For the last time, I am not worried about anybody being gay, including my own kids; although I would be a little disappointed. (I guess just like I was a little disappointed that none of my kids got my wife’s light green eyes.)
But again, we were not discussing any of this stuff, or at least I wasn’t trying to. Maybe when I have more time I’ll go looking for the studies we discussed previously with TimB (?), and others I have come across showing that, for exame, boys who are raped by gays tend to become gay, which, again, seems difficult to explain unless we take the possibility of infection into consideration. But maybe I’ll just let it be, because I am seeing that I would have to spend most of my time defending myself for something I am not saying. It’s the same thing that happens when we talk about race here. It really gets tiring after a while.
George, you are implying in your comment that it would be a negative thing if a child were to be gay rather than straight. That is the only conclusion one can draw when you make the argument that an increased propensity to become gay among children of gay parents ( if such an increase tendency does exist and that had not been established here)is a reason against allowing gay marriages.
George, I found the post on homosexuality and found this from Tim:
FinallyDecided - 06 November 2011 06:48 AM
As a humanist, how do you view homosexuality? Especially when one tries to argue that the natural desire is for humans to procreate and ensure their genes are passed on? Even when any religious influence is removed from the equation, how is the homosexual to feel “normal," biologically? For example, in reading an anatomy and physiology book, the author takes a stance that the reproductive organs exist for the sole purpose of, well, reproducing. How is the homosexual to reconcile this?
As a gay man, I try my best to feel one with mainstream society; however, even in secular society, I still feel the norm is for traditional family. Do humanist’s generally view the same sex couple and family just as valid? I have equated and justified same sex activity, that which does not have any potential to procreate, as similiar to heterosexual activity that also has no potential of procreating (i.e. oral sex, sex using a method of birth control) to be of a similar concept. After all, most of society does not devalue the heterosexual couple that participates in sexual activity that has no chance of procreating (i.e. when they habitually use a method of birth control or engage in a sex act that does not procreate). Should same sex sexual activity be viewed any differently, given that neither (in the aforementioned situation) has the intention of procreating? Do you all agree with my reasoning? Any further insight or views would be appreciated.
The world has done too well, IMO, in regards to procreating. From my perspective, more same sex couples are a good thing. They can adopt if they want kids.
His is the last sentence.
Cap’t Jack
Jack,
I was referring to the links in that conversation, not what Tim had said. I don’t really care much about what people think is right or wrong.
macgyver,
I am not implying anything. I think I was quite explicit when I said I wouldn’t want MY kids to be gay had I have the choice. I wouldn’t want my kids to get circumcised either, but I couldn’t care less if every other kid is circumcised. Ask me, however, if I wished circumcision was illegal, and my answer would be ‘yes.’ Who knows, maye my kids will end up marrying a Jew one day who may insist on butchering my future grandson.
Jack, I was referring to the links in that conversation, not what Tim had said. I don’t really care much about what people think is right or wrong.You'll find the posts under the title Homosexuality introd by Finally Decided, and there are 84 I believe including Tim's remarks. it's a pretty lively discussion too. Cap't Jack
I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you'll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.This is your quote George. If you are not implying that gay is somehow an inferior outcome than why do we have to wait until we understand why gay parents lead to more gay children ( your contention not mine) before we allow gays to marry and have children? If gay and heterosexual children are to be viewed equally then the cause may be of academic interest but should not have any bearing on whether we give same sex couples the right to adopt kids. As an aside, I don't know this with any degree of certainty, but I do believe that same sex parents are already allowed to adopt children.
And everybody deserves to own a house, including those who can’t come up with a down payment, right? No, we wouldn’t want to imply they might be inferior. Good luck with that faith thing, you and Paul and everybody else. I am done here.
As an aside, I don't know this with any degree of certainty, but I do believe that same sex parents are already allowed to adopt children.Yep, we've had several adoptions by gay or lesbian couples of infants abandoned by (ahem) heterosexual parents, in my neonatal unit.
I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you'll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.This is your quote George. If you are not implying that gay is somehow an inferior outcome than why do we have to wait until we understand why gay parents lead to more gay children ( your contention not mine) before we allow gays to marry and have children? If gay and heterosexual children are to be viewed equally then the cause may be of academic interest but should not have any bearing on whether we give same sex couples the right to adopt kids. As an aside, I don't know this with any degree of certainty, but I do believe that same sex parents are already allowed to adopt children. That's right, and there are 40,000 children in California alone that are being raised by gay couples. A lot of those children have been adopted and many of them were among the many children that heterosexual couples didn't want because they weren't the "right" color or they had physical or mental "defects". Not allowing gay couples to adopt meant that the "unadoptable" children we're relegated to the foster care system or group homes where they often got very poor care and little guidance. I should also point out, though it's a shame that it's necessary, that a lot of kids being raised by gay couples are children who are the biological children of one of the gay couple. Many Lesbian women have had children in a failed marriage to a man and others have chosen to be artificilially inseminated. Some Lesbian couples choose as the sperm donor a brother of the other partner so there is a genetic link between them. Males, too, have children by a failed marriage or a birth while they were dating a woman but were unmarried, just as heterosexual men do. It would be interesting to know if gay men are less likely to abandon their "inconvenient" offspring than heterosexual men are. I know a gay male couple who adopted a baby who was HIV positive--one that no heterosexual couple wanted. One of the couple is an MD. The child receives excellent care and is now a healthy and well adjusted 10 year old. What his fate might have been in the foster care system is anyone's guess. But, hey, let's continue to keep gays from adopting and keep the population pure. Lois ....
