Do you believe that civil gay unions should be legalised?

Dave!

Varkov wrote: »

People are still getting hung up on the whole infertility thing.

It is not the same thing.

Nature did not intend for two same sex people to raise a child. An infertile couple can still provide the optimal social development that a child needs. This is the way humans have developed over thousands of years. It is evolution, a scientific fact.

This is diverting from Mairt's original point which was that 2 men or women cannot concieve together, therefore it is not natural, and so they should not be allowed to raise children. I was pointing out that an infertile couple cannot concieve either, so therefore they are also contrary to what nature "intended", and so to extend his point, they also should not be allowed to raise children.

Of course, if the child is likely to be more healthy with hetrosexual parents, then that should be the first choice, but the ability to concieve is irrelevent to that. Making a child is completely different to raising one.

But as a matter of interest, what does the research show regarding the welfare of the child in the two different environments? Wikipedia links to some research that shows there to be no difference between the two. Is there any meta-analytical (that's hard to say...) research that confirms one way or the other?

BTW, there's alot of talk of what "nature" intends, and how evolution dictates this and that...... but what exactly does that mean? What's "natural" and what's not? Isn't "natural" whatever we can achieve by human invention and intelligence?

Cancer is natural... so to stop that natural occurance, we pump a bunch of natural chemicals into the victim, or use natural radiation, to stop it. AIDS is natural. We spend our entire lives railing against what is "natural".
But if two homosexuals are capable of raising an orphan to the same standards as a hetrosexual couple can, then what exactly is unnatural about that?

Mairt wrote: »

I'm not a doctor, nothing I can do when nature intervenes.

Can you elaborate on that? It's rather cryptic and can be read either way.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Nature, nuture, its a commonly used expression. That you haven't heard it before is not really a surprise.

You don't seem to understand what I said. I never suggested that I did notknow what it meant. Reread the post.

So not only have you nothing to back you up, you actually admit to not even grasping the fundamenals of evolutionary theory.

Again, what are you even talking about?
First, the first page of a google result backs me up, second, I never mentioned anything about not understanding evolution. I understand it quite well. You do not seem to grasp what I am saying.

wut

You may as well have said 'wut' for your whole post.
I said 1500, and 500 because it does not matter if it was 1503 or 497.

What I am saying is anything but orthodox.

You don't even seem to grasp the meaning of the sentence. Your sentence makes no sense in relation to mine, look up the meaning of the word if you are not sure what it means, before replying with some wild statement.

So, now you are claiming I'm bringing a god of the gaps into it? Please, save your strawmen for someone with the time to care. Also, its goddamn difficult to find something that isn't there. A vagina is useful to women, but not of much use to a man (save it), how many cases of that being passed on are there?

Sigh... nice grasp of the paragraph.
I said that a certain method can not account for something, you said that therefore your opinion is right. That is a logical conclusion,how?
You also don't seem to grasp my corollary of the situation, namely, my analogy.
I say that people do not have proof of why people are homosexual in genetics, you say that therefore it is not genetics. this makes no sense. It is like saying Ann is taller than Barry, therefore Jim is taller than Barry.
My analogy with God is a simple one, people always make the same mistake as you. Science(in this case genetics) can not explain something with proofyet, therefore, it has to be something else.

Actually in matters of sexuality, just about anything that has an institution devoted to it in America is wrong. Bit of an aftershock of the puritans that founded the place.

Again, this reply has nothing got to do with what I said, it does not matter if ' just about anything that has an institution devoted to it in America is wrong.' is true, the fact is, because something is in America does not make it wrong.

As for the rest of your long, rambling discourse, making various wild claims, complete with gay bonobos (almost all bonobos are bisexual, but if you wanted to put it in human terms they are also incestuous paedophile rapists, so they'll basically shag anything, bit like what I was saying), with nary a link to back them up, I'll just say this.

Yes, almost all are bisexual, as I said. So what, that does not mean they all are. That is besides the point, which was me discrediting your claim that evolution would have gotten rid of a 'gay' gene thousands of years ago.


