anything other than being good Christians, and being good folks mostly. No ‘hail mary’s’ no over the top ceremonies. Just be good. Don’t steal, or diddly up yer neighbor in real life. Simple. Could 2 men raising a orphan be any different?
You Gay bashers are out of your minds. Priests are raping male children, preaching ‘No Condoms’ for 3rd world starved countries while they die horrible in a diseased infested Hell on Earth, promoted by Bible Thumping idiots.
And telling gay’s they aren’t human in the proper biblical way? Shame on you. You’re the deliverers of the pain you preach to abolish.
To be Gay is genetic you sick religious tards. Blame God. If you don’t, (you don’t) so just say you don’t and agree and it’s a “choice” they mistakenly made and hate them.
You pointless, sick, bastard.
Dude, check into a clinic.
-
Ok, lets try that again shall we?
I wrote:homosexuality is not proven to be genetic
You reply with a link to a site where the following quotes can be found:
The results have yet to be confirmed by other laboratories
But researchers warn against overinterpreting the work, or in taking it to mean anything as simplistic as that the "gay gene" has been found.
The researchers emphasized that they do not yet have a gene isolated, […] Until they have the gene proper, scientists said they had no way of knowing how it contributes to sexual orientation, how many people carry it, or how often carriers are likely to become gay as a result of bearing the gene.
The researchers are also trying to perform a study on lesbian sisters
(I added the last one just for flavor…)
Take a look at his recent publications? Sure…was this the one you had in mind?
High-throughput SNP genotyping by allele-specific PCR with universal energy-transfer-labelled primers.
Two questions Sandman:
1) Is English your first language?
2) Do you understand the concept of proof?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
I have enough fools to beat on Hort, don't encourage me to administer bashing on the obvious misconstrued.
Strong language might be a shock, you’ll clue in with time.
Crea (you're right, you can actually save some time by not writing all the letters in the name), what about my other questions then?
Oh, answering those would fall into the "administer bashing"-category huh?
-
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/95-2/issue7/gaygene.html
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/genehistory.html
Sandra Witelson, (1994)
At McMaster University in Canada an investigation of the corpus callosum of the brain found that it was 13% thicker in gay-identified men.
Researchers Find Difference in Gays (http://www.waf.org/familyarchives/orientation/studies/Researchers%20Find%20Difference%20in%20Gays.htm)
The discovery adds new support to the theory that sexual orientation may be predisposed before birth.
-
Look, this is getting rediculous.
Do you understand the concepts of proof, truth and proof positive?
Do you understand the difference between a theory and a fact?
I have read all your posted links here, and guess what... They are crawling with formulations such as these:
"It has yet to be proven, however [...]"
"...the research will not be accepted as valid until others replicate the experiment."
"though no specific conclusions may be drawn yet"
In case you didn't know: Quotes like those mean that something is not proven, that something is a theory and not a fact.
The articles you quote have something else in common too.
First, and most important, they all say that the results of their research needs to be replicated before being accepted as a fact. I e they have not even yet proven that the anomaly exists. Then they say that even if the anomaly is proven to exist, it is uncertain what that anomaly would have to do with homosexuality.
If you combine those two, and try to rephrase it, you would get something like this:
We think we have found some anomalies, but we are not sure yet. First, we need to make some more experiments to make sure that the anomalies we found are not just some random event.
And these anomalies we think we've found might have something to do with sexual behavior, but we are not sure. The reason we think that is because we have found these anomalies in some gay people, but not in all gay people, and we cannot explain why that would be. But since we found the anomalies to be occurring more often in gay people than in straight people, we think that means something. But we are not sure what or how.
Now, let me ask you. Do you consider that to be evidence, proof positive? Because clearly not even the scientists you are quoting think so.
-
Brilliant HB, if your right and I’m wrong, I must need a clinic.
Yet, who is the diddlyin idiot that said “Any of you guys with daughters mind posting some pics here of your daughter with a big dildo shoved up her avacado? I wanna look. Mind if I jerk off while looking at her? How big are her tits? Don't be closed minded.
YOU need therapy you sick religious toejam.
-
I'm ignoring you Hortund, i won't from now on.
Spew it.
-
1. Ted Nugent
2. System of of a Down "Toxicity" Video (WINMX)
3. Packers
4. Gullable retard, why do you think I care? Animal, explain it.
Sorry, RealPlayer is playing "Toxicity" at huge headphone volumes... piss off.
