actually, i think showing that homosexuality really is a natural occurance has a lot of relevance to this topic. by showing that it's natural, not just a choice made by some radicals just for the purpose of being radical, it shows that there are perfectly good reasons to be ****.
legal marriage of homosexuals really can't be banned. the only real reasons it would be is because some hetero people view them as disgusting, which is just an absurd reason, or because certain churches dont' allow it; which is again, not a legal reason in this state. i don't see how the united states can legally ban **** marriage.
My primary intent was just to defend some of Marines statements that he made (and seemed to be drawing flak on). I would in fact guess him to be right about that statement. Then again, I just look at people in terms of microbe magnets, so without a more detailed analysis of homosexual vs heterosexual patterns it would be hard to tell. I am aware that most heterosexuals tend to have Herpes Simplex 2 (HSV2), while many **** men in particular have multiple STDs, which might hint at more partners/more unprotected sex.
Now if promiscuity is a good thing for a marriage, is entirely up for you to debate. It certainly doesn't do many heterosexual couples any good.
<!--QuoteBegin-the johnjacob+Feb 20 2004, 11:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the johnjacob @ Feb 20 2004, 11:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> actually, i think showing that homosexuality really is a natural occurance has a lot of relevance to this topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Probably, but the last time that topic was debated here it lead nowhere. As is typical with homosexuality discussions the religious zea... um.. people and homophobes are on one side and everyone else is on the other and neither side is willing to accept the other sides presented facts, ect.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+Feb 20 2004, 11:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Feb 20 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My primary intent was just to defend some of Marines statements that he made (and seemed to be drawing flak on). I would in fact guess him to be right about that statement. Then again, I just look at people in terms of microbe magnets, so without a more detailed analysis of homosexual vs heterosexual patterns it would be hard to tell. I am aware that most heterosexuals tend to have Herpes Simplex 2 (HSV2), while many **** men in particular have multiple STDs, which might hint at more partners/more unprotected sex.
Now if promiscuity is a good thing for a marriage, is entirely up for you to debate. It certainly doesn't do many heterosexual couples any good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just to play devil's advocate <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well has been said they tend not to use condoms as much as hetero people and the type of sex soem **** people have causes a lot more friction then hetero sex and has a higher risk for transmitting disease. Couple this with lack of condoms and you can have a **** person with half as many partners as a hetero person but twice as many diseases.
But it is true that **** folks do tend to live a more risky life style and have multiple annoynums partners, but this happens in the realm of single life and like Marine said is due mostly to the fact that they have been suppressed in this society and it motivates them.
I've read through the replies (No, I'm not ****, Kylie... if I was I'd have a lot more girlfriends <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) and trying to keep track of everything is confusing, but I feel like stirring the hornet's nest a bit.
Now keep in mind that marriage is a strictly religious ceremony. You get married in a church, you're told that in the eyes of god and holy matrimony, etc (whatever <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) so wouldn't this make banning **** marriage unconstitutional, if not marriage itself?
I doubt this is really for the right to marry more than it is for the right of equality. Besides that, a lot of these anti-**** marriage arguments are seeing what they want to see in the Bible. I doubt anyone could possibly have a logical argument against equality, so I'm all for **** marriage and any other rights.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Boy who lost his wings+Feb 20 2004, 07:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Boy who lost his wings @ Feb 20 2004, 07:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i think they should ban **** marriage ect <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> think you could grace us with some kind of... <i>reason</i>? perhaps?
<!--QuoteBegin-SuperTeflon+Feb 20 2004, 03:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SuperTeflon @ Feb 20 2004, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've read through the replies (No, I'm not ****, Kylie... if I was I'd have a lot more girlfriends <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) and trying to keep track of everything is confusing, but I feel like stirring the hornet's nest a bit.
Now keep in mind that marriage is a strictly religious ceremony. You get married in a church, you're told that in the eyes of god and holy matrimony, etc (whatever <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) so wouldn't this make banning **** marriage unconstitutional, if not marriage itself? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> dr.d is right. Marriage is in no way religious (unless you make it that way). Marriage in the US means getting a liscense and then getting some government tax benefits...generally the married people want to live together and stuff too.
Point is, you don't need a church. You don't even need a ceremony...just the ...80 dollars or something for the marriage liscense.