Its difficult enough to breed without having two strikes against you by being genetically homosexually inclined. The whole "hardwired" thing has its roots in the eugenics movements of the late 19th century / early 20th century, where the "nature versus nurture" (which you have apparently never heard before)[/quote]No, you just claimed that randomly it seems.

argument came to the fore. Most of the beliefs of these movements have since been discredited, and the "hardwired gay" idea falls directly into the same category.

Please show me where people being gay due to genetics has been disproven?
I suppose transexuality and heterosexuality is nurture too? Just a state of mind?

It might suit a lot of people to believe in it, for their own ends, but belief doesn't make it accurate in any real sense.

Oh yes, I must be grinding that personal axe of mine, to suit my own ends, and to believe that sexuality is caused by nature.

SimpleSam06

ixoy wrote: »

SimpleSam, do you believe two men can love each other and be attracted to each other emotionally despite the fact that you may perceive it performs no evolutionary function? Or is love only the brain's mean of ensuring couples stay together to look after children?

Yes, of course two men can love each other emotionally. Just because they sleep with the same gender doesn't mean their emotions fall off. My point is that physical sexual attraction isn't hardwired, its not like you wake up in the morning and find out you have a vagina. In the same way people shouldn't be pigeonholed as "being" gay.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06, did you know that a team of researchers has discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. The researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours?
Does this fit in with your theory?
Not hard-wired maybe, but definitely genetics no?

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I say that people do not have proof of why people are homosexual in genetics, you say that therefore it is not genetics. this makes no sense.

Its quite difficult to prove something exists when it doesn't, I know.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes, almost all are bisexual, as I said. So what, that does not mean they all are. That is besides the point, which was me discrediting your claim that evolution would have gotten rid of a 'gay' gene thousands of years ago.

You missed the part where they are paedophiliac incestuous rapists, who would ride anything; put a willy on a developing brain and see what happens. It doesn't mean anything like they are hardwired for homosexuality. And I missed the part where you discredited me.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Please show me where people being gay due to genetics has been disproven?

Tsk tsk, I never said that. I simply said the belief, and thats what it is, has its foundations in a discredited movement.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I suppose transexuality and heterosexuality is nurture too? Just a state of mind?

Yes, actually.

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

SimpleSam06, did you know that a team of researchers has discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. The researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours?
Does this fit in with your theory?
Not hard-wired maybe, but definitely a genetics no?

Hahaha, link me this research, I would love to read up on it. Its gas how confusing the nervous system of insects can equate to genetically gay humans. Also I'd love to know how they managed to alter the genes of the fruit flies within hours, thats a good trick.

Tar.Aldarion

Also, what do you make of articles such as?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305217,00.html

Yes, I know it is on fox. :P

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Also, what do you make of articles such as?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305217,00.html

Yes, I know it is on fox. :P

Ah fox news, the bogroll of tabloids. What they did was grow male worms with a worm vagina and then proclaimed they found a sexual orientation gene.

Most of the transgender worms still lacked the male-specific sensory neurons, even though the fem-3 gene was activated.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hahaha, link me this research, I would love to read up on it. Its gas how confusing the nervous system of insects can equate to genetically gay humans. Also I'd love to know how they managed to alter the genes of the fruit flies within hours, thats a good trick.

That is one of the sites that has it, it is up around the net.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

The team led by University of Illinois at Chicago researcher David Featherstone has discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. Armed with this knowledge, the researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours.

Featherstone, associate professor of biological sciences at UIC, and his coworkers discovered a gene in fruit flies they called "genderblind," or GB. A mutation in GB turns flies bisexual.

Featherstone found the gene interesting initially because it has the unusual ability to transport the neurotransmitter glutamate out of glial cells -- cells that support and nourish nerve cells but do not fire like neurons do. Previous work from his laboratory showed that changing the amount of glutamate outside cells can change the strength of nerve cell junctions, or synapses, which play a key role in human and animal behavior.

But the GB gene became even more interesting when post-doctoral researcher Yael Grosjean noticed that all the GB mutant male flies were courting other males.

"It was very dramatic," said Featherstone. "The GB mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female. They even attempted copulation."

