PDA

View Full Version : Gay parents more likely to have gay kids.


zulater
10-17-2010, 09:42 AM
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C1782 55

I know the PC's will hate this, but shouldn't this be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense? I guess if I were to take anything from this study it would be that I'd probably be very carefull about allowing lesbians to adopt. If the study is correct their influence is much more exteme in promoting homosexuality than it is with gay men.

Damn it, I effed up, can one of the mods edit the title to state "gay" kids?! :doh:

SteelCityMom
10-17-2010, 10:07 AM
I get what you mean, but think the study is a little skewed still.

I do understand his point that lesbian mothers might encourage their female children to "try out girls", but what about their boy children? Does the same apply there? I would imagine that a straight male child of two lesbian mothers would be a less aggressive child and more "in tune" to womens feelings...if that makes any sense.

Also, did he compare his research of gay parents to straight parents and how many gay children come from straight couples? I'm willing to bet the number would be less...but you have to factor in that gay children of straight couples are more likely to repress their tendencies. They do not "come out" as easily, I don't think that makes them any less gay in the long run though.

This study has a lot of holes in it IMO. But was an interesting read nonetheless.

zulater
10-17-2010, 10:13 AM
I get what you mean, but think the study is a little skewed still.

I do understand his point that lesbian mothers might encourage their female children to "try out girls", but what about their boy children? Does the same apply there? I would imagine that a straight male child of two lesbian mothers would be a less aggressive child and more "in tune" to womens feelings...if that makes any sense.

Also, did he compare his research of gay parents to straight parents and how many gay children come from straight couples? I'm willing to bet the number would be less...but you have to factor in that gay children of straight couples are more likely to repress their tendencies. They do not "come out" as easily.

This study has a lot of holes in it IMO. But was an interesting read nonetheless.

Put it this way, I think I'd be inclined to check what sort of relationship a lesbian couple had with their father and brothers before allowing them to adopt a girl. If they were trying to adopt a boy that in and of itself would probably indicate they have a healthy attitude towards men, therefore as long as they passed the normal adoption proccess I'd give it the green light.

With gay men it looks to me as if they should be afforded normal consideration based on other relevant factors. .

SteelCityMom
10-17-2010, 10:29 AM
Put it this way, I think I'd be inclined to check what sort of relationship a lesbian couple had with their father and brothers before allowing them to adopt a girl. If they were trying to adopt a boy that in and of itself would probably indicate they have a healthy attitude towards men, therefore as long as they passed the normal adoption proccess I'd give it the green light.

With gay men it looks to me as if they should be afforded normal consideration based on other relevant factors. .


I can agree on this...but to go further, I think anyone adopting a child should be heavily screened (and they usually are). Also, remember that lesbians don't necessarily need to adopt. They can have babies through sperm donors. I don't know if that's the route most take, but I would think, from a legal standpoint anyway, that it would be easier. Some also have kids "the old fashioned way", sometimes even with a gay man. I don't think that's as common though.

It's controversial now, but there are scientists that are working on creating mammal babies from two eggs (has actually been done with mice in Japan...the mouse Kaguya has two genetic mothers).

TOOLofSTEEL
10-17-2010, 03:21 PM
The only thing having gay parents might do is encourage people to be bisexual. You can't turn an other wise straight boy or girl, gay where they only desire the same sex. If they want the opposite sex no amount of encouraging will change that. The encouraging could however lead to, hey I'm horny and that person of the same sex is down with it. Lets make it happen.

Other than I see this going no where. I don't really concern myself with the gay issue, just the stagnant birth rate in developed nations... And thats not just a gay issue its a, nobody can afford to have kids any more issue.

MasterOfPuppets
10-17-2010, 04:28 PM
i'm not saying a gay couple can't be good parents , but kids can be very cruel . is it really fair to set kids up to receive the kind of ridicule that they'll inevitably receive from their peers ? a friend of mines ex wife decided to give fur trading a go when their daughter was in her early teens . he had custody, and i seen the effects first hand. that poor kid came home from school in tears more than once after a so called "friend" of hers made it public.

TOOLofSTEEL
10-17-2010, 05:10 PM
i'm not saying a gay couple can't be good parents , but kids can be very cruel . is it really fair to set kids up to receive the kind of ridicule that they'll inevitably receive from their peers ? a friend of mines ex wife decided to give fur trading a go when their daughter was in her early teens . he had custody, and i seen the effects first hand. that poor kid came home from school in tears more than once after a so called "friend" of hers made it public.

Over fur trading?! I mean its a little unusual but still. Sounds like the only reason they heckled her about it is they realized she was embarrassed by it herself. :doh:

MasterOfPuppets
10-17-2010, 06:10 PM
Over fur trading?! I mean its a little unusual but still. Sounds like the only reason they heckled her about it is they realized she was embarrassed by it herself. :doh:
and how would you have felt if when you were 12 or 13 , your classmates find out your dad is a pickle smoker and your classmates start making fun of it ?

SteelCityMom
10-17-2010, 06:21 PM
and how would you have felt if when you were 12 or 13 , your classmates find out your dad is a pickle smoker and your classmates start making fun of it ?

I'd punch them in the face and say smoke this!

I get your point that kids are cruel though. Gay children and children of gay parents certainly don't have it easy....they are walking targets. That's why I don't like the high horse attitude that a lot of folks have in this country about how Muslims treat gays. They may have harsh laws against it, but our societal laws might as well be just as harsh. There's no real easy solution to any of it though except to educate people and hope that the bullying and hate (especially at the teen and pre-teen level) gets better.

SteelersinCA
10-17-2010, 07:36 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C1782 55

I know the PC's will hate this, but shouldn't this be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense? I guess if I were to take anything from this study it would be that I'd probably be very carefull about allowing lesbians to adopt. If the study is correct their influence is much more exteme in promoting homosexuality than it is with gay men.

Damn it, I effed up, can one of the mods edit the title to state "gay" kids?! :doh:

Are you kidding me? What part of the Constitution would allow you to "be more carefull (sic) about allowing lesbians to adopt?" Aren't you the guy criticizing Islam repeatedly? Somehow you think your morals are A-OK to be thrust upon the rest of humanity?

"I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic," Schumm tells AOL News.

Gee, I wonder whose position that helps? Bias much?

If gay parents could convince a child to be gay, why can't straight parents convince their gay children to be straight? Oh I forgot, we can only use commons sense that fits our little hypothetical. :jerkit: :rolleyes:

zulater
10-17-2010, 07:52 PM
Are you kidding me? What part of the Constitution would allow you to "be more carefull (sic) about allowing lesbians to adopt?" Aren't you the guy criticizing Islam repeatedly? Somehow you think your morals are A-OK to be thrust upon the rest of humanity?



Gee, I wonder whose position that helps? Bias much?

If gay parents could convince a child to be gay, why can't straight parents convince their gay children to be straight? Oh I forgot, we can only use commons sense that fits our little hypothetical. :jerkit: :rolleyes:

You don't have real good reading comprehension so no use me wasting my time explaining things that you'll only misunderstand. :coffee:

BURNSY
10-17-2010, 08:11 PM
WTF ... Why are there even threads like this going on. What in the hell does it have to do with Football or the Steelers? This kind of thing really should not even be a topic. Just let people be. :mad:

SteelCityMom
10-17-2010, 08:38 PM
WTF ... Why are there even threads like this going on. What in the hell does it have to do with Football or the Steelers? This kind of thing really should not even be a topic. Just let people be. :mad:

It's in the Locker room...where non-football related topics go. If you skim through the list of sub forums, not all of them have to do with the Steelers or even football.