What first must be determined is if the condition of homosexuality exists at birth.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/labarbera.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/labarbera.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gary Remafedi, a homosexual researcher at the University of Minnesota, recently published a study in the journal Pediatrics which found that students' confusion with regard to their "sexual orientation" decreased with age. Significantly, the survey of nearly 35,000 Minnesota youth (grades 7 through 12) found that older students were less likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than younger students:
The percentage of students reporting a predominantly ("mostly" or "100%") heterosexual orientation increased slightly with age from 98.4% at age 12 to 99.2% at 18 years of age, with a corresponding decline in the percentage who adopted the bisexual label.[33] A significant body of evidence exists that a sizeable percentage of men and women experiment with homosexual acts in their youth but go on to lead normal, heterosexual lives. Such evidence is resisted by the **** lobby, which increasingly argues that one's homosexual "identity" is fixed at birth or in one's very early years and cannot be changed. In Massachusetts, Gov. Weld's Commission on **** and Lesbian Youth was presented with testimony from men and women who had experimented with homosexuality in their youth but abandoned such behavior and found happiness. But the commission rejected such testimonies in preparing its report calling for pro-**** school programs, apparently because it did not fit the objective of confirming "**** and lesbian youth" in their homosexuality.[34]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such research would indicate that homosexuality may have genetic predisposition attached to it, but that sexual preference remains a free choice.
The flashpoint in the issue of homosexual marriage is the prospect of homosexual adoption. A government does not have the right to intervene in the private lives of its citizens, but with sufficient majority, it can be given the right to protect its youth from harm.
In Queensland Australia, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things, <ul> </li><li>have been married for at least two years; </li><li>not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or </li><li>mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child; </li><li>be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child). </li></ul>
By legalizing homosexual union, even a civil one, you are effectively legalizing homosexual adoption, and that is where the issue is.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behavior of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research by Dr J Bailey and colleagues found in 1995 that the children of homosexual parents are about three times more likely to become homosexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Aegeri already pointed out, there is an increased occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases in those living a homosexual lifestyle. Added to the fact that homosexual adoption is likely to yield children who also have alternate sexual preferences, one can equate allowing homosexual adoption to increasing the chance of STD infection, with enough proof in the middle to make the jump. Even if that isn't accepted, the data that shows the differences in student performance with respect to upbringing would also indicate that children raised in a homosexual household perform worse at school, than their classmates reared in a traditional nuclear family. One can extrapolate this data to predict their performance later in life.
All that study proves is children who are adopted to poorer in school, where does the homsexuality of the parents come into play? Unless I missed the hetero adopted control group.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 21 2004, 10:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 21 2004, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All that study proves is children who are adopted to poorer in school, where does the homsexuality of the parents come into play? Unless I missed the hetero adopted control group. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I dont think that those children where adopted Dr.D. There are a lot of homosexual couples with children from previous heterosexual liasons.
In my opinion the only way to do a fair study on this subject would be to let g@y adoptions be legalized, wait a few years for the controversy to die down, then do research across the board and track home enviorments and the development of the children over their lives.
Much like with foster care many problems have been found over the years, but the benefit still outweighs the problems so the system has not been shut down. There is no reason to have a double standard for g@y adoption as pre-emptively striking down the idea based on problems that could arise is not fair to anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 20 2004, 07:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 20 2004, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Whether you like it or not, homosexuals can still adopt as individuals. So denying them marriage seems doubly useless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true. Criteria for adoption agencys will favor a married couple than someone single. Not to mention the fact that mothers who willingly give up children for adoption are more likely to pick an established, traditional family than a single homosexual looking to start a family without a companion.
Legalization of homosexual union is a crucial step as defining it as culturally accepted and normal, and with that comes increased probability of adoption into one of such households.
And dr.d, that study also took into account non-married cohabiting couples who were the biological parents of their children. The children raised in that household were also subject to a drop in performance, indicating that the upbringing, not nescesarily the presence of biological parents, is a major factor in the child's success later on.
It seems that now people are just arguing over the word itself.
Solution: The government should get out of the marriage business. Call all mariages (including g<span style='color:sky'>a</span>y) "Civil Unions", and then you have no problems.
What I want to know is, why do some people have a problem with g<span style='color:sky'>a</span>ys? Seriously, is it hurting them personally? And if you're just creeped out by two men kissing, get over it.
Edit: Oh, and recent evidence shows that you don't become homosexual. It isn't a choice, its determined at birth.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Feb 21 2004, 02:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Feb 21 2004, 02:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: Oh, and recent evidence shows that you don't become homosexual. It isn't a choice, its determined at birth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Provide a link to the study. When a claim is made in a forum, the burdon of proof is on the one who made the claim.
I've never seen any evidence that has been in the least bit compelling, and I would be interested in reading any new theories and research.
I don't believe that **** marrige should be practiced as I believe it's psychological and could have the side effect of harming others' mental states.