Other genes that alter sexual orientation have been described, but most just control whether the brain develops as genetically male or female. It's still unknown why a male brain chooses to do male things and a female brain does female things. The discovery of GB provided an opportunity to understand why males choose to mate with females.

"Based on our previous work, we reasoned that GB mutants might show homosexual behavior because their glutamatergic synapses were altered in some way," said Featherstone. Specifically, the GB mutant synapses might be stronger.

"Homosexual courtship might be sort of an 'overreaction' to sexual stimuli," he explained.

To test this, he and his colleagues genetically altered synapse strength independent of GB, and also fed the flies drugs that can alter synapse strength. As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off -- and within hours.

"It was amazing. I never thought we'd be able to do that sort of thing, because sexual orientation is supposed to be hard-wired," he said. "This fundamentally changes how we think about this behavior."

Featherstone and his colleagues reasoned that adult fly brains have dual-track sensory circuits, one that triggers heterosexual behavior, the other homosexual. When GB suppresses glutamatergic synapses, the homosexual circuit is blocked.

Further work showed precisely how this happens -- without GB to suppress synapse strength, the flies no longer interpreted smells the same way.

"Pheromones are powerful sexual stimuli," Featherstone said. "As it turns out, the GB mutant flies were perceiving pheromones differently. Specifically, the GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus."

Featherstone says it may someday be possible to domesticate insects such as fruit flies and manipulate their sense of smell to turn them into useful pollinators rather than costly pests.

The research appeared on line December 10 in Nature Neuroscience, and is scheduled for print in the January issue.

Grosjean, now with the Center of Integrative Genomics in Lausanne, Switzerland, is the paper's first author. Along with Featherstone, authors include Hrvoje Augustin of UIC and Micheline Grillet and Jean-Francois Ferveur of the Université de Bourgogne in Dijon, France.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ah fox news, the bogroll of tabloids. What they did was grow male worms with a worm vagina and then proclaimed they found a sexual orientation gene.

They are mostly hermaphrodites.
One in 500 was a true male.

Simply put, they changed them genetically and changed what they were attracted to. If animals were not affected by genes in this way, it would not have affected them.

Tar.Aldarion

Also, how do you reconcile the fact that in twins: if one is gay, the likelihood that the other is gay is 5 to 10 times higher than that of normal brothers and sisters in the general population?
This definitely suggests genetic influence. Why would this be if genetics were not a big factor?

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That is one of the sites that has it, it is up around the net.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

More worm vaginas. From your own article:

"Homosexual courtship might be sort of an 'overreaction' to sexual stimuli," he explained... Specifically, the GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus.

I tried to find some research stating there was no gay gene, but the first few pages of google were filled with terrifying rhetoric from relgious groups. Beeb to the rescue.

Previous research suggested that male homosexuality is passed on from mother to son.

But the new work, covering more people, aims to show that the particular genetic features implicated are no more common in gay men than would be expected.

"Because our study was larger than the original one, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study," said the team from the University of Western Ontario in the journal, Science.

"Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation," they concluded.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

More worm vaginas. From your own article:

Yes, he said they 'might' be. How does that remove the fact that genetics can decide if something is attracted to males or not? It clearly does.

I tried to find some research stating there was no gay gene, but the first few pages of google were filled with terrifying rhetoric from relgious groups. Beeb to the rescue.[/QUOTE]

However, both the studies targeted only one part of the X chromosome. The authors of the new study say that: "These results do not preclude the possibility of detectable gene effects elsewhere in the genome."

Infact, they do not preclude anything, even in that part of the chromosome. They were looking for something very specific.

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Also, how do you reconcile the fact that in twins: if one is gay, the likelihood that the other is gay is 5 to 10 times higher than that of normal brothers and sisters in the general population?
This definitely suggests genetic influence. Why would this be if genetics were not a big factor?

Don't even ask about the source. The reasoning is alright though.