People are welcome to discuss anything they want on here pretty much. If you don't like the topic, don't open the thread would be my advice.

ricardisimo
10-17-2010, 08:46 PM
http://smiliesftw.com/x/2u7wruo.gif

BURNSY
10-17-2010, 08:53 PM
The "forum" its in is irrelevent. Why does it have to be a topic? I am not one of those "PC" type of people. I just believe in letting individuals live there lives the way they want to without having to worry about others passing judgement. Especially if they are not interfering with lives of people who feel it necessary to make something out of situations that really are none of their business. There is enough BS that goes on in this world that needs to be worried about such as theft, violence, financial stress, so on and so forth. I am not gay nor (as I said before), not one of those "PC" people, but this is one of those topics that quite honestly could be in the same category as racism or something.

SteelCityMom
10-17-2010, 09:14 PM
The "forum" its in is irrelevent. Why does it have to be a topic? I am not one of those "PC" type of people. I just believe in letting individuals live there lives the way they want to without having to worry about others passing judgement. Especially if they are not interfering with lives of people who feel it necessary to make something out of situations that really are none of their business. There is enough BS that goes on in this world that needs to be worried about such as theft, violence, financial stress, so on and so forth. I am not gay nor (as I said before), not one of those "PC" people, but this is one of those topics that quite honestly could be in the same category as racism or something.

Like I already said, people are pretty much free to post on whatever topic they want, as long as it's kept respectful and is in the proper section. Again, if you don't care for the topic, just don't open the thread. That's the best advice I can give you.

Your initial post suggested though that topics that are not related to the Steelers or football didn't belong on the forum...that's why I felt the need to tell you that there are different sub forums for different topics. This sub forum is pretty much for posting on any topic (outside of Steelers and football news) that you want to. It's just a discussion, not a call to judge or hurt anyone, and it's perfectly legitimate. I have no problems with people sharing ideas.

BURNSY
10-17-2010, 09:18 PM
Understood ... I guess I just take that sort of thing a little more serious than some. We have no idea as to how many of our members fall into the category. Therefore how many of them are, or may be offended. Thats my main point :noidea:

Either Way ... GO STEELERS !!!!! :drink:

SteelCityMom
10-17-2010, 09:23 PM
Understood ... I guess I just take that sort of thing a little more serious than some. We have no idea as to how many of our members fall into the category. Therefore how many of them are, or may be offended. Thats my main point :noidea:

Either Way ... GO STEELERS !!!!! :drink:

No problems....I'd hope that if anyone here was gay, and was offended, they'd feel like they could speak up and say something. I'm all for that. I really don't think it was Zu's intentions to offend anyone though.

MattsMe
10-17-2010, 09:55 PM
Tom Brady's parents are straight. This study means nothing.

TOOLofSTEEL
10-17-2010, 10:41 PM
and how would you have felt if when you were 12 or 13 , your classmates find out your dad is a pickle smoker and your classmates start making fun of it ?

I got picked on at that age anyway in school. So I'd just deal with it like the rest of the garbage.

TOOLofSTEEL
10-17-2010, 10:51 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C1782 55

I know the PC's will hate this, but shouldn't this be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense? I guess if I were to take anything from this study it would be that I'd probably be very carefull about allowing lesbians to adopt. If the study is correct their influence is much more exteme in promoting homosexuality than it is with gay men.

Damn it, I effed up, can one of the mods edit the title to state "gay" kids?! :doh:

Okay, explain to me why "promoting homosexuality" is a bad thing? You have some sort of religious motivation behind this? Or is this just a matter of, but they will pick on the poor kid? Just trying to get an idea of where you stand on this.

BURNSY
10-17-2010, 10:53 PM
Tom Brady's parents are straight. This study means nothing.

:rofl:

MasterOfPuppets
10-17-2010, 11:42 PM
hmmmm..... the study doesn't say anything about us lesbians that are trapped in mens bodies ...:noidea:

Shea
10-17-2010, 11:49 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C1782 55

I know the PC's will hate this, but shouldn't this be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense? I guess if I were to take anything from this study it would be that I'd probably be very carefull about allowing lesbians to adopt. If the study is correct their influence is much more exteme in promoting homosexuality than it is with gay men.

Damn it, I effed up, can one of the mods edit the title to state "gay" kids?! :doh:

Another thread that I can't get beyond the first post.

What a bunch of bullshit.

MasterOfPuppets
10-18-2010, 12:10 AM
this thread needs some Mel !!!

ej8H926Hmaw

MasterOfPuppets
10-18-2010, 12:22 AM
I got picked on at that age anyway in school. So I'd just deal with it like the rest of the garbage.
let me guess... you were in the chess club ? :sofunny: ...... not that there's anything wrong with that ...:nerd:

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 02:14 AM
You don't have real good reading comprehension so no use me wasting my time explaining things that you'll only misunderstand. :coffee:

Translation: you cannot even begin to explain your bigotry.

ricardisimo
10-18-2010, 03:04 AM
Oh, and did I mention http://smiliesftw.com/x/2u7wruo.gif ?

zulater
10-18-2010, 05:44 AM
Another thread that I can't get beyond the first post.

What a bunch of bullshit.

Uh because you disagree with it? Usual leftist approach, if you disagree with the premise you dismiss the research without thought or consideration as to the actual content or conclusions.

You can claim that being gay or straight is an inborn thing, that a person can't be influenced to be something they're not, and to a large degree you'd be right, but not entirely. And that's where this topic starts and can lead to reasonable conversation among reasonable people.

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 03:17 PM
Uh because you disagree with it? Usual leftist approach, if you disagree with the premise you dismiss the research without thought or consideration as to the actual content or conclusions.

You can claim that being gay or straight is an inborn thing, that a person can't be influenced to be something they're not, and to a large degree you'd be right, but not entirely. And that's where this topic starts and can lead to reasonable conversation among reasonable people.

but we cannot have a reasonable discussion among reasonable people. discussion in an open forum is tantamount to facism. you bring up an interesting topic for conversation, but, by doing that, you are a) a bigot b) a homophobe c) a self-loathing homosexual d) all of the above.
if we can have these conversations, which many that are not gay, and are looking for understanding of being gay, then there will/should be more acceptance of being gay. is that not the point?
many that do not agree with being gay, per se, but don't want to be hateful to others, and infringe on their rights, are looking for answers. as i am. i do so for many reasons, and have/am trying to figure out exactly how things fit. my philosophy may change, with open discussion, and gaining further knowledge. but this, you can't question or say anything, because your'e an obvious bigot crap needs to stop. that kind of thing, makes it more likely that those that are willing to change their minds on things of this nature, won't.

Fire Arians
10-18-2010, 03:19 PM
gay parents are more likely to adopt gay kids

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 03:21 PM
gay parents are more likely to adopt gay kids

huh?

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 04:02 PM
but we cannot have a reasonable discussion among reasonable people. discussion in an open forum is tantamount to facism. you bring up an interesting topic for conversation, but, by doing that, you are a) a bigot b) a homophobe c) a self-loathing homosexual d) all of the above.
if we can have these conversations, which many that are not gay, and are looking for understanding of being gay, then there will/should be more acceptance of being gay. is that not the point?
many that do not agree with being gay, per se, but don't want to be hateful to others, and infringe on their rights, are looking for answers. as i am. i do so for many reasons, and have/am trying to figure out exactly how things fit. my philosophy may change, with open discussion, and gaining further knowledge. but this, you can't question or say anything, because your'e an obvious bigot crap needs to stop. that kind of thing, makes it more likely that those that are willing to change their minds on things of this nature, won't.