This is not to say that I'm a bigot, it's just that I do not buy into force-fed idea that the **** phenomenon is natural. This is a debate that has had me and Troy (a **** friend of mine) nearly choking the life out of each other on occasions.
As far as the male dog humping male dog scenario.... It is kind of a bad example.
That same dog will surely impregnate a female dog given the opportunity. It will not sit down, cross it's feet and say "I'm not attracted to her." So if anything, nature's bisexual....but wait.
How do we know what the dog is thinking? Maybe dogs get just as much pleasure from sexual activity as we do, only they are a bit more "limited." (Note: lack of hands) I believe assuming a dog is homosexual just because he acts like a dog that hasn't had the company of female dogs in quite some time...is a bit...ignorant.
I mean. Take two men, coop them up together most their lives without the company of women. They still have all the hormones, urges, ect... Eventually the mind finds a way to satiate these urges and it is ingrained into the psyche as "normal."
Wait! This has already been done! It was called the Roman military!
Until such time as there is no doubt at the "true" cause of this phenomenon, I stick by my assumption that it is purely psychological.
Note that this is barring people being born of both genders, that's something very different and very biological.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
All right. Now take into account the numerous studies done on penguins, dolphins, lions, seagulls, and almost every major species on the planet that demonstrate not neccessarily homosexuality-as-convenience, but same-sex pairings who will refuse and chase off opposite-gender individuals looking to breed. In a number of the dolphin studies, it's admitted that the majority of the younger calves who engage in it IS simply for sex-play, and the participants will happily mate heterosexually. But there are still instances of fully-homosexual pairings.. in many cases, even when one of the pairing died, the other would NOT choose a mate of the opposite sex, instead going on to find another homosexual mate.
However, THIS line of discussion has already been treaded and re-treaded in the 'is homosexuality wrong' thread. Go back and read it for further elucidation. So far, no one has put together a convincing counter-argument in here as of yet to the evidence presented there. So until that point, it should be assumed that it IS a natural occurrence. The evidence has been given, if you'd go look at it in the thread devoted to that topic. Come up with a refuting non-religion based argument, and perhaps that discussion can continue. Until then, to put it bluntly, shaddap. Some of those discussing /are/ homosexual, including yours truly. I normally don't make a point of it, excepting in instances such as this. Being told 'you're pretending to be attracted to your own gender' is ludicrous. If it's purely psychological, I offer a challenge. Be homosexual. Honestly, even for just <b>one</b> day, be truly and deeply sexually aroused by your own gender.
There's a big difference between being 'force fed', and having someone trying to pound it through your skull that your prejudice is wrong.
(edit) Psst. Alexander's army was formed specifically of homosexual men, who were stationed with their lovers. This was done because Alexander had a shred of intelligence, and knew that someone will fight ten times harder if it's to protect someone they love. If their supply chains and methods of communication had been better, it'd be quite possible that Europe would have been conquered in entirety. (/edit)
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 21 2004, 11:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All right. Now take into account the numerous studies done on penguins, dolphins, lions, seagulls, and almost every major species on the planet that demonstrate not neccessarily homosexuality-as-convenience, but same-sex pairings who will refuse and chase off opposite-gender individuals looking to breed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you link me to these studies please - as I find it highly interesting that there are animals that choose homosexual life partners. I've never heard that one before - so if you could please show me the evidence I'd love to have a look.
EDIT
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Being told 'you're pretending to be attracted to your own gender' is ludicrous<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strawmen are similarily ludicrous. Please show me one post making that accusation.
Well, concidering this happens to be a topic I study or talk about on a regular basis (my major being philosophy) perhaps I should put some imput into this argument.
For those people who say homosexuality isn't natural, and it is a choice, I say this to them:
It is a choice huh? Do you renember making a choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality? The answer is no. If it was a choice, we would renember chosing to be **** or straight. The point being, it isn't a choice, its a matter of different chemical arangements in your brain that determines who you become sexualy attracted to. Yes, your surroundings influence what you think of as right and wrong, but they do not stop you (internaly) from sexualy prefering a member of your own gender, or the opposite gender. Your social influence just tells you 'being **** is bad' even though you feel sexual feelings twards someone of the same sex.
Secondly, for those of you who say the bible says homosexuality is wrong:
These type of people are possibly the biggest hypocrites in the world. The bible also says children who disobey their parents can be put to death. If you truely beleive in the bible's code, you MUST obey all aspects of it. If you pick and choose what you want, then you are not obeying the bible, your simply obeying what you want. Stop pretending to be christians, and admit you are simply unfounded religious bigots.