The “Gay” Twins Study

This discredited study was conducted by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. In December of 1991, these two researchers published a study of twins, and they claimed to have demonstrated a genetic cause for being “gay.” One same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, wrote, “They found that 52% of identical twin brothers of gay men were gay, as were 22% of fraternal twin brothers, and 11% of genetically unrelated brothers.”

There are several problems with this study. First, (assuming that the study was legitimate) in order to show that homosexuality is genetic (in identical twins) if one twin is “gay” the other should also be “gay” 100% of the time. This study, however, did not produce results that demonstrate this.

Second, genetics tells us that if one fraternal (non-identical) twin is “gay,” then other non-twin brothers should also be “gay” exactly as often as are the non-identical twin brothers, since non-identical twins and regular brothers are equally genetically different. In this study 22% of fraternal twins both claimed to be “gay.” Therefore, their non-twin brothers should also have claimed to be “gay” 22% of the time. If the non-twin percentage were lower, some environmental cause must have been at fault, not a hidden “gay” gene. But, this was not the case. Yet readers could not have known that this was not the case because Bailey and Pillard left the numbers for the genetically related non-twin brothers out of their original report. Why?

According to The Advocate, the researcher’s withheld important information about the non-twin brothers in their study, the article states: “According to Bailey, the released data did not include another group in the study: 142 genetically related non-twin brothers of gay men, of whom only 13—or about 9% were also gay.”

Obviously, if this data had been released with the original study, it would have been immediately clear that there is no gay gene. The percentage of homosexuality in non-twin brothers is so low (9%) that had the study been properly conducted and reported, it would actually have demonstrated that homosexuality is NOT caused by a gay gene. If the study showed that 11% of non-related, step-brothers were both “gay,” then, if genetics were a factor, then more than 9% of genetically related brothers should be gay, but this study does not show this. This study shows the opposite, that unrelated step-brothers are both “gay” more often than genetically related brothers, thus, the study actually demonstrates that environment is the cause for same-gender sexual desires. But the researches left this out.

Third, this study did not have a proper sample. According to a leading gay publication, “Bailey and Pillard’s study has come under attack in scientific circles on similar grounds. Gay scholars have called their sample, culled though advertisements in gay and lesbian newspapers, unrepresentative and their data inconclusive.”

These “scientists” also used a curious definition of “gay” for their sample. Bailey admits that he and “Pillard ‘lumped the bisexuals in with the gay men.’”

Therefore, many of the supposed “gays,” in this study, had significant attractions to women. As we will see later, this ironic fact is a norm for men that have sex with men. Calling those that claim to have developed “bisexual” desires “gay” in order to produce results favorable to “gay” propagandists may work well to deceive the public, but it does not prove that anyone is born with any psycho-spiritual Ulrichsian sexual mix-up. Further, it does not serve the interest of science or truth.

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Infact, they do not preclude anything, even in that part of the chromosome. They were looking for something very specific.

Yes, a gay gene, which they failed to find, surprisingly enough.

Tar.Aldarion

Actually, I was not quoting that research, I was just quoting the Head of The Human Genome Project, who I assumed knew what he was talking about.

"An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population)"

Yes, a gay gene, which they failed to find, surprisingly enough.

Yes, because that is a simplistic approach. If genes are proven to be a big cause in sexual orientaion, it will not be due to one 'gay gene' in all probability.

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Actually, I was not quoting that research, I was just quoting the Head of The Human Genome Project, who I assumed knew what he was talking about.

Thats not the same fellow who was seen as one of the founding fathers of modern genetic research, before he came out with "black people are inherently less intelligent than white people", or words to that effect?

Long story short, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I'm quite sure they would be delighted to find a gene for everything, but ignoring the social situation in which gay or non gay siblings are raised is foolish in the extreme, particularily with regard to sexual orientation.

Ah yes, here we go.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary.

And sexual behaviour is about as well understood as intelligence itself, which is to say not at all.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Thats not the same fellow who was seen as one of the founding fathers of modern genetic research, before he came out with "black people are inherently less intelligent than white people", or words to that effect?

That was the previous head of it, he even won a nobel prize.

Long story short, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I'm quite sure they would be delighted to find a gene for everything, but ignoring the social situation in which gay or non gay siblings are raised is foolish in the extreme, particularily with regard to sexual orientation.