And everybody deserves to own a house, including those who can't come up with a down payment, right? No, we wouldn't want to imply they might be inferior. Good luck with that faith thing, you and Paul and everybody else. I am done here.You'd be surprised at the number of LBGT people who have children before coming 'out'. These children are still theirs afterward.
Males, too, have children by a failed marriage or a birth while they were dating a woman but were unmarried, just as heterosexual men do. It would be interesting to know if gay men are less likely to abandon their "inconvenient" offspring than heterosexual men are.There's no reliable objective data on that, but I've known a couple of gay men who have kids as a result of forced hetero relationships, and they aren't involved in the kids' upbringing - except maybe financially. Relatively, I would imagine that gay men would be less enthusiastic about children than gay women would.
Males, too, have children by a failed marriage or a birth while they were dating a woman but were unmarried, just as heterosexual men do. It would be interesting to know if gay men are less likely to abandon their "inconvenient" offspring than heterosexual men are.There's no reliable objective data on that, but I've known a couple of gay men who have kids as a result of forced hetero relationships, and they aren't involved in the kids' upbringing - except maybe financially. Relatively, I would imagine that gay men would be less enthusiastic about children than gay women would. I don't know. It would be an interesting topic of research.
I know lots of men and women, mostly my age, who were once married in an attempt to deny their sexuality, and then went on to have the inevitably children…and then failed marriages, most often the ‘hetero’ spouse ended up with full custody, and shut the gay or lesbian spouse out of the child’s life. Thankfully, things are changing now.
And everybody deserves to own a house, including those who can't come up with a down payment, right? No, we wouldn't want to imply they might be inferior. Good luck with that faith thing, you and Paul and everybody else. I am done here.George, none of what I said was meant as a personal attack. Debates like this are a good opportunity to take a look at your thought processes and see if they are logical. If you think it is less desirable to be gay than to be heterosexual then say so and explain why. That is an entirely separate debate.
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.Well, most will say it's not a choice. I found the interesting article below that seems to be on to something from a medical/scientific standpoint. http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality If the orientation of parents set the example for the child, then I should be straight as I was raised my my mother in father who were married and I was not exposed to any gay people as a child or even early teen. Don't gay people come from straight people? You seem to imply that homosexual orientation is not only a choice, but a bad one at that. From your previous posts in this thread, you make it sound like adopted children will catch "gay."
As far as I can tell, the pathogen hypothesis makes the most sense. I obviously don’t believe there is some “gay bug,” but it could very well be some kind of virus that rewires the brain, similarly to what toxo does. I guess the next step would be to figure out if it can be contagious. And that’s pretty much it. I just want to know more before I can decide if gays should be allowed to adopt kids.
As far as I can tell, the pathogen hypothesis makes the most sense. I obviously don't believe there is some "gay bug," but it could very well be some kind of virus that rewires the brain, similarly to what toxo does. I guess the next step would be to figure out if it can be contagious. And that's pretty much it. I just want to know more before I can decide if gays should be allowed to adopt kids.So you think being gay is a disease? You are ignoring several decades of research showing that children raised in households of two lesbian mothers or two gay fathers have "no higher percentage of gay children" than heterosexual couples. See Gay Parents and Their Children]. This will only show the first page, but includes the phrase I quoted here. If you need any more convincing I'll try to find time to log into our university library and download some full studies for you. You should go to Google Scholar and search on the phrase "do same sex parents raise gay children." I did a few minutes ago, and found a plethora of research refuting your concerns.
I just want to know more before I can decide if gays should be allowed to adopt kids.You are waaaay too late. Gays, both single and couples are already adopting kids, and have been for years, mostly kids deemed as otherwise unadoptable. So you are willing to consign these children to a life of serial foster care, bouncing from one home to another, rather than a loving home headed by one or two people who happen to be gay? So you thing the gay parent is a worse choice than foster care because of the possibility of the child growing up to be gay? That makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention, gay couples have been having biological children, in one manner or another forever.
As far as I can tell, the pathogen hypothesis makes the most sense. I obviously don't believe there is some "gay bug," but it could very well be some kind of virus that rewires the brain, similarly to what toxo does. I guess the next step would be to figure out if it can be contagious. And that's pretty much it. I just want to know more before I can decide if gays should be allowed to adopt kids.Can I ask what basis you have for believing it is pathogenic and contagious? I am not a medical doctor, but I am in the medical field and pathogens are insidious in nature, which manifest in illnesses with physical signs and measurable lab values. By contagious, do you think a gay person can cough or something similar, thus spreading their homosexuality? And if so, why would this only affect any potential children that would be adopted? Why wouldn't it affect anyone, to include adults who come in contact with a homosexual. You say you don't believe there is a "gay bug", but what do you think a pathogen is? By definition, a gay pathogen would be a "bug" because a pathogen is a virus, bacterium or fungus. So, you think homosexuality is a disease, from what I am gathering. Also, pathogens tend to be very insidious, getting increasingly worse in the host without treatment. The hypothesis you present is suggesting there is a gay bug. In fact, what you're presenting might as well just put gay people right back in milieu of the 1950's and prior: -Protect the kids from the homosexuals! -Don't let the kids around their gay uncle! -Maybe gays shouldn't be allowed to be teachers! And to quote you again, "I just want to know more before I can decide if gays should be allowed to adopt kids." So, you think you should decide on other peoples families? I am backing out of this thread. This is ridiculous and insulting. This is an argument that sounds like one that would come from someone 100 years ago.
And to quote you again, "I just want to know more before I can decide if gays should be allowed to adopt kids." So, you think you should decide on other peoples families? I am backing out of this thread. This is ridiculous and insulting. This is an argument that sounds like one that would come from someone 100 years ago.Yes, it is. George is usually pretty good at critical thinking, but on this subject he seems to be letting his ideology override his logic.