Thirdly, for those of you who say that homosexuality is unnatural:
By this they can be meaning a few things. If you saying that homosexuality should be banned because its statistic rare (by saying unnautral) then what about people who are left handed? Should be say they are evil too? They are statisticly rare as well.
If by saying unnatural your refering to something having a predetermined purpose, then how do you know everything has this predetermined purpose? We weren't meant to write, but we do anyway. That is unnatural, yet it isn't wrong now is it?
And finaly, to those who say it doesn't fulfill the requirement of sex for reproduction only:
That would mean that ANY sexual act, or sterile person would therefore be BANNED from sexual activity if it didn't have a possibility of creating a child in some way. Meaning, people that were sterile (or women after menopause) would not be permitted to have sexual relations. Masturbation of any kind would also be illegal since it doesn't create a child either. Basicly any act, dealing with sexual organs, that doesn't result in a child would be banned. And since we wouldn't ban someone who has been through menopause or who is sterile from sexual please, to ban homosexuality on the grounds it doesn't produce a child, is also an unfounded reason to ban homosexuality.
---- So why is **** marrige being banned? Clearly, homosexuals aren't doing anything proveably wrong, and, it isn't in any way harmful to anyone who is straight (or **** even for that matter). Since **** individuals clearly share the same amount of love for each other as a heterosexual couple (love being the only actualy requirement we can all probably agree on for being married) **** couples are being married for the same reasons as straight couples, and their activities and practices are no reason to bar them from this (as I have proven above). The only reason (which isn't a very good one) anyone can use against **** marrige, is it isn't the traditonaly type of marrige. Yet, it contains all the same reasons for marriage as a normal marriage (and IS normal in my beleif). Just because something has been practiced a certain way in the past (marriage of a man and woman only) doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in a non traditional way (especialy concidering **** marriage HAS the traditional REASONS for being married, which is clearly more important then the act of marrige itself).
So, I say, banning **** marriage is extremely immoral, and hypocritical. It should be permited by the state. However, if private institutions don't want to marry **** people in their churches, they have the right not to, but at the state level, marriges between two **** people should be just as legit as a straight couple.
<!--QuoteBegin-Autonomist+Feb 21 2004, 10:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Autonomist @ Feb 21 2004, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So why is **** marrige being banned? Clearly, homosexuals aren't doing anything proveably wrong, and, it isn't in any way harmful to anyone who is straight (or **** even for that matter). Since **** individuals clearly share the same amount of love for each other as a heterosexual couple (love being the only actualy requirement we can all probably agree on for being married) **** couples are being married for the same reasons as straight couples, and their activities and practices are no reason to bar them from this (as I have proven above). The only reason (which isn't a very good one) anyone can use against **** marrige, is it isn't the traditonaly type of marrige. Yet, it contains all the same reasons for marriage as a normal marriage (and IS normal in my beleif). Just because something has been practiced a certain way in the past (marriage of a man and woman only) doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in a non traditional way (especialy concidering **** marriage HAS the traditional REASONS for being married, which is clearly more important then the act of marrige itself).
So, I say, banning **** marriage is extremely immoral, and hypocritical. It should be permited by the state. However, if private institutions don't want to marry **** people in their churches, they have the right not to, but at the state level, marriges between two **** people should be just as legit as a straight couple. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My main case against it is that children raised in a stable, traditional, nuclear family are better equipped and prepared for dealing with the world than if they were raised in any other setting. Foster home, cohabiting couples, or anything else, a stable traditional family is generally all-around better equipped to raise children.
I have no right to tell others how to live their lives. But when enough evidence exists to show that a person's actions affect someone who cannot help themselves, I feel I have an obligation to state an opposing viewpoint, to protect that person who can't protect themselves.
Autonomist, yes, the reasons for homosexual marriage are largely the same as that with the traditional ones, but the outcome when raising kids is vastly different.
Talesin, I see where you are coming from citing animal studies, but the studies I've cited show that people raised in a household where homosexuality is practiced are three times more likely to become homosexual themselves. That, to me, indicates more importance placed on nurture, how a person gets thoughts and morals ingrained in them. If that is true, that the environment a person was raised in is more important than their genetic code, then the point you make about a predisposition to an alternate sexual preference becomes null, as it shows that it can be changed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My main case against it is that children raised in a stable, traditional, nuclear family are better equipped and prepared for dealing with the world than if they were raised in any other setting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? So I suppose we should ban divorce too, since it would put a child in a non-nuclear family environment? I suppose we should also force remarriage within a specified ammount of time if one partner dies... Oh, and of course we should forcefully remove children from single parents at birth, placing them in foster homes to ensure that they grow up in a more 'proper' environment.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 21 2004, 11:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 21 2004, 11:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My main case against it is that children raised in a stable, traditional, nuclear family are better equipped and prepared for dealing with the world than if they were raised in any other setting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? So I suppose we should ban divorce too, since it would put a child in a non-nuclear family environment? I suppose we should also force remarriage within a specified ammount of time if one partner dies... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Frankly, yes, I think we should, except in cases where one parent is shown to be endangering the welfare of his/her children, or in cases where one parent has adopted a secondary sex partner.