I would not suggest disregarding it at all, I think that it may play some part all right, but that genetics has a lot to do with it. Whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not necessarily predeterminations, but I do think that it is possible either way.


edit: I see your link now. Testing also suggests that vegetarians are smarter than omnivores and that men are smarter than women. Those poor black omnivorous women. :P

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I would not suggest disregarding it at all, I think that it may play some part all right, but that genetics has a lot to do with it. Whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not necessarily predeterminations, but I do think that it is possible either way.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree so, since there is no conclusive evidence. From what there is, however, I'll stick to my guns until such time as I am proven wrong.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well we'll have to agree to disagree so, since there is no conclusive evidence. From what there is, however, I'll stick to my guns until such time as I am proven wrong.

Yeah, well, I'll agree with me for the time being too! ;-)

arybvtcw0eolkf

DaveMcG wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that? It's rather cryptic and can be read either way.

I - AM - NOT - A - DOCTOR.

Clear?.

Tar.Aldarion

Mairt wrote: »

I - AM - NOT - A - DOCTOR.

Clear?.

Is that not inverted via that __, are you a Doctor?

Dave!

Mairt wrote: »

I - AM - NOT - A - DOCTOR.

Clear?.

Ah. I gather by posting that you're trying to illustrate that you're not intelligent enough to put together a lucid thought that isn't riddled with 'gut feelings' and prejudices -- and that explains your previous posts.

Gotcha! Clear as crystal

arybvtcw0eolkf

DaveMcG wrote: »

Ah. I gather by posting that you're trying to illustrate that you're not intelligent enough to put together a lucid thought that isn't riddled with 'gut feelings' and prejudices -- and that explains your previous posts.

Gotcha! Clear as crystal

Ah we've come to throwing insults about.

I'm out of this one now.

Dave!

Yes your previous patronising post was indeed insulting, so I guess we have come to 'throwing them about' :rolleyes:

Bye

ps. I've reported your post too. Cheers.

Karoma

Mairt & DaveMcG: The two of you drop it now. DaveMcG, for what it's worth, you're closer to a ban-- attack the post and not the poster. If you cannot abide by this basic rule then don't post again.

Dave!

I'll try Karoma! Back on topic now..... gays eh?

Terry

Such pedantry.

Look, if a couple of guys want to take each other up the asre, who are we to care?

I care as much about their sex lives as I do about anyone elses.

If these same two guys want to adopt a child, then let them, but only if they are not bad people.

A few people here are rabid in their view that gay people should be allowed adopt.
Well not all gay people should be allowed to adopt, becasue guess what? Some gay people are not that nice. Some of them are complete **** (ooh err missus). Just like some straight people are ****. As such, they shouldn't be allowed near children. ****ing American tv giving everyone romantic ideals of gay people. They're the same as the rest of us.

As for a gay gene, again, who fucking cares? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Pointing to the antics of a few monkies won't confirm that there is a gay gene in humans. It just shows that some monkies like butt sex.

ztoical

Mairt wrote: »

Gay couples raising children is not natural, simple as in my books.

should single people be allowed to adopt? what about people who adopt children who are not the same race as them?

Anyone who is going to adopt goes through a series of checks to see if they are suitable - your not handing a child over to be raised in isolation with two people, adoption agencies look for support structures like sisters, brothers, grandparents, close friends etc etc to be in place with any couple looking to adopt it would be no different with a gay couple so we are not taking about dumping a child with two men or two women and them having no interaction with anyone from the oposite sex and being "confused".

I have two cousins who are adopted, both were around 4 when adpoted and remember the awful homes they were in before, they were just so happy to be in a home were someone loved them and wanted them, they didn't care what flaws my aunt and uncle might have.

And someone mentioned the kid getting teased at school and having to deal with the stigma - wake up people kids will tease other kids about anything, I got teased becuase my mum worked and all the other mums were house wifes. There is no no typical family. With divorce, single parents, etc you could have one parent or you could have more then four if both your parents remarry.