See, Zu posts an article, deems it gospel honest truth and anyone who disagrees or questions it is a leftist, can't read or somehow is inferior to the truth he posted. Hence, the very definition of bigot. Not to mention even the greatest thinkers throughout history, Aristotle, Descartes, etc. claim in order to validate a conclusion you must examine the premise. Zu wants you to accept the premise and then therefore you are only left with one conclusion. Ass backwards.

If gay parents influence straight kids into becoming gay (even though the "study" examined 20-something "children") why can't straight parents influence their gay kids to become straight????

Ironically enough, Mr. Schumm teaches not only about family studies but, wait for it....wait.....ISLAM!!!!!! Surprise, surprise....

http://www.he.k-state.edu/directory/schumm/ :sofunny::blah:

MattsMe
10-18-2010, 04:11 PM
gay parents are more likely to adopt gay kids

:sofunny: Makes sense to me.

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 04:38 PM
See, Zu posts an article, deems it gospel honest truth and anyone who disagrees or questions it is a leftist, can't read or somehow is inferior to the truth he posted. Hence, the very definition of bigot. Not to mention even the greatest thinkers throughout history, Aristotle, Descartes, etc. claim in order to validate a conclusion you must examine the premise. Zu wants you to accept the premise and then therefore you are only left with one conclusion. Ass backwards.

If gay parents influence straight kids into becoming gay (even though the "study" examined 20-something "children") why can't straight parents influence their gay kids to become straight????

Ironically enough, Mr. Schumm teaches not only about family studies but, wait for it....wait.....ISLAM!!!!!! Surprise, surprise....

http://www.he.k-state.edu/directory/schumm/ :sofunny::blah:

let's see.....instead of discussing his conclusion, and how he came about it....you responded immediately w/a snarky comment followed by a jerking off smiley. he called you a leftist, after you called him a bigot. he and SC were having an interesting conversation about it. tit for tat, i would say.

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 04:41 PM
:sofunny: Makes sense to me.

possibly, if the adopting parents know beforehand the kids are gay. i don't know how often that happens. which then leads into the conversation of when do gay kids know there gay? at what age, considering they are still growing(biologically), and emotionally, do they realize, or accept, that indeed they are gay, and not "experimenting," etc? don't know.

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 04:58 PM
let's see.....instead of discussing his conclusion, and how he came about it....you responded immediately w/a snarky comment followed by a jerking off smiley. he called you a leftist, after you called him a bigot. he and SC were having an interesting conversation about it. tit for tat, i would say.

Actually, he didn't call me a leftist, he said I don't have "good reading comprehension." He called someone else a leftist. Either way ,I don't care what he calls me, I have no issue with that. However, if you notice, I do address his conclusion. The very first thing I say:

Are you kidding me? What part of the Constitution would allow you to "be more carefull (sic) about allowing lesbians to adopt?" Aren't you the guy criticizing Islam repeatedly? Somehow you think your morals are A-OK to be thrust upon the rest of humanity?

His conclusion, which I assume he meant when he said, what he takes away from the article was he would be more careful about letting lesbians adopt.

So I simply asked, what legal basis would there be to give a higher standard to lesbians?? That seems to be addressing his conclusion from my perspective, no?

Gee, I wonder whose position that helps? Bias much?

If gay parents could convince a child to be gay, why can't straight parents convince their gay children to be straight? Oh I forgot, we can only use commons sense that fits our little hypothetical. :jerkit: :rolleyes:

Then I further address the bias in the author, and then finish addressing the logical conclusion that if gay parents influence straight kids to become gay, why can straight parents influence gay to become straight?

Then came the snarky comment, which was again, in response to his conclusive statement that anyone with common sense can see this author is right.

Be that as it may, the reason I called him a bigot, was due to his responses. For reference the real definition of bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot The statement "shouldn't this be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense?" Seems pretty condescending and bigoted to me. Perhaps you disagree. I call it like I see it.

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 05:17 PM
eh.....to each there own, you two kids can fight it out. i'm just tired of the "bigot" card being thrown out every two seconds. iv'e read zu's posts, and i don't find them anymore "intolerant" than anyone else on here. just as iv'e read yours.

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 05:36 PM
eh.....to each there own, you two kids can fight it out. i'm just tired of the "bigot" card being thrown out every two seconds. iv'e read zu's posts, and i don't find them anymore "intolerant" than anyone else on here. just as iv'e read yours.

I haven't really seen it thrown around too much. Maybe you have a different experience. It's not my intention to fight anything out. I'd just like to know how one would justify giving lesbians a higher scrutiny than anyone else who is adopting and how come straight parents can't influence gay kids to be straight?

My questions really have nothing to do with the article. They are more in response to Zu's conclusions. He's the one that said greater scrutiny should be applied to lesbians, not the article. You see I find this to often be the case with right leaning people. They are all for the Constitution when it suits them. They want to talk about the great protections of our laws and then out of the other side of their mouth ask for it to be violated. However, when it doesn't suit them, they are left with nothing to say. I'm not saying Zu necessarily espouses this, but he continually (right or wrong it's neither here nor there) lambastes Islam and Muslims for their treatment of people who don't follow their beliefs. I found it entirely ironic in this instance that he would mirror the intolerance he so frequently is against.

What is the harm with being gay? Why is it injurious to our society to have a 12% gay population as opposed to a 10% gay population. What exactly is the harm of lesbians producing gay children at a greater rate than gay men? (If it's even scientifically sound) Because it offends someone's morals, someone's beliefs?

I'm against gay marriage, I think it is morally wrong according to my beliefs, however I am cognizant of our Nation's Supreme law, the Constitution, and realize that it's not my place to thrust my beliefs or morals on anyone else. It harms me not, it affects me not, why would I care that lesbians produce more gay children? I find it illogical to think that only gays have influence over their children and I find it erroneous to say anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this. If that's the case, you certainly have to agree the inverse is true and that straight parents can influence gay kids to become straight. Somehow, no one wants to talk about that because it pretty much defeats the premise of the article, right?

This is exactly what Zu hates about Muslims thrusting their beliefs on the rest of the world. I'm not saying he doesn't have reason for his beliefs, he certainly feels he does and he is more than entitled to his opinion but the parallel is uncanny. That's all. :hug:

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 05:41 PM
I should qualify my statement. I'm not against gay marriage in the sense that I think gays should not be able to be married. I think they should be able to be married. I'm against gay marriage from a moral perspective, not a government endorsed marriage perspective.

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 05:43 PM
fair 'nuff.

zulater
10-18-2010, 06:27 PM
let's see.....instead of discussing his conclusion, and how he came about it....you responded immediately w/a snarky comment followed by a jerking off smiley. he called you a leftist, after you called him a bigot. he and SC were having an interesting conversation about it. tit for tat, i would say.

:hatsoff: thanks for saving me the keystrokes Urgle. :applaudit:

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 07:00 PM
Yeah...a lot of people are going to have different views on this subject, but like urgle said...not allowing or not encouraging people to talk about it and ask questions is just counterproductive.

Now kiss and make up you two! :chuckle:

zulater
10-18-2010, 07:36 PM
Yeah...a lot of people are going to have different views on this subject, but like urgle said...not allowing or not encouraging people to talk about it and ask questions is just counterproductive.

Now kiss and make up you two! :chuckle:

No need to, I got him on ignore. :chuckle: ( he went "sic" on me, a freaking message board and he did a "sic" on me, like I'm pretending I'm some sort of columnist or something! :doh: )

Here's a question for the peanut gallery. You're an adoption agent, two equally qualified couples are in contention for an infant. No red flags on either couple, all seem like nice nuturing people. Only one big difference, one is a same sex couple the other a traditional couple. Who do you give the baby to, and how do you decide? Now take it one further, you're the kid, which couple do you want to be placed with?