Unfortunately, that idea went out the window about 50 years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Feb 21 2004, 11:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 21 2004, 11:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 21 2004, 11:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 21 2004, 11:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My main case against it is that children raised in a stable, traditional, nuclear family are better equipped and prepared for dealing with the world than if they were raised in any other setting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? So I suppose we should ban divorce too, since it would put a child in a non-nuclear family environment? I suppose we should also force remarriage within a specified ammount of time if one partner dies... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Frankly, yes, I think we should, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And now that reason has said a tearful goodby to the thread, I'll go find something better to do.
Legion, there is a difference between saying something is true, and what is ACTUALY true.
1) What studies, who did they come from, HOW were they conducted reguarding your proof they are more likely to be homosexuals.
2) This is the key part. You say they are 3 times more likely to be homosexuals if their parents were. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEIR PARENTS MADE THEM THAT WAY. Their parents simply informed them that different people have different feelings, and they should follow theirs. How do you know that straight famlies don't have homosexual kids that simply don't want to come out BECAUSE OF THEIR PARENTS. Have you thought about that? Untill you can PROVE homosexual parents are the cause of kids coming out, and straight parents aren't the reason kids in straight famlies feel compelled to act straight yet are ****, your argument holds no merit.
3) How is a straight family better prepared to deal with the world then a **** parented family? The ONLY difference is the sexual orientation of the parents, so a **** family can easily raise kids in just the same way as a straight one, but choose to tell their kids to love who they choose. The onyl difference between a straight and **** family is the ACTUALY **** kids are more likely to come out, while in a straight one they are more likely to stay closeted, even though their ****.
<!--QuoteBegin-MrMojo+Feb 21 2004, 12:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Feb 21 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Please do give us proof that children raised by homosexual parents are less prepared to face the world than children raised by straight parents.
I've heard this over and over but no one gave any proof, simply speculation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, he did post some evidence, if you would go back but one page:
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behavior of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research by Dr J Bailey and colleagues found in 1995 that the children of homosexual parents are about three times more likely to become homosexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
legal marriage of homosexuals really can't be banned. the only real reasons it would be is because some hetero people view them as disgusting, which is just an absurd reason, or because certain churches dont' allow it; which is again, not a legal reason in this state. i don't see how the united states can legally ban **** marriage.
Now if promiscuity is a good thing for a marriage, is entirely up for you to debate. It certainly doesn't do many heterosexual couples any good.
Probably, but the last time that topic was debated here it lead nowhere. As is typical with homosexuality discussions the religious zea... um.. people and homophobes are on one side and everyone else is on the other and neither side is willing to accept the other sides presented facts, ect.
Now if promiscuity is a good thing for a marriage, is entirely up for you to debate. It certainly doesn't do many heterosexual couples any good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to play devil's advocate <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well has been said they tend not to use condoms as much as hetero people and the type of sex soem **** people have causes a lot more friction then hetero sex and has a higher risk for transmitting disease. Couple this with lack of condoms and you can have a **** person with half as many partners as a hetero person but twice as many diseases.
But it is true that **** folks do tend to live a more risky life style and have multiple annoynums partners, but this happens in the realm of single life and like Marine said is due mostly to the fact that they have been suppressed in this society and it motivates them.
Now keep in mind that marriage is a strictly religious ceremony. You get married in a church, you're told that in the eyes of god and holy matrimony, etc (whatever <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) so wouldn't this make banning **** marriage unconstitutional, if not marriage itself?
think you could grace us with some kind of... <i>reason</i>? perhaps?
Now keep in mind that marriage is a strictly religious ceremony. You get married in a church, you're told that in the eyes of god and holy matrimony, etc (whatever <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) so wouldn't this make banning **** marriage unconstitutional, if not marriage itself? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
dr.d is right. Marriage is in no way religious (unless you make it that way). Marriage in the US means getting a liscense and then getting some government tax benefits...generally the married people want to live together and stuff too.