If gays are such dangers to raising children why aren't we pushing laws to have their natural children removed from them?

randylonghorn

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The largest sexual organ is the brain. The things that I found erotic when I was 14, 18 and later in life no longer have the same interest for me, and other things have taken their place. Its a big mistake to pigeonhole people based on their sexual preferences, ironically something the "gay" community is as guilty of as the right wing bible bashing community, and thats something I do have a problem with.

Hmmm ... I think I actually agree with this ... though I would be slower to say 'x does something as much as y' as such an opinion is always highly subjective at best.

I fairly much believe that you are born with your sexuality, or at least your sexual potential, so I suppose I would lean towards a fairly strong genetic factor.

That said, I also think that for many individuals, their sexual potential covers a broader range than we have traditionally believed, or than most individuals would like to think for that matter ... and that how that plays out is fairly much down to nurture, environment, life experiences, etc., etc. ... perhaps even a modicum of chance at times.

And I believe that sexuality is a developing and changing thing, and for some (albeit probably a fairly small minority) the changes over time can be quite significant ... or perhaps in some cases, their growing self-awareness and self-acceptance can lead to significant changes over time ... the jury in the back of my brain is still out on that one, and the more I see of life and people, and the more I read, the less sure I get, rather than more! :rolleyes:

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

There is no "gay" gene, and if there was it would have been bred out of the species millenia ago, since it is completely counterproductive to reproduction.

Ah, but maybe it is a useful agency for the control of population growth?

No, I'm not really advancing that as a serious hypothesis ... my point is more that maximum reproduction is not necessarily synonymous with maximising the chances for species survival.

Anyway, I think we're getting a bit off topic with all the genetics and animal / insect examples ... human beings have the capacity to reason, to choose based on ethical and philosophical beliefs ... and surely that is what this thread is really about?



(Terry, I find myself agreeing with you fairly much 100% in this thread.

That's kinda worrying, don'tcha know!


)

The_Minister

Terry wrote: »

It just shows that some monkies like butt sex.

And, to lob a pipebomb on top of that, ducks have sex with dead ducks. Is necrophilia therefore natural and ok?

darkman2

My answer to the thread question - I dont mind. If it legalised then I wont mind at all.


However I dont mind as long as the gay community dont try to use it to foist their beliefs on anyone else - i.e keep quiet after it happens and dont make a big social statement about it. I personally do not approve of homosexuality but I am tolerant of others and if thats their thing then so be it as long as they dont interfer with the rest of us then live and let live.


FWIW with this thread I dont believe people are born gay. Nature cannot allow that. As regards notions of bringing up a child - no absolutely not. Its not natural and thats why the stigma and abuse that child would get would be inevitably destructive.

Muff_Daddy

ztoical wrote: »

And someone mentioned the kid getting teased at school and having to deal with the stigma - wake up people kids will tease other kids about anything, I got teased becuase my mum worked and all the other mums were house wifes. There is no no typical family. With divorce, single parents, etc you could have one parent or you could have more then four if both your parents remarry.

But here's the thing, getting teased because your mum worked (I've never heard of anything like that before btw) or being raised by one lone parent is one thing, but being derided for being gay is totally different. I'm not saying the child will be raised gay, but to me, it's inevitable that the child will get a very very hard time in a lot of schools for having two mum's or two dad's. I think that the the social well-being of the child should be considered a lot more than a lot of people here do.

I'm not anit-gay (I voted yes in the poll) and I don't think it's unnatural for homosexuals to raise children, I just think it's a tad selfish for two gays, who chose the life they do, to bring children into it, especially in the current social climate. 10 years from now? If peoples attitude's change, of course I'd change my mind, but I don't think that we should disregard that some innocent child (who unless he/she is luckey enough to be put in a really good school with no bed eggs) will have a miserable time growing up, just to appease the homosexuals right to raise children. I think anyone who thinks such a child won't get badly bullied is deluided, quite honestly.

I'm probably going to get it from all angles after this post, but it's how I feel about this topic.

Dave!