Let's see if we can get an honest answer or two before the night's out.

:coffee:

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 07:45 PM
Let's deal with reality instead of delusional hypotheticals. There are more kids out there than parents to adopt them. Maybe we can get an honest hypo before the night's out?

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 07:47 PM
as this discussion keeps creeping, up, you hit the nail on the head(zu). but, more to the point, if all things are equal(money, housing, raising, loving, emotional support, etc), between the gay couple and the straight couple, should not the straight couple get the kid?
once this is actually discussed, and honesty and logic are accepted on both sides, then we can go somewhere. taken as a purely logical and scientific argument, the answer should be easy. once acknowledged, then, and only then, can some dealing with the emotional and "moral" reasons be done.
so, as the left says, we have to go on scientific/logical reasons(of which includes evolution, adaption, survival of the fittest) to discuss this. the right stands by the Constitution, but not really on this subject. i personally disagree with homosexuality, but am still searching for answers to many questions, concerning it.

steelCA has a point, but i think the discussion of the beginning premise needs to be out there, before we can discuss the other.

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 07:55 PM
Let's deal with reality instead of delusional hypotheticals. There are more kids out there than parents to adopt them. Maybe we can get an honest hypo before the night's out?


Yeah, gotta agree with this Zu. Your hypothetical isn't really rational since there are more children to adopt than couples looking to adopt.

There's more factors than adoption as well...surrogates, in vetro, natural childbirth...adoption isn't the only option for gay (or straight) couples.

And asking who the child would rather be with? Babies don't care about that stuff...they just want love. If there's a loving straight couple and a loving gay couple that wants to adopt one baby, I'd say that baby is pretty damn lucky either way. There's a lot of kids out there who don't get that from their own parents, so...

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 08:10 PM
as this discussion keeps creeping, up, you hit the nail on the head(zu). but, more to the point, if all things are equal(money, housing, raising, loving, emotional support, etc), between the gay couple and the straight couple, should not the straight couple get the kid?
once this is actually discussed, and honesty and logic are accepted on both sides, then we can go somewhere. taken as a purely logical and scientific argument, the answer should be easy. once acknowledged, then, and only then, can some dealing with the emotional and "moral" reasons be done.
so, as the left says, we have to go on scientific/logical reasons(of which includes evolution, adaption, survival of the fittest) to discuss this. the right stands by the Constitution, but not really on this subject. i personally disagree with homosexuality, but am still searching for answers to many questions, concerning it.

steelCA has a point, but i think the discussion of the beginning premise needs to be out there, before we can discuss the other.

Why should the straight couple get the kid? How is that your default? If everything else is equal, maybe the one who put in for the kid first should get the kid. Why would that not be the default? If everything else in the world is equal, which we all know is never the case, why should the straight couple get the kid? How is that easy? The easy answer, based on years and years of history would be the first to put in. If this were a house, who would get the house? Whoever placed the offer first. If this were a piece of land, who would get it? Whoever claimed it first. If this was the sunk titanic, who would get it? The people that found it first!! If everything is equal, whoever put in first gets the child, and that's the easy answer.

Explain to me why, if everything else is equal, the straight couple getting the child is the easy answer? If everything is as equal as you say, the kid should turn out exactly the same right? So why does it matter who gets the child?

Why do we ignore basic knowledge when we view something which we have obvious bias for or against? Ever hear of Charlie Munger? Probably not, but I bet you've heard of his partner, Warren Buffet. Here's an article you should all read AND THEN maybe we can get to some honest inquiries. Of course maybe you don't think the guy making billions of dollars knows anything about human psychology?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2260984/munger-speech-on-human-misjudgement

MasterOfPuppets
10-18-2010, 08:33 PM
Now kiss and make up you two! :chuckle:
:pde: are you promoting gayness ?

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 08:48 PM
:pde: are you promoting gayness ?

:flap: You'd be all over it if someone told me to kiss Shea!

zulater
10-18-2010, 09:03 PM
Yeah, gotta agree with this Zu. Your hypothetical isn't really rational since there are more children to adopt than couples looking to adopt.

Sure my hypothetical is rationale. I never claimed i was solving the worlds orphan problem, I was asking on a one case basis, putting the reader in the position of the adoption agent or child.

Pretty simple and rationale question, i really don't see why it can't evoke a simple and rationale answer in return?

There's more factors than adoption as well...surrogates, in vetro, natural childbirth...adoption isn't the only option for gay (or straight) couples.

No question about it, never said that wasn't the case. I'm not claiming gays shouldn't or don't have the right to be parents.

And asking who the child would rather be with? Babies don't care about that stuff...they just want love. If there's a loving straight couple and a loving gay couple that wants to adopt one baby, I'd say that baby is pretty damn lucky either way. There's a lot of kids out there who don't get that from their own parents, so...

Nice dodge, now tell me what would you prefer, a loving nuturing home with a man and woman or a same sex couple?

Look no doubt there's plenty of dysfunctional straight couples out there, and I'm sure that a same sex couple could provide a great home for a child, but if all things were equal how many of us would really have no preference if we were in a postion to choose?

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 09:07 PM
Nice dodge, now tell me what would you prefer, a loving nuturing home with a man and woman or a same sex couple?

Look no doubt there's plenty of dysfunctional straight couples out there, and I'm sure that a same sex couple could provide a great home for a child, but if all things were equal how many of us would really have no preference if we were in a postion to choose?

Umm...not dodging...giving you an honest answer. And I agree with SiCA again on this. Whoever puts the bid in first.

What would I prefer myself? I went through a ton of shit with a straight couple (both loving, but I still went through a lot of stuff as a teen despite that), so I guess looking back it wouldn't really matter...as long as they were there for me. That's all kids really want in the long run.

Your preferences are your own...don't thrust them on everyone else.

MasterOfPuppets
10-18-2010, 09:08 PM
what this article boils down to is , are people products of their environment , or are they products of genetics. gays say they are born that way. maybe so , but environment / learned behaviour. definitely plays a huge part. look at pedophiles. is it in some peoples genetic makeup that makes them lust after children ? statistics show that most pedophiles were infact victims themselves as children. look at this article on afghanistans culture of pedo's. i'll just paste a few lines instead of the entire article.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-29/opinion/22949948_1_karzai-family-afghan-men-president-hamid-karzai

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.


"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy."

As for Karzai, an American who worked in and around his palace in an official capacity for many months told me that homosexual behavior "was rampant" among "soldiers and guys on the security detail. They talked about boys all the time."

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.
"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."


Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys.


Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure."

As one boy, in tow of a man he called "my lord," told the Reuters reporter: "Once I grow up, I will be an owner, and I will have my own boys."

you'll see by this last bolded statement that not only pedophilia but homosexuality can be learned behaviour.

caplovestroyp43
10-18-2010, 09:12 PM
Marriage was ordained by God to be one MAN and one WOMAN. Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve...

This is just my opinion, for whatever it may or may not be worth. And I hope that this does not get me banned from here because I really do love hanging out here. Keeping my fingers crossed....

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 09:22 PM
Marriage was ordained by God to be one MAN and one WOMAN. Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve...

This is just my opinion, for whatever it may or may not be worth. And I hope that this does not get me banned from here because I really do love hanging out here. Keeping my fingers crossed....