Point is, you don't need a church. You don't even need a ceremony...just the ...80 dollars or something for the marriage liscense.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/labarbera.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/labarbera.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gary Remafedi, a homosexual researcher at the University of Minnesota, recently published a study in the journal Pediatrics which found that students' confusion with regard to their "sexual orientation" decreased with age. Significantly, the survey of nearly 35,000 Minnesota youth (grades 7 through 12) found that older students were less likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than younger students:
The percentage of students reporting a predominantly ("mostly" or "100%") heterosexual orientation increased slightly with age from 98.4% at age 12 to 99.2% at 18 years of age, with a corresponding decline in the percentage who adopted the bisexual label.[33]
A significant body of evidence exists that a sizeable percentage of men and women experiment with homosexual acts in their youth but go on to lead normal, heterosexual lives. Such evidence is resisted by the **** lobby, which increasingly argues that one's homosexual "identity" is fixed at birth or in one's very early years and cannot be changed. In Massachusetts, Gov. Weld's Commission on **** and Lesbian Youth was presented with testimony from men and women who had experimented with homosexuality in their youth but abandoned such behavior and found happiness. But the commission rejected such testimonies in preparing its report calling for pro-**** school programs, apparently because it did not fit the objective of confirming "**** and lesbian youth" in their homosexuality.[34]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such research would indicate that homosexuality may have genetic predisposition attached to it, but that sexual preference remains a free choice.
The flashpoint in the issue of homosexual marriage is the prospect of homosexual adoption. A government does not have the right to intervene in the private lives of its citizens, but with sufficient majority, it can be given the right to protect its youth from harm.
In Queensland Australia, for example, the eligibility criteria for adoption applicants are specified in the Adoption of Children Regulation Act 1999. The criteria state that prospective adoptive parents must, among other things,
<ul>
</li><li>have been married for at least two years;
</li><li>not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or </li><li>mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child;
</li><li>be less than 36 years old (or less than 40 if they already have another child).
</li></ul>
By legalizing homosexual union, even a civil one, you are effectively legalizing homosexual adoption, and that is where the issue is.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behavior of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research by Dr J Bailey and colleagues found in 1995 that the children of homosexual parents are about three times more likely to become homosexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Aegeri already pointed out, there is an increased occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases in those living a homosexual lifestyle. Added to the fact that homosexual adoption is likely to yield children who also have alternate sexual preferences, one can equate allowing homosexual adoption to increasing the chance of STD infection, with enough proof in the middle to make the jump. Even if that isn't accepted, the data that shows the differences in student performance with respect to upbringing would also indicate that children raised in a homosexual household perform worse at school, than their classmates reared in a traditional nuclear family. One can extrapolate this data to predict their performance later in life.
I dont think that those children where adopted Dr.D. There are a lot of homosexual couples with children from previous heterosexual liasons.
Much like with foster care many problems have been found over the years, but the benefit still outweighs the problems so the system has not been shut down. There is no reason to have a double standard for g@y adoption as pre-emptively striking down the idea based on problems that could arise is not fair to anyone.
Not true. Criteria for adoption agencys will favor a married couple than someone single. Not to mention the fact that mothers who willingly give up children for adoption are more likely to pick an established, traditional family than a single homosexual looking to start a family without a companion.
Legalization of homosexual union is a crucial step as defining it as culturally accepted and normal, and with that comes increased probability of adoption into one of such households.
And dr.d, that study also took into account non-married cohabiting couples who were the biological parents of their children. The children raised in that household were also subject to a drop in performance, indicating that the upbringing, not nescesarily the presence of biological parents, is a major factor in the child's success later on.
Solution: The government should get out of the marriage business. Call all mariages (including g<span style='color:sky'>a</span>y) "Civil Unions", and then you have no problems.
What I want to know is, why do some people have a problem with g<span style='color:sky'>a</span>ys? Seriously, is it hurting them personally? And if you're just creeped out by two men kissing, get over it.
Edit: Oh, and recent evidence shows that you don't become homosexual. It isn't a choice, its determined at birth.
Provide a link to the study. When a claim is made in a forum, the burdon of proof is on the one who made the claim.
I've never seen any evidence that has been in the least bit compelling, and I would be interested in reading any new theories and research.
I don't believe that **** marrige should be practiced as I believe it's psychological and could have the side effect of harming others' mental states.
This is not to say that I'm a bigot, it's just that I do not buy into force-fed idea that the **** phenomenon is natural. This is a debate that has had me and Troy (a **** friend of mine) nearly choking the life out of each other on occasions.
As far as the male dog humping male dog scenario.... It is kind of a bad example.
