more long term research will finally settle the issue. In the meantime it remains a civil rights issue.In the meantime? It will stay a civil rights issue, whatever the outcome of such research.
Thevillageatheist - 27 March 2013 09:10 AM more long term research will finally settle the issue. In the meantime it remains a civil rights issue. In the meantime? It will stay a civil rights issue, whatever the outcome of such research.Of course it's a civil rights issue and my intent wasn't to tie genetics into that argument. I was specifically addressing George's concern over the influence of gay parents on their children. What I meant was that the nature-nurture argument was a sideline to the issue of gay marriage. Cap't Jack
... let's first see where the numbers of kids turning gay while surrounded by other gays are coming from.And you say you don't have a problem with gays? Sounds to me like you have conflicting beliefs and have not analyzed them closely enough to figure out which way to lean. I'll repeat: So what? If you truly don't care about people's sexual orientation why are you so worried about children becoming gay? I already said I am worried (a little worried) about MY kids turning gay. If you had a chance to prevent your children or grandchildren from becoming gay, wouldn't you? I am simply not a person who thinks that competing for the Darwin Award is all that noble. I like me and I want my genes to stick around for awhile.I didn't realize you were a closet bigot George. So many of your others posts are unbigoted. "Turning gay" is what gives you away. People don't turn gay, in the same way they don't turn hetero. But then again maybe you're an old coot who's stuck in the past. Maybe you don't believe in science and in particular the science that tells us homosexuality is a trait one is born with. OR maybe you're just a real REAL bad communicator and you used the wrong words to express your discomfort with homosexuality. Regardless, I think Occam is right...you just need a little self-analysis because it sounds like you've got some internal conflicting notions floating around in your head. Good luck.
Back to the original post… so many folks in this thread are presenting great arguments why same sex marriage should be ok, why this or that isn’t being considered (well being of kids, etc). None of that matters, and to the extent that you focus on that, you miss the point and allow the bigots to gain ground. The bigots are out to push their religious views on others, plain and simple. Everything else is just a ruse. No different from all the tactics they use in the creationism realm. They try new labels (intelligent design) etc. to hide their agenda, but it’s plain and simple…imposing their religion on others.
I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you'll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.If that's true then logic dictates that children who grow up in heterosexual households are more likely to identify as heterosexual. Then by the same logic we should then outlaw heterosexual marriages shouldn't we? To argue any other way would be to imply that being homosexual makes one less of a person or leads to a less worthwhile life.
We don't know why it happens which a is why I think it's troubling. What if homosexuality is caused by a pathogen and the kids simply get infected? And if you think I am crazy for asking this question, let me assure you I am not the only one; this was on Pinker's list of "dangerous ideas." And no, gays aren't any less human than heterosexuals, but if I had a choice, I would prefer my kids didn't turn gay.Then maybe you should give them to a gay couple to raise, George. Children raised in gay households are no more likely to be gay than kids raised by heterosexual households. In fact, nearly every gay person has been born to and raised by straight parents. So if you are worried about your kids "turning gay", it's heterosexual parents, even yourself, you should be worried about. Maybe it's heterosexuals who should be prevented from raising kids! If there's a pathogen (which is ridiculous on its face) it must be being passed around in heterosexual households, and must have been been at least since biblical times. Several states, including California already allow gay adoptions. There are 40,00 children being raised by gay parents in California alone. It will be interesting to see how many of them are gay. I'm betting that it will be the same percentage as those raised by heterosexual parents. You'd better find something else to worry about, George. Meanwhile keep an eye on your own kids and all kids who are being raised by heterosexuals. You never know what might be going on! Run for the hills!
... let's first see where the numbers of kids turning gay while surrounded by other gays are coming from.And you say you don't have a problem with gays? Sounds to me like you have conflicting beliefs and have not analyzed them closely enough to figure out which way to lean. I'll repeat: So what? If you truly don't care about people's sexual orientation why are you so worried about children becoming gay? I already said I am worried (a little worried) about MY kids turning gay. If you had a chance to prevent your children or grandchildren from becoming gay, wouldn't you? I am simply not a person who thinks that competing for the Darwin Award is all that noble. I like me and I want my genes to stick around for awhile.I didn't realize you were a closet bigot George. So many of your others posts are unbigoted. "Turning gay" is what gives you away. People don't turn gay, in the same way they don't turn hetero. But then again maybe you're an old coot who's stuck in the past. Maybe you don't believe in science and in particular the science that tells us homosexuality is a trait one is born with. OR maybe you're just a real REAL bad communicator and you used the wrong words to express your discomfort with homosexuality. Regardless, I think Occam is right...you just need a little self-analysis because it sounds like you've got some internal conflicting notions floating around in your head. Good luck.No need to go this far, he's not a native English speaker. I think George means "turn out" gay, rather than change from straight to gay.