Lol...though I don't agree with you, you'll never get banned for sticking to your beliefs. Feel free to speak your mind anytime!

zulater
10-18-2010, 09:23 PM
Umm...not dodging...giving you an honest answer. And I agree with SiCA again on this. Whoever puts the bid in first.

What would I prefer myself? I went through a ton of shit with a straight couple (both loving, but I still went through a lot of stuff as a teen despite that), so I guess looking back it wouldn't really matter...as long as they were there for me. That's all kids really want in the long run.

Your preferences are your own...don't thrust them on everyone else.

I'm not thrusting my opinion on anyone. I'm just suggesting a little honesty.

MOP brought up an interesting point earliar on the thread, kids are cruel, having to intoduce your two moms or your two dads throughout your life would probably be more than a little bit of a drag. For most of us unenlightened folk anyway. IThe path of least resistance is usually the most sensible approach I've discovered over time, but of course when we're dealing with heightended sensitivity I guess some would prefer the path of egg shells, being extra carefull not to break any along the way. :doh:

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 09:25 PM
what this article boils down to is , are people products of their environment , or are they products of genetics. gays say they are born that way. maybe so , but environment / learned behaviour. definitely plays a huge part. look at pedophiles. is it in some peoples genetic makeup that makes them lust after children ? statistics show that most pedophiles were infact victims themselves as children. look at this article on afghanistans culture of pedo's. i'll just paste a few lines instead of the entire article.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-29/opinion/22949948_1_karzai-family-afghan-men-president-hamid-karzai

you'll see by this last bolded statement that not only pedophilia but homosexuality can be learned behaviour.


I get your point, but how can homosexuality be a predominantly learned behavior (as I agree, pedophilia can be), when same sex couples being allowed to raise children is a relatively new idea? If being gay is more of a product of environment, then there wouldn't be that many gay people would there?

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 09:28 PM
I'm not thrusting my opinion on anyone. I'm just suggesting a little honesty.

MOP brought up an interesting point earliar on the thread, kids are cruel, having to intoduce your two moms or your two dads throughout your life would probably be more than a little bit of a drag. For most of us unenlightened folk anyway. IThe path of least resistance is usually the most sensible approach I've discovered over time, but of course when we're dealing with heightended sensitivity I guess some would prefer the path of egg shells, being extra carefull not to break any along the way. :doh:

And I gave you honesty. I won't go deep into my childhood here...but things were pretty f-ed up for a while. I can't imagine they would have been any worse with gay parents. As long as they were home for me to talk to, that would have been enough for me. That's my honest answer.

The path of least resistance sounds nice and all...but I've taken all the shit I've gone through and let it make me a better person. I actually embrace that stuff now, and wouldn't want to just "glide through life" as a child. It would have made me soft.

MasterOfPuppets
10-18-2010, 09:38 PM
I get your point, but how can homosexuality be a predominantly learned behavior (as I agree, pedophilia can be), when same sex couples being allowed to raise children is a relatively new idea? If being gay is more of a product of environment, then there wouldn't be that many gay people would there?
i never said it was predominantly learned behaviour. i'm suggesting it could be . which is the premise of the article. not all pedo's were molested as children either. so are they somehow geneticly programmed to seek out children for sex ?

zulater
10-18-2010, 09:41 PM
I get your point, but how can homosexuality be a predominantly learned behavior (as I agree, pedophilia can be), when same sex couples being allowed to raise children is a relatively new idea? If being gay is more of a product of environment, then there wouldn't be that many gay people would there?

I guess in the case of the Afghan pervs it is a learned behaviour? :noidea: Of course that's an extreme case study, with their backwards attitudes towards normal sexual attraction in a male -female situation they're bound to be effed up. :doh:

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 10:02 PM
i never said it was predominantly learned behaviour. i'm suggesting it could be . which is the premise of the article. not all pedo's were molested as children either. so are they somehow geneticly programmed to seek out children for sex ?

But then you have to accept the converse as true as well. If being gay is a learned behavior, wouldn't being straight be as well? No one wants to answer that because then the whole article breaks down at that point. Mom is on to something. There are far more straight people in the world than gay people. So if it's a learned thing, you would think the straights would eventually weed out all the gays.

Or maybe something else is at play......:huh:

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 10:04 PM
Marriage was ordained by God to be one MAN and one WOMAN. Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve...

This is just my opinion, for whatever it may or may not be worth. And I hope that this does not get me banned from here because I really do love hanging out here. Keeping my fingers crossed....

You're absolutely right according to Christian belief, but what's that have to do with our government in light of separation of church and state and all? Would it be OK with you if the government decided to tax your religion? Of course not.

MasterOfPuppets
10-18-2010, 10:07 PM
But then you have to accept the converse as true as well. If being gay is a learned behavior, wouldn't being straight be as well? No one wants to answer that because then the whole article breaks down at that point. Mom is on to something. There are far more straight people in the world than gay people. So if it's a learned thing, you would think the straights would eventually weed out all the gays.

Or maybe something else is at play......:huh:
i never said it is learned behaviour , i said it could be learned behaviour. being straight isn't learned behaviour . it is genetic programming for reproduction. do you see animals running around butt f*cking each other ? does it take a higher brain function to over ride tens of thousands of years of natural instinct ?

SteelCityMom
10-18-2010, 10:26 PM
i never said it is learned behaviour , i said it could be learned behaviour. being straight isn't learned behaviour . it is genetic programming for reproduction. do you see animals running around butt f*cking each other ? does it take a higher brain function to over ride tens of thousands of years of natural instinct ?

Well, yes, there are some primates that at times perform homosexual acts. At least I've seen videos of two female chimps "pleasuring" each other.

And being gay isn't anything new...it's been documented for thousands of years, so apparently some people are just programmed differently. That's just the conclusion I've come to anyhow.

lionslicer
10-18-2010, 10:33 PM
Gay parents usually train their kids to be gay because they think its the cool thing to be or something... The kids don't grow up gay just because their parents are gay, they are usually forced to be gay... I've heard stories of straight parents training their kids to grow up gay.. its rediculous... But its like christians who train their kids to grow up straight

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 11:10 PM
i never said it is learned behaviour , i said it could be learned behaviour. being straight isn't learned behaviour . it is genetic programming for reproduction. do you see animals running around butt f*cking each other ? does it take a higher brain function to over ride tens of thousands of years of natural instinct ?

Actually homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom, just as common as it is in us. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

All I'm saying is if being gay is somehow learned, then how come you can't just "unlearn" it?

Gay parents usually train their kids to be gay because they think its the cool thing to be or something... The kids don't grow up gay just because their parents are gay, they are usually forced to be gay... I've heard stories of straight parents training their kids to grow up gay.. its rediculous... But its like christians who train their kids to grow up straight

Do you really think someone would choose to be gay?? I mean look at the feathers it ruffles on an internet message board. Who wold voluntarily subject themselves to that. The gay couples I know wish nothing more than to have their kids be straight so they don't have to deal with intolerance. The world is cruel enough as it is.

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 11:31 PM
Why should the straight couple get the kid? How is that your default? If everything else is equal, maybe the one who put in for the kid first should get the kid. Why would that not be the default? If everything else in the world is equal, which we all know is never the case, why should the straight couple get the kid? How is that easy? The easy answer, based on years and years of history would be the first to put in. If this were a house, who would get the house? Whoever placed the offer first. If this were a piece of land, who would get it? Whoever claimed it first. If this was the sunk titanic, who would get it? The people that found it first!! If everything is equal, whoever put in first gets the child, and that's the easy answer.

Explain to me why, if everything else is equal, the straight couple getting the child is the easy answer? If everything is as equal as you say, the kid should turn out exactly the same right? So why does it matter who gets the child?