Here's an interesting paper on the subject by the Tasmania Law Reform Institute.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:nixQoCJuKvMJ:www.law.utas.edu.au/reform/Publications/adoption/AdoptionEasyPrint.pdf+same-sex+adoption+meta-analysis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ie

You have to scroll down to page 22, about 3/4 of the way down, or search for 'Lesbian and Gay Parenting Research'.

It goes through most of these points and for every one, cites studies to back it up.

I'll copy and paste a few points...

Are lesbians and gay men suitable parents?
There is no empirical foundation for the belief that lesbian and gay adults are not fit to parent.97
Research comparing lesbian with heterosexual mothers has not found any marked differences in self-esteem, psychological adjustment or attitudes toward child rearing.98
There is no evidence suggesting that lesbian mothers are less maternal than their heterosexual counterparts. The American Academy of Paediatrics in
reviewing the body of scientific literature99 found that “lesbian mothers strongly endorse child centred attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles 100 and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers”.

Research on gay fathers also demonstrates that there is no basis for the belief that they are unfit to parent.102 The empirical evidence concerning gay fathers shows that they demonstrate substantial capacity for
nurturance and investment in their paternal role and do not differ from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy 103 or dealing with normal parenting problems. 104
In some studies gay fathers compared to their heterosexual counterparts fare better in adhering to disciplinary guidelines, providing guidance, assisting in the development of cognitive skills and involvement in their children’s activities.105

Will the child’s development suffer if raised in a same sex family?

Studies of personal development among children of
lesbian and gay parents have assessed a broad array of characteristics, concluding that children of gay or
lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents.

...

Factors such as parenting stress and conflict, factors which are unrelated to family structure, are the determining factors in indicating children’s dysfunction. 112 Children are “better adjusted when their parents report greater relationship satisfaction, higher levels of love, and lower inter-parental conflict regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation”. 113 If a child experiences functional interaction with his or her parents and their family environment is free from personal distress their development will occur normally. This applies equally to children of lesbian and gay families and heterosexual families.

Will the child be teased as a result of prejudice against homosexuality?

One UK study found that the children of lesbian mothers were no more likely than children of heterosexual mothers to be
teased or ostracised. 120
A study conducted in the USA found that although children raised in a gay or lesbian household do report teasing because of their parents sexual orientation, their self-esteem levels were the same as those of children of heterosexual parents. 121
Nor is there any evidence that the mental health of children raised in a lesbian or gay household is adversely affected by teasing.122
Children raised by lesbian or gay parents learn to deal with perceptions that their family is “different” in the same way that children living in other minority families such as religious or racial minorities learn to cope with community stigma based on their family’s differences.

I think that last sentence is an important point to highlight in light of Muff_Daddy and darkman2's posts. Should Muslims not be allowed to raise kids in America, because ignorant hicks will inevitably pass on their prejudices to their kids, and the 'Muslim children' will suffer similar bullying?

The paper doesn't settle the debate, but it provides good evidence.

darkman2

Your being selective here

One UK study found that the children of lesbian mothers were no more likely than children of heterosexual mothers to be
teased or ostracised

Of course not! Whats a teenager's wet dream? - Lesbians! - the child will be slagged over it but no where near as much as two gay men........I dont care what you say. I dont care what those 'scientists' say. I was a teenager not long ago and by god im telling you the abuse a child like that would get is beyond you're imagination. Dont be selective - fact is fact - a child to a gay couple would have his/her life destroyed shortly after leaving primary school - end of story.

randylonghorn

darkman2 wrote: »

However I dont mind as long as the gay community dont try to use it to foist their beliefs on anyone else.

Is it the crew from the Gay Recruitment Drive or the Cocksuckers Are Better ... mmmmmkay?! brigade which annoy you more, darkman?

darkman2 wrote: »

Nature cannot allow that.

I'm honestly fascinated by how many people in this thread are absolutely certain they know what this wonderfully ethereal entity nature will and will not allow.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I think that the the social well-being of the child should be considered a lot more than a lot of people here do.

I haven't seen anyone here argue that the social well-being of the child shouldn't be considered, indeed, many would say it should be paramount. That would certainly be my stance, and Terry's, and from what I can remember without reading the whole thread again, the general tenor of what people were saying.