20 young people opposed to gay marriage. And good grammar.] The level of stupidity expressed by the folks interviewed is just staggering, and I say this as a resident of a state where the elected officials were worried that a mop sink was for Muslims to wash their feet.]
Building managers and legislative staffers have sought to reassure some concerned Tennessee lawmakers that recent renovations at the state Capitol did not install special facilities for Muslims to wash their feet before praying.
“I confirmed with the facility administrator for the State Capitol Complex that the floor-level sink installed in the men’s restroom outside the House Chamber is for housekeeping use," Legislative Administration Director Connie Ridley wrote in an email. “It is, in layman’s terms, a mop sink."
I have not read any data that kids of gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves; there is data that shows they might be more comfortable with “experimenting” with gay people/lifestyles, that’s far from being gay, however.
http://faculty.law.miami.edu/mcoombs/documents/Stacey_Biblarz.pdf
No need to go this far, he's not a native English speaker. I think George means "turn out" gay, rather than change from straight to gay.No, I meant what I said.
No need to go this far, he's not a native English speaker. I think George means "turn out" gay, rather than change from straight to gay.No, I meant what I said. George. All the peer-reviewed research I read indicated children raised in gay households are neither more nor less likely to become gay adults than children raised in heterosexual households. Additionally, there is no ethical basis for denying same-sex marriage. The only published objections I could find were religious ones. If you are worried that your children might become gay you are quite close to hypocrisy, stating it is OK for other people's children to be gay but not your own.
I don’t have time to look for it now, but I remember reading what seemed like reliable data (as far as I recall) showing that boys adopted into families that had gay members were more likely to be gay than boys adopted into straight families. I think it was TimB who posted it. I didn’t like it when I first saw it but there it was.
And I don’t know if I am being a hypocrite, as I stated over and over that what concerns me is my children. There are a lot of things other people do I don’t like, but as long as it doesn’t affect me or my kids (or doesn’t seem to have the potential to affect me or my kids) I couldn’t care less. Don’t forget, I am not a Humanist, or whatever it is that drives you, people, to turn into moral realists.
And if saying that I don’t wish for my kids to become gay makes me a homophobe, then be it.
I don't have time to look for it now, but I remember reading what seemed like reliable data (as far as I recall) showing that boys adopted into families that had gay members were more likely to be gay than boys adopted into straight families. I think it was TimB who posted it. I didn't like it when I first saw it but there it was. And I don't know if I am being a hypocrite, as I stated over and over that what concerns me is my children. There are a lot of things other people do I don't like, but as long as it doesn't affect me or my kids (or doesn't seem to have the potential to affect me or my kids) I couldn't care less. Don't forget, I am not a Humanist, or whatever it is that drives you, people, to turn into moral realists. And if saying that I don't wish for my kids to become gay makes me a homophobe, then be it.Actually it makes you an idiot, but that's not your biggest problem. Your children are as likely to mirror your intellect as your sexuality. And that's the real danger to them that you apparently overlook.
Careful here, Lois. The only reason I will not respond in a tone similar to yours is because I think I should take your age into consideration before I lose my cool. I won’t be this forgiving again, though.
Actually it makes you an idiot, but that's not your biggest problem.Lois, we have rules against using personal epithets like these. Please confine yourself to the arguments. Thanks.
Over the years I’ve known quite a few heterosexual couples (never known any single sexual couples) and it seems that between five and ten percent of their offspring have grown up to be gay. I’ve looked for factors that may have caused their orientation but have never been able to identify any. So George, you may wish to have your children be heterosexual and the probabilities are in that direction, but there is a small chance that one or more may not be, and I don’t know of any way you can bias it in the direction you desire.
By the way, I have a very good memory, so I couldn’t help but smile at Lois’ nasty comment to George, because long, long ago George was also warned about something similar. :lol: It takes a while, but Doug does manage to condition most of us to become more courteous. 
Occam
If my kids are gay, they are gay. Not a big deal. But that’s not what we were talking about.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what your last sentence in post #31 meant.
Occam
If my kids are gay, they are gay. Not a big deal. But that's not what we were talking about.You're the one who steered the conversation this direction.
I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you'll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.I'd still like to see the peer-reviewed research confirming this because everything I found when researching gay marriage for my ethical analysis class contradicts what you are saying. The only research I am aware of that supports your opinion was published last year by Mark Regnerus of The University of Texas at Austin. His methodology was seriously flawed and his findings have met vehement criticism in sociological academia. See this article] at Inside Higher Ed.
I don't have time to look for it now, but I remember reading what seemed like reliable data (as far as I recall) showing that boys adopted into families that had gay members were more likely to be gay than boys adopted into straight families. I think it was TimB who posted it. I didn't like it when I first saw it but there it was.What about girls born into lesbian families? Don't they matter? Aren't you concerned about the percentages of these children that turn out to be lesbians? ...but really, if a higher percentage of these children become LGBT, so what. You should be more concerned that they grow up to become happy, functional members of the society they live in. Period.