Why do we ignore basic knowledge when we view something which we have obvious bias for or against? Ever hear of Charlie Munger? Probably not, but I bet you've heard of his partner, Warren Buffet. Here's an article you should all read AND THEN maybe we can get to some honest inquiries. Of course maybe you don't think the guy making billions of dollars knows anything about human psychology?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2260984/munger-speech-on-human-misjudgement

let's go this route.......all things being equal, let's say they put in for the child at the same time. all things being equal, as far as the essentials of life: security, food, water, shelter. the generalized "equal" let's say. it would be "easy" because it has been proven throughout human history, childeren are better in a home with both a mother and father figure. learning gender roles, discpline issues, simple things of that nature. that is why it has become a huge issue for fatherless children being raised by single mothers in many issues related to success and crime deterrence, to put it simply.
just as a family with two caring/loving parents is preferrable to a single parent.
i realize not all things will ever be "equal", but it is a starting point to start the discussion. are you saying, if those things are all equal, then it wouldn't be more preferential for the straight couple to have the kid, then the gay couple? if you say yes, then we will never agree on that part. this isn't based on any pre-conceived bias, but human history, genetics, science, sociology, etc.
coming from that, we can then get into "is it better" than this or that scenario, for all of the other possibilites that happen today. doesn't make gays adopting kids bad, or make those kids less capable, but it goes to what could, or maybe, be ther preferred way of doing things. you shoot for the ideal, and if the ideal cannot be reached, then you make the best way you can.

best way i can explain it. to say that, essentially, both types of couples are the exact same, or equal, in a sense, in the affects on the children being raised, to another, is, in my mind not being honest.

SteelersinCA
10-18-2010, 11:45 PM
let's go this route.......all things being equal, let's say they put in for the child at the same time. all things being equal, as far as the essentials of life: security, food, water, shelter. the generalized "equal" let's say. it would be "easy" because it has been proven throughout human history, childeren are better in a home with both a mother and father figure. learning gender roles, discpline issues, simple things of that nature. that is why it has become a huge issue for fatherless children being raised by single mothers in many issues related to success and crime deterrence, to put it simply.
just as a family with two caring/loving parents is preferrable to a single parent.
i realize not all things will ever be "equal", but it is a starting point to start the discussion. are you saying, if those things are all equal, then it wouldn't be more preferential for the straight couple to have the kid, then the gay couple? if you say yes, then we will never agree on that part. this isn't based on any pre-conceived bias, but human history, genetics, science, sociology, etc.
coming from that, we can then get into "is it better" than this or that scenario, for all of the other possibilites that happen today. doesn't make gays adopting kids bad, or make those kids less capable, but it goes to what could, or maybe, be ther preferred way of doing things. you shoot for the ideal, and if the ideal cannot be reached, then you make the best way you can.

best way i can explain it. to say that, essentially, both types of couples are the exact same, or equal, in a sense, in the affects on the children being raised, to another, is, in my mind not being honest.

You assume that the child won't learn gender roles with homosexual parents. You assume a gay couple is inferior to a straight couple. We aren't talking about single gay parents, we're talking about couples. Show me a single scientific article that says children are better off in a straight home. That it somehow produces "better" children. You won't find it. It doesn't exist.

That's the fatal flaw with that hypothetical. If everything is equal and ends up the same, how can we say one is better than the other? Equal is equal. There is no one side is better than the other if they are both equal. If you put 50 lbs on one side of the scale and 50 lbs on the other, which one is going to weigh more?

What you want is to paint someone into a corner so they have to accept your premise. The hypothetical ASSUMES things aren't equal by drawing the conclusion it's better to be raised by a straight couple. Better by whose definition? So what you really want is us to adopt the conclusion of the article and Zu that children raised by gay couple have a higher probability of being gay. Terrific, does that make someone inherently better?

If history has shown that straight people raise better children, first I'd like for you to show me one scientific study supporting that. Then I would like for you to explain to me the countless atrocities against humanity committed by children of straight families.

Better indeed.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html Oops, not better there.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/columnists/swan-grade-a-gay-parent-saved-a-child-392653.html Not there either.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/are-same-sex-couples-better-parents/ Don't look now, a growing number of research!!!
http://www.labspaces.net/106040/Video__Children_raised_by_gay_couples_show_good_pr ogress_through_school More research.

Need I go on?

Here's an article that cuts to the heart of the matter without the silly hypothetical. http://parenting.families.com/blog/gay-parents-less-than-optimal

urgle burgle
10-18-2010, 11:59 PM
That's the fatal flaw with that hypothetical. If everything is equal and ends up the same, how can we say one is better than the other? Equal is equal. There is no one side is better than the other if they are both equal. If you put 50 lbs on one side of the scale and 50 lbs on the other, which one is going to weigh more?

What you want is to paint someone into a corner so they have to accept your premise. The hypothetical ASSUMES things aren't equal by drawing the conclusion it's better to be raised by a straight couple. Better by whose definition? So what you really want is us to adopt the conclusion of the article and Zu that children raised by gay couple have a higher probability of being gay. Terrific, does that make someone inherently better?

If history has shown that straight people raise better children, first I'd like for you to show me one scientific study supporting that. Then I would like for you to explain to me the countless atrocities against humanity committed by children of straight families.

Better indeed.

all right, let's try this again. equal doesn't mean "100 %" equal in everything. and i think that you are smart enough to know what i essentially meant. and, no, i don't want you to adopt any conclusion, but that what you discern for yourself. their is always an "ideal" way of doing things, if possible. i don't care if the kids turn out gay or not, really. if that is their choice, so be it. i seriously doubt their is a long-term nor credible study to prove or disprove nor disprove what you are asking. i doubt that anyone thougth there would be a need to. so you would have to just "assume" some things. would gender roles be more easily taught by the same/or opposite sex? that would be one critical thing, or are we so in a place of unicorns and pixies that there is no difference in gender?
and your point of saying that, in a sense, you disavow my premise, by mentioning all the attrocities of straight families, is no argument. since straight families have been the norm for thousands of years, of course their is going to be a large occurence by percentage, if that's what you are driving at.

SteelersinCA
10-19-2010, 12:04 AM
So what you really want to know is what type of home do I think it would be easiest to learn gender roles? My answer would be one in which they are taught best. Life isn't as black and white as you want to make this out to be. You're asking for an impossible answer. Every variable is going to change the answer. To account for every variable is insanity.

What the studies show, the ones I linked above also link to other studies, is that there is no discernible difference between children raised by gay or straight parents. Is that an acceptable answer?

Shea
10-19-2010, 12:07 AM
Uh because you disagree with it? Usual leftist approach, if you disagree with the premise you dismiss the research without thought or consideration as to the actual content or conclusions.

You can claim that being gay or straight is an inborn thing, that a person can't be influenced to be something they're not, and to a large degree you'd be right, but not entirely. And that's where this topic starts and can lead to reasonable conversation among reasonable people.

Zu, don't sass me. It just makes me cranky.

Gay parents usually train their kids to be gay because they think its the cool thing to be or something... The kids don't grow up gay just because their parents are gay, they are usually forced to be gay... I've heard stories of straight parents training their kids to grow up gay.. its rediculous... But its like christians who train their kids to grow up straight

Huh .... :huh:

Maybe growing up in a parental enviroment that is made up in a same sex situation will probably, which makes sense, make a child more open to experimentation as far as sex goes when they grow to that age, but to me it's so simple.

Who here has fallen in love?