That same dog will surely impregnate a female dog given the opportunity. It will not sit down, cross it's feet and say "I'm not attracted to her." So if anything, nature's bisexual....but wait.
How do we know what the dog is thinking? Maybe dogs get just as much pleasure from sexual activity as we do, only they are a bit more "limited." (Note: lack of hands) I believe assuming a dog is homosexual just because he acts like a dog that hasn't had the company of female dogs in quite some time...is a bit...ignorant.
I mean. Take two men, coop them up together most their lives without the company of women. They still have all the hormones, urges, ect... Eventually the mind finds a way to satiate these urges and it is ingrained into the psyche as "normal."
Wait! This has already been done! It was called the Roman military!
Until such time as there is no doubt at the "true" cause of this phenomenon, I stick by my assumption that it is purely psychological.
Note that this is barring people being born of both genders, that's something very different and very biological.
In a number of the dolphin studies, it's admitted that the majority of the younger calves who engage in it IS simply for sex-play, and the participants will happily mate heterosexually. But there are still instances of fully-homosexual pairings.. in many cases, even when one of the pairing died, the other would NOT choose a mate of the opposite sex, instead going on to find another homosexual mate.
However, THIS line of discussion has already been treaded and re-treaded in the 'is homosexuality wrong' thread. Go back and read it for further elucidation. So far, no one has put together a convincing counter-argument in here as of yet to the evidence presented there.
So until that point, it should be assumed that it IS a natural occurrence. The evidence has been given, if you'd go look at it in the thread devoted to that topic. Come up with a refuting non-religion based argument, and perhaps that discussion can continue.
Until then, to put it bluntly, shaddap. Some of those discussing /are/ homosexual, including yours truly. I normally don't make a point of it, excepting in instances such as this. Being told 'you're pretending to be attracted to your own gender' is ludicrous. If it's purely psychological, I offer a challenge. Be homosexual. Honestly, even for just <b>one</b> day, be truly and deeply sexually aroused by your own gender.
There's a big difference between being 'force fed', and having someone trying to pound it through your skull that your prejudice is wrong.
(edit) Psst. Alexander's army was formed specifically of homosexual men, who were stationed with their lovers. This was done because Alexander had a shred of intelligence, and knew that someone will fight ten times harder if it's to protect someone they love. If their supply chains and methods of communication had been better, it'd be quite possible that Europe would have been conquered in entirety. (/edit)
Can you link me to these studies please - as I find it highly interesting that there are animals that choose homosexual life partners. I've never heard that one before - so if you could please show me the evidence I'd love to have a look.
EDIT
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Being told 'you're pretending to be attracted to your own gender' is ludicrous<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strawmen are similarily ludicrous. Please show me one post making that accusation.
For those people who say homosexuality isn't natural, and it is a choice, I say this to them:
It is a choice huh? Do you renember making a choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality? The answer is no. If it was a choice, we would renember chosing to be **** or straight. The point being, it isn't a choice, its a matter of different chemical arangements in your brain that determines who you become sexualy attracted to. Yes, your surroundings influence what you think of as right and wrong, but they do not stop you (internaly) from sexualy prefering a member of your own gender, or the opposite gender. Your social influence just tells you 'being **** is bad' even though you feel sexual feelings twards someone of the same sex.
Secondly, for those of you who say the bible says homosexuality is wrong:
These type of people are possibly the biggest hypocrites in the world. The bible also says children who disobey their parents can be put to death. If you truely beleive in the bible's code, you MUST obey all aspects of it. If you pick and choose what you want, then you are not obeying the bible, your simply obeying what you want. Stop pretending to be christians, and admit you are simply unfounded religious bigots.
Thirdly, for those of you who say that homosexuality is unnatural:
By this they can be meaning a few things. If you saying that homosexuality should be banned because its statistic rare (by saying unnautral) then what about people who are left handed? Should be say they are evil too? They are statisticly rare as well.
If by saying unnatural your refering to something having a predetermined purpose, then how do you know everything has this predetermined purpose? We weren't meant to write, but we do anyway. That is unnatural, yet it isn't wrong now is it?
And finaly, to those who say it doesn't fulfill the requirement of sex for reproduction only:
That would mean that ANY sexual act, or sterile person would therefore be BANNED from sexual activity if it didn't have a possibility of creating a child in some way. Meaning, people that were sterile (or women after menopause) would not be permitted to have sexual relations. Masturbation of any kind would also be illegal since it doesn't create a child either. Basicly any act, dealing with sexual organs, that doesn't result in a child would be banned. And since we wouldn't ban someone who has been through menopause or who is sterile from sexual please, to ban homosexuality on the grounds it doesn't produce a child, is also an unfounded reason to ban homosexuality.