-
[edit] deleted some remarks after having a cup of coffee
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Brilliant HB, if your right and I’m wrong, I must need a clinic.
Yet, who is the diddlyin idiot that said “Any of you guys with daughters mind posting some pics here of your daughter with a big dildo shoved up her avacado? I wanna look. Mind if I jerk off while looking at her? How big are her tits? Don't be closed minded.
YOU need therapy you sick religious toejam.
..as in Betty Ford Clinic. :eek:
You got real probs man, Hope you get 'em sorted out.
-
Heh! Gotta agree with Creamo on this one, you are all sick, religious tards.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Now, let me ask you. Do you consider that to be evidence, proof positive? Because clearly not even the scientists you are quoting think so.
Call it mounting evidence. There are enough questions in these reports to wonder whether homosexuality is a matter of choice or not.
As for 100% medical certainty, I doubt that there is 100% medical certainty of anything short of death.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Call it mounting evidence. There are enough questions in these reports to wonder whether homosexuality is a matter of choice or not.
As for 100% medical certainty, I doubt that there is 100% medical certainty of anything short of death.
Who asked for 100% medical certainty? Anyway, I see we agree here. Homosexuality is not proven to be genetic.
How about my other question? Do you agree that it is either genetic, environmental or choosen?
-
Question the question...
Are we talking about sexual orientation or sexual behavior?
-
Hortlund, why do you continually ignore replies to your posts that truely contradict what you say?
What happened to your contention 4 & 5.....did you decide to drop the issue under the weight of your misconceptions? Or what about your contention that homosexuality cannot be genetic because the genes cannot be passed on? Did it crash to earth on the wings of flawed logic.
You continue to lawn-dart and ignore it. Reminds me of the Black Knight in MP's Holy Grail. "Its just a flesh wound!"
LOL
:)
-
I agree, let's get rid of the christians first. Then we can worry about the gays.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
I agree, let's get rid of the christians first. Then we can worry about the gays.
Mean-spirited intolerant Lefties.
;)
-
We can't tolerate the intolerant. :D
-
Has God been 100% proven yet?
-
I am a dyslesic agnostic- I don't believe in Dog.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hortlund, why do you continually ignore replies to your posts that truely contradict what you say?
What happened to your contention 4 & 5.....did you decide to drop the issue under the weight of your misconceptions? Or what about your contention that homosexuality cannot be genetic because the genes cannot be passed on? Did it crash to earth on the wings of flawed logic.
You continue to lawn-dart and ignore it. Reminds me of the Black Knight in MP's Holy Grail. "Its just a flesh wound!"
LOL
:)
Apologies for the delay. I figured I'd go to a movie yesterday instead of spending the evening educating you heathens. I was not aware of the fact that I was ignoring any replies, and once again I apologize if that is the impression you have gotten.
Lets look at 4 & 5 again before we start.
4) Studies show that children in homosexual relationships are more likely to experiment with gay sex. Studies also show that the percentage of gay children from gay parenting is the same as the general population.
5) Children raised by gays are more likely to be bi or homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.
Your reply (as far as I can tell, please let me know if I have missed something) was a quote from APA. Problem is that the article you quoted from APA seems to deal more with sexual orientation, or rather how the individual chooses to define his/her sexual orientation than anything else.
It is clear to me that before we can discuss this further we need to define the words homosexual and bisexual.
I suspect this will not be done easy, because here is your real chance to turn this debate from the issue we were debating (whether kids growing up in homosexual relationships runs a higher risk of developing homosexual tendencies) to another debate, that simply cannot be won by either of us (define homosexual). The problem with question nr 2, the one you want to steer us into is that scientists and psychologists have been debating that one for years, and they have not reached any conclusion. The APA seems to be gunning for this definition of sexuality:
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum.
The problem with this definition is that it isnt really a definition at all. Its more like "psychology-talk". If one were to accept the APA:s definition of sexuality we could never label anyone as either homosexual or heterosexual because
a) we dont know what goes on in other peoples heads, and
b) according to the APA definition, it doesnt matter anyway since sexuality changes constantly
The APA definition is thus a dead end. We now have two options. Either we try to find a better definition of homosexuality, or we can agree on an assumption to use in the discussion.
How about this: Instead of using a definition where we need to try to peer into the head of the individual, how about if we instead take a look at what the individual actually has done of his own free will? Will you accept this definition, or method?