Nobody, no upbringing, not any circumstance can stop that. It's one of the most powerful forces besides the love of our children that there is.

Parental sexuality can in no way influence that.

You're either gay or you aren't. It can no way be determined by others.

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 12:12 AM
well, then i guess we won't agree on that premise. i read the articles, and they were inconclusive at best, concerning my initial question. the last one was mostly about the fact that some straight homes suck, and that a gay couple or gay single could raise the child better. i agree with that. but, that wasn't the question or "hypothetical." others said they scored better as far as school, self-esteem, acclimation in social circles, etc. but those are only small areas in one's life. and i know quite well that life isn't black and white, but if a foundation for ongoing discussion can be reached, then we can get into all the ongoing greys of the world.

SteelersinCA
10-19-2010, 12:20 AM
well, then i guess we won't agree on that premise. i read the articles, and they were inconclusive at best, concerning my initial question. the last one was mostly about the fact that some straight homes suck, and that a gay couple or gay single could raise the child better. i agree with that. but, that wasn't the question or "hypothetical." others said they scored better as far as school, self-esteem, acclimation in social circles, etc. but those are only small areas in one's life. and i know quite well that life isn't black and white, but if a foundation for ongoing discussion can be reached, then we can get into all the ongoing greys of the world.

Well I guess we better define better before we decide which is better. But in order to save us the trouble it seems the scientific literature suggest the difference are negligible. Can we at least agree on that?

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 12:35 AM
i'm game, on certain points. i can agree with what some of the articles covered. self-esteem, some parts of societal acclimation. i would like to see some of the sample questions, etc. i think the problem you may have an issue with is the word, "better" and how you deem it being used. i use it for lack of a better word. i don't think that the people within these families are any less, than any other. or that children within them will grow up to be serial killers or twisted pedophiles. it is a bit of the same conversation on communism. in my mind, communism and true marxism are, in a sense, an ideal. in a perfect utopian world. but, neither works, and only leads to problems(to put it mildly). in part it addresses your issue with the hypothetical. the world is not as we wish it to be, but we should try to get there, as long as the journey does not lead to more anguish.

SteelersinCA
10-19-2010, 12:44 AM
i'm game, on certain points. i can agree with what some of the articles covered. self-esteem, some parts of societal acclimation. i would like to see some of the sample questions, etc. i think the problem you may have an issue with is the word, "better" and how you deem it being used. i use it for lack of a better word. i don't think that the people within these families are any less, than any other. or that children within them will grow up to be serial killers or twisted pedophiles. it is a bit of the same conversation on communism. in my mind, communism and true marxism are, in a sense, an ideal. in a perfect utopian world. but, neither works, and only leads to problems(to put it mildly). in part it addresses your issue with the hypothetical. the world is not as we wish it to be, but we should try to get there, as long as the journey does not lead to more anguish.

Well I see your point, but you have to realize that less than 1% of the population claims to be gay. As the article points out, it's tough to do studies on it because of the small sample size.

I guess my problem with the hypothetical is that we inherently assume a straight family would be "better" because that's been the norm for so long AND we tend to view gay as bad. There are lots of things in life I see as having multiple viable alternatives. The saying is there is more than one way to skin a cat. Now debates can rage about which is optimal, but how do you resolve that debate.

My larger point is, I don't think anyone can answer which is better with any real honesty or certainty. I know I would like to see more scientific studies before I would make a conclusion about which is better. Gay is a relatively new phenomenon. I like to keep an open mind about it, which you sound like you do as well.

You are 100% correct, my problem is with the word better. Perhaps a more specific definition would facilitate a discussion. I'll let you decide on that definition and we'll go from there.

steelax04
10-19-2010, 10:42 AM
Gay parents usually train their kids to be gay because they think its the cool thing to be or something... The kids don't grow up gay just because their parents are gay, they are usually forced to be gay... I've heard stories of straight parents training their kids to grow up gay.. its rediculous... But its like christians who train their kids to grow up straight

So my best friend's parents have one gay son and one straight son. You're saying they trained one to be gay and one to be straight? Really? :doh:

caplovestroyp43
10-19-2010, 12:22 PM
You're absolutely right according to Christian belief, but what's that have to do with our government in light of separation of church and state and all? Would it be OK with you if the government decided to tax your religion? Of course not.

Do you SERIOUSLY want my opinion? If you do, let me know and I will give it to you. You might not like it. But if you want it, I will share it.

lionslicer
10-19-2010, 01:23 PM
So my best friend's parents have one gay son and one straight son. You're saying they trained one to be gay and one to be straight? Really? :doh:

No I said some do ... =\
There's people who do it, then there's kids who actually end up gay and straight...

You people are so quick to judge sometimes... I'm sorry I'm not that great in grammer can't really explain it, maybe this will help.

With any culture, there are parents who want their kids to do something that they want. Parents force kids to play sports, or play an instrument, or a number of things.. There was this college football player not long ago where his dad forced him to throw left handed his whole life.

There are parents who teach their kids to be gay from birth. I'm not saying every gay parent does this, but I know people, and I'm sure if you ever watched tv you have also seen gay parents who raise there kids to be gay and not make a decision.

To some people being gay is a biological thing, but even if you come out straight, physcology says your envirement could change what you really want or know you want.

zulater
10-19-2010, 01:53 PM
Zu, don't sass me. It just makes me cranky.



Huh .... :huh:

Maybe growing up in a parental enviroment that is made up in a same sex situation will probably, which makes sense, make a child more open to experimentation as far as sex goes when they grow to that age, but to me it's so simple.

Who here has fallen in love?

Nobody, no upbringing, not any circumstance can stop that. It's one of the most powerful forces besides the love of our children that there is.

Parental sexuality can in no way influence that.

You're either gay or you aren't. It can no way be determined by others.

shea if your first responce on the thread had been similiar to this post I never would have sassed you. :hatsoff:

I have no problem with anyone having a contrary opinion to my own on this or any other subject. My only problem was the shut down dismissive nature of your earliar post, as if the subject matter is so clear cut to one side that to think anything other than what you believe is absolutley ridiculous

.To some degree i think that's one of the biggest mistakes of our major political parties today. Both the left and the right have become so immersed in their own logic and agenda that they dismiss the centist nature of their constiuency, and therefore take it for granted that they own the middle ground if they won the most recent election. And of course as was evident in the midterms of 2006 and the upcoming election next month, when you take the swing vote for granted and legislate from the extreme when you had campaigned from the middle you're going to pay at the polls.

Ok, I went a littleoff the path with that anology, :doh: but the point is, I don't believe the views I've expessed here are extreme. Perhaps I'm wrong, but tell me why you think I'm wrong rather than telling me I'm an idiot to ever entertain such a notion to begin with. :drink:

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 02:15 PM
Well I see your point, but you have to realize that less than 1% of the population claims to be gay. As the article points out, it's tough to do studies on it because of the small sample size.

I guess my problem with the hypothetical is that we inherently assume a straight family would be "better" because that's been the norm for so long AND we tend to view gay as bad. There are lots of things in life I see as having multiple viable alternatives. The saying is there is more than one way to skin a cat. Now debates can rage about which is optimal, but how do you resolve that debate.

My larger point is, I don't think anyone can answer which is better with any real honesty or certainty. I know I would like to see more scientific studies before I would make a conclusion about which is better. Gay is a relatively new phenomenon. I like to keep an open mind about it, which you sound like you do as well.

You are 100% correct, my problem is with the word better. Perhaps a more specific definition would facilitate a discussion. I'll let you decide on that definition and we'll go from there.

i think you already said the word, "optimal". so let's go with that. i am one that thinks we get too hung on symantics and linguistics, and i think this society has gone pc overboard, but, that being said, i look for common ground to discuss things of interest and importance. take care.