----
So why is **** marrige being banned? Clearly, homosexuals aren't doing anything proveably wrong, and, it isn't in any way harmful to anyone who is straight (or **** even for that matter). Since **** individuals clearly share the same amount of love for each other as a heterosexual couple (love being the only actualy requirement we can all probably agree on for being married) **** couples are being married for the same reasons as straight couples, and their activities and practices are no reason to bar them from this (as I have proven above). The only reason (which isn't a very good one) anyone can use against **** marrige, is it isn't the traditonaly type of marrige. Yet, it contains all the same reasons for marriage as a normal marriage (and IS normal in my beleif). Just because something has been practiced a certain way in the past (marriage of a man and woman only) doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in a non traditional way (especialy concidering **** marriage HAS the traditional REASONS for being married, which is clearly more important then the act of marrige itself).
So, I say, banning **** marriage is extremely immoral, and hypocritical. It should be permited by the state. However, if private institutions don't want to marry **** people in their churches, they have the right not to, but at the state level, marriges between two **** people should be just as legit as a straight couple.
So, I say, banning **** marriage is extremely immoral, and hypocritical. It should be permited by the state. However, if private institutions don't want to marry **** people in their churches, they have the right not to, but at the state level, marriges between two **** people should be just as legit as a straight couple. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My main case against it is that children raised in a stable, traditional, nuclear family are better equipped and prepared for dealing with the world than if they were raised in any other setting. Foster home, cohabiting couples, or anything else, a stable traditional family is generally all-around better equipped to raise children.
I have no right to tell others how to live their lives. But when enough evidence exists to show that a person's actions affect someone who cannot help themselves, I feel I have an obligation to state an opposing viewpoint, to protect that person who can't protect themselves.
Autonomist, yes, the reasons for homosexual marriage are largely the same as that with the traditional ones, but the outcome when raising kids is vastly different.
Talesin, I see where you are coming from citing animal studies, but the studies I've cited show that people raised in a household where homosexuality is practiced are three times more likely to become homosexual themselves. That, to me, indicates more importance placed on nurture, how a person gets thoughts and morals ingrained in them. If that is true, that the environment a person was raised in is more important than their genetic code, then the point you make about a predisposition to an alternate sexual preference becomes null, as it shows that it can be changed.
Oh? So I suppose we should ban divorce too, since it would put a child in a non-nuclear family environment? I suppose we should also force remarriage within a specified ammount of time if one partner dies... Oh, and of course we should forcefully remove children from single parents at birth, placing them in foster homes to ensure that they grow up in a more 'proper' environment.
Oh? So I suppose we should ban divorce too, since it would put a child in a non-nuclear family environment? I suppose we should also force remarriage within a specified ammount of time if one partner dies... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frankly, yes, I think we should, except in cases where one parent is shown to be endangering the welfare of his/her children, or in cases where one parent has adopted a secondary sex partner.
Unfortunately, that idea went out the window about 50 years ago.
Oh? So I suppose we should ban divorce too, since it would put a child in a non-nuclear family environment? I suppose we should also force remarriage within a specified ammount of time if one partner dies... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frankly, yes, I think we should, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And now that reason has said a tearful goodby to the thread, I'll go find something better to do.
1) What studies, who did they come from, HOW were they conducted reguarding your proof they are more likely to be homosexuals.
2) This is the key part. You say they are 3 times more likely to be homosexuals if their parents were. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEIR PARENTS MADE THEM THAT WAY. Their parents simply informed them that different people have different feelings, and they should follow theirs. How do you know that straight famlies don't have homosexual kids that simply don't want to come out BECAUSE OF THEIR PARENTS. Have you thought about that? Untill you can PROVE homosexual parents are the cause of kids coming out, and straight parents aren't the reason kids in straight famlies feel compelled to act straight yet are ****, your argument holds no merit.
3) How is a straight family better prepared to deal with the world then a **** parented family? The ONLY difference is the sexual orientation of the parents, so a **** family can easily raise kids in just the same way as a straight one, but choose to tell their kids to love who they choose. The onyl difference between a straight and **** family is the ACTUALY **** kids are more likely to come out, while in a straight one they are more likely to stay closeted, even though their ****.
I've heard this over and over but no one gave any proof, simply speculation.
I've heard this over and over but no one gave any proof, simply speculation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, he did post some evidence, if you would go back but one page:
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behavior of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Research by Dr J Bailey and colleagues found in 1995 that the children of homosexual parents are about three times more likely to become homosexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->