1) define sex
2) do a gender check on the person you are having sex with
Now, depending on that gender check, your actions are either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. The difference between the last two is only the frequency of same sex encounters you want to put yourself through. Or in other words, any person putting himself through a same sex-sexual encounter is at that moment engaged in homosexual behavior. And, the frequency of such same sex encounters is what decides his orientation. It is impossible to take any consideration to his/her own opinion. We must use a definition that is objectively verifiable.
Ok, back to 4 and 5. You cannot possibly have any problems with 4, since you are the one who posted that one in the first place…correct? Thus, your problem must lie in 5, Children raised by gays are more likely to be bi or homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals.
I'll try to walk us through the reasoning here. Please shout out where you are of the opinion that I'm wrong.
1) We need to define the words heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. For the purpose of this debate I suggest we use my definition I described above.
2) You yourself have pointed out, that children raised in homosexual relationships are more likely to experiment with gay sex. Now that means that while those kids are "experimenting" they are in fact having same sex encounters, and thus "are gay". Should they decide that they hated the whole experience, they probably wont repeat it, and spend the rest of their lives having sex with girls. In such a case they went from being gay to being straight.
Over to the genes thing.
There seems to be a failure in our communication here somewhere.
Lets try it again shall we:
I still maintain my view that the link you quoted is completely irrelevant to our present discussion because
a) even in that link there are no evidence of genetic heritage of that disease, and
b) I simply pointed out that homosexuality is not proven to be genetic, and the entire notion is flawed.
To this you reply:
If you really need proof as to the genetic heretige of Tay-Sachs then please research it yourself. It is extremely well documented and I don't feel like reinventing the wheel.
Well, you'll have to excuse me if I decide not to embark on a career in medical research devoting my professional life to prove positive the genetic heritage of various diseases. Since neither of us can prove anything regarding this genetic issue, I propose that we drop it and agree to disagree on that?
On a related issue, you wrote that "Disease - Trait, no difference in terms of the genes ability to continue its existence." While I'm not sure that is 100% true, I'd like to ask you this question: Do you agree that if homosexuality was genetic, it would matter a great deal if it was proven to be a genetic disease, or a genetic trait?
-
I am a dyslesic agnostic- I don't believe in Dog.
Heh!
-
Forgive me for my impertenance Oh knowledgable one:) .
As to your last point....Trait / Disease? You must have some personal definition you want to share.
Although its been over 20 years since my college genetics class, here is what I remember. A genetic TRAIT is anything controled by the genotype of the individual that is manifested in the phenotype. A genetic disease would be a TRAIT that is detrimental to the health of the individual.
In other words all genetic diseases are genetic traits, not all genetic traits are genetic diseases. Here is a quote from a websight that uses the terms interchangably.
Hemochromatosis:
A"Simple" Genetic Trait
RICHARD D. PRESS
Oregon Health Sciences University
With the discovery of the causative gene, the disorder stands revealed as America's single most common mendelian disease. Unlike other genetic diseases, it is already curable. Indeed, genetic screening makes it potentially preventable.
And here is the link (http://www.hosppract.com/genetics/9908mmc.htm) Mr. Doubting Thomas.
The problem with this definition is that it isnt really a definition at all. Its more like "psychology-talk". If one were to accept the APA:s definition of sexuality we could never label anyone as either homosexual or heterosexual because
a) we dont know what goes on in other peoples heads, and
b) according to the APA definition, it doesnt matter anyway since sexuality changes constantly
The APA was very clear. Experimentation does not equal Orientation. As to sexuality "changing constantly" this is just not the case. I assume you are refering to the "continuum". I'm sure you understand that saying something falls along a continuum doesn't equal "constant change". The number 2 falls along the continuum of numbers, yet will always remain a 2.
I also don't see why there is any question about a person defining their own sexuality. Who the hell else should define it? If you want to change the definition in your mind, I have no way of convincing you otherwise. I would like to point out, however, the tactic you are using to define the issue on your own terms before arguing is just not going to fly.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I would like to point out, however, the tactic you are using to define the issue on your own terms before arguing is just not going to fly.
Heh, well..I am a lawyer..what did you expect? ;)
Anyway...long answer to follow in a couple of hours...I must put the kid to bed first.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
I am a dyslesic agnostic- I don't believe in Dog.
LMAO
And Satan came in through the chimney in red to drop the coal every winter solstice :) :D
-
Originally posted by Tac
LMAO
And Satan came in through the chimney in red to drop the coal every winter solstice :) :D
Nice one :)
I'll believe in God when he believes in me.