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 02:25 PM
i never said it was predominantly learned behaviour. i'm suggesting it could be . which is the premise of the article. not all pedo's were molested as children either. so are they somehow geneticly programmed to seek out children for sex ?

i think this is the main issue here. those that "oppose" homosexuality, per se, still have a hard time understanding how much is learned and how much is genetic. i honestly don't know. as MOP mentions with pedophiles, can be said for other things: serial killers, wife beaters(am not comparing these things to being gay, just using them as examples of possible genetics), effeminate but not gay males....how much is learned and how much is genetics.

if it is inherently inborn, can that be said of other things? can people be genetically programmed to cheat on their signifcant others? can people be genetically programmed to be poor/great parents? can people be genetically programmed to be Steeler fans(hope so)?

interesting.

chacha
10-19-2010, 02:32 PM
Tom Brady's parents are straight. This study means nothing.

Exactly!

Seriously though, gay couples probably have the same amount of gay kids as straight couples, but their kids are more comfortable coming out.

caplovestroyp43
10-19-2010, 03:59 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::toofunny::toofunny::toofu nny::sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

<<Tom Brady's parents are straight. This study means nothing.>>

LOVE IT!!

ricardisimo
10-19-2010, 04:04 PM
I do know that homophobic parents are way more likely to have homophobic kids. I'm pretty sure there are studies backing that up.

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 04:42 PM
I do know that homophobic parents are way more likely to have homophobic kids. I'm pretty sure there are studies backing that up.

just as vegan parents have, probably, more vegan kids. or wife beating parents have, prob, more wife beating kids. or outdoor loving parents have more outdoor loving kids.
i know what you are trying to get at, but what counts, is what you define homophobic to be.

SteelersinCA
10-19-2010, 05:37 PM
i think you already said the word, "optimal". so let's go with that. i am one that thinks we get too hung on symantics and linguistics, and i think this society has gone pc overboard, but, that being said, i look for common ground to discuss things of interest and importance. take care.

I'm not sure throwing any word in will give us structure to our discussion. We need to define what our goals are. i.e. kids that do better in school, kids that have more friends, etc. What's optimal to you may not be to me or the next person. For instance, I like the beach, some people may like the mountains.

SteelersinCA
10-19-2010, 05:38 PM
Do you SERIOUSLY want my opinion? If you do, let me know and I will give it to you. You might not like it. But if you want it, I will share it.

Absolutely, I SERIOUSLY want your opinion. Do you think your opinion is so angry that I would be fearful of it? I just want you to be able to explain it and justify it. Any time you bring God into a discussion about what our government does you have to realize you are walking a fine line. I didn't write the laws.

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 05:59 PM
I'm not sure throwing any word in will give us structure to our discussion. We need to define what our goals are. i.e. kids that do better in school, kids that have more friends, etc. What's optimal to you may not be to me or the next person. For instance, I like the beach, some people may like the mountains.

damn. give me a minute on that. the problem/joy of this type of discussion leads us to other discussions. hmmmm....i guess this may be best done with a version of the "ben franklin" close/argument. make a liste of the pros/cons. i, honestly, cannot think of a better way to do it. i am open to suggestions. but, if this is to be done, we have to be completely honest about what the pros/cons may be.
i would start, but you have to give me some time on this thought process. anyone else can jump in at any point.

SteelersinCA
10-19-2010, 06:07 PM
damn. give me a minute on that. the problem/joy of this type of discussion leads us to other discussions. hmmmm....i guess this may be best done with a version of the "ben franklin" close/argument. make a liste of the pros/cons. i, honestly, cannot think of a better way to do it. i am open to suggestions. but, if this is to be done, we have to be completely honest about what the pros/cons may be.
i would start, but you have to give me some time on this thought process. anyone else can jump in at any point.

Go for it.

I definitely think performance in school would be a factor. Ability to make friends would be another.

ricardisimo
10-19-2010, 06:23 PM
Go for it.

I definitely think performance in school would be a factor. Ability to make friends would be another.
Screw that. Wit, fashion sense, ability to control one's finances, knowing which fork to use and where to put the chaise in the living room... Those are the important things, and let's face it, folks: the gays have it all over us.

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 06:46 PM
Screw that. Wit, fashion sense, ability to control one's finances, knowing which fork to use and where to put the chaise in the living room... Those are the important things, and let's face it, folks: the gays have it all over us.

duh....i thought that was obvious. like understood "u" in english.

urgle burgle
10-19-2010, 08:42 PM
Pros

Better emotional understanding.
Possible less physical aggression.
Better emotional protection.
Possibly more stable home environment(depending on definition of stable)
Less difference differentiation among groups(possible)
peformance in school(but i'm not sure what that is based on) so i give a possible to that

Cons

Possible feeling of not being “normal”
Being picked on/bullied
Confusion on gender roles. Issues would be, boy talking to gay dad…how do I pick up chicks, or what do chicks like. Reverse for kids of lesbians.
Discipline issues….studies have shown that a boy/girl looks to dad to be the disciplinarian.
Possibly not being introduced to in any way about religion(yeah, I know, but spirituality is a normal human element). Most gays I know/known, are usually atheist, agnostic, or hedonistic/humanistic.
How to handle bullies/aggression….females, or feminine males(not saying all gay males are, but I would say a predominant amount are), deal with confrontation of that type, differently(possible, but i think highly likely).

its a start.

zulater
10-19-2010, 09:05 PM
I do know that homophobic parents are way more likely to have homophobic kids. I'm pretty sure there are studies backing that up.


zPGb4STRfKw

If I find the above funny am I a homophobe ric? :noidea:

ricardisimo
10-19-2010, 11:50 PM
zPGb4STRfKw

If I find the above funny am I a homophobe ric? :noidea:
No, you clearly have a good sense of humor. Did you post this article to be funny?

zulater
10-20-2010, 05:15 AM
No, you clearly have a good sense of humor. Did you post this article to be funny?

No, I thought it might make for an interesting topic.

caplovestroyp43
10-27-2010, 10:34 PM
Absolutely, I SERIOUSLY want your opinion. Do you think your opinion is so angry that I would be fearful of it? I just want you to be able to explain it and justify it. Any time you bring God into a discussion about what our government does you have to realize you are walking a fine line. I didn't write the laws.


OK here goes. It is an abomination, it is detestable, it is an unforgiveable sin and it's against God and nature and how intended the world to be. But I don't HATE gay people please don't take it that way. I have gay friends and have learned alot about the lifestyle from them. The above is how I was raised and I stand on that.

And btw..I'm not trying to make you fearful. I am just afraid of being banned for being so open and honest. I was scared on my side! LOL! LOL!

:drink:

SteelersinCA
10-28-2010, 01:29 PM
OK here goes. It is an abomination, it is detestable, it is an unforgiveable sin and it's against God and nature and how intended the world to be. But I don't HATE gay people please don't take it that way. I have gay friends and have learned alot about the lifestyle from them. The above is how I was raised and I stand on that.

And btw..I'm not trying to make you fearful. I am just afraid of being banned for being so open and honest. I was scared on my side! LOL! LOL!

:drink:

Hey, that's fine, and I agree it's wrong according to my faith too. However, my faith has no business in our government. That's the distinction I draw.

You wouldn't get banned for that, you're safe!! :thumbsup:

SteelCityMom
10-28-2010, 02:21 PM
Yeah, you definitely won't get banned for speaking your mind here. I may not agree with you at all, but you're free to say how you feel!