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I'm probably going to get it from all angles after this post ...

*whistles innocently*

Dave!

darkman2 wrote: »

Your being selective here



Of course not! Whats a teenager's wet dream? - Lesbians! - the child will be slagged over it but no where near as much as two gay men........I dont care what you say. I dont care what those 'scientists' say. I was a teenager not long ago and by god im telling you the abuse a child like that would get is beyond you're imagination. Dont be selective - fact is fact - a child to a gay couple would have his/her life destroyed shortly after leaving primary school - end of story.

A study conducted in the USA found that although children raised in a gay or lesbian household do report teasing because of their parents sexual orientation, their self-esteem levels were the same as those of children of heterosexual parents. 121
Nor is there any evidence that the mental health of children raised in a lesbian or gay household is adversely affected by teasing.122


"Because the child will get slagged" is not a compelling argument when you consider that it will have no bearing on the child's mental state. I was slagged in school. Lots of kids were called "speccy four eyes" cos they had glasses. Kids used to be slagged because they came from a broken home. Kids of inter-racial parents were abused to no end. I don't know any, but it's a pretty safe bet that any Muslims living in Hicksville, USA, will suffer abuse, and their kids will be teased also.

I guess none of them should have kids -- yes? You agree? Yes?

Dont be selective - fact is fact - a child to a gay couple would have his life destroyed shortly after leaving primary school - end of story.

Fact is fact - you consider your own opinion to be of greater import and to hold more weight than that of the research at Stanford Law School. Why am I not surprised.

BTW,

Having a lesbian or gay parent does not make a child particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse. In fact “a
child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater
than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual”.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer my child gets a bit of teasing than s/he gets molested! :eek:

randylonghorn

darkman2 wrote: »

Your being selective here

Tbh, looking back over the full post, I think it is you who are being selective.

darkman2 wrote: »

I dont care what you say. I dont care what those 'scientists' say. I was a teenager not long ago and by god im telling you the abuse a child like that would get is beyond you're imagination. Dont be selective - fact is fact - a child to a gay couple would have his/her life destroyed shortly after leaving primary school - end of story.

Glad to hear you are so open to hearing other views on the issue.

And the only RL scenario I personally have knowledge of does not support your argument, as I said here.

Yes, I accept it's only one case, and doesn't prove anything, but so far, in terms of this type of scenario arising, it's 1-0 against your point-of-view among the people I know who have experienced this.

How many RL cases are you familiar with?

darkman2

randylonghorn wrote: »

Tbh, looking back over the full post, I think it is you who are being selective.

Glad to hear you are so open to hearing other views on the issue.

And the only RL scenario I personally have knowledge of does not support your argument, as I said here.

Yes, I accept it's only one case, and doesn't prove anything, but so far, in terms of this type of scenario arising, it's 1-0 against your point-of-view among the people I know who have experienced this.

How many RL cases are you familiar with?

Can I ask what age you two might be? I know people who have been severly bullied for far less then being parented by gays. Being parented by gay men and asking your child to attand school and acknowledge that fact is a form of child abuse IMO. You honestly have no idea of what that child will be subjected to in an IRISH school. Im sure others will enlighten you but your completely out of touch with this. You dont understand. I have genuine concerns for the well being of students with this. Bare in mind that the most common slag in Irish schools is the word 'f*ggot'. Id say you think im wrong. Well im not. Almost every slag commonly used today amongst teens is associated with homosexuality. The child would be bullied into submission. Mentally it will certainly be destructive to the childs development and possibly physically if enough students are inclined that way.

darkman2

DaveMcG wrote: »

[/U].122


"Because the child will get slagged" :eek:

Do you know that this is a prime reason for teen suicide - ie bullying?
Dont use stupid emoticons either - its a very serious issue in schools.

thefinalstage

Gay people are are generally as mentally balanced as the rest of the population. I say if they want to get married let them. They are doing no harm to anyone. If they later want to adopt thats ok too as long as they are screened in the same way as every other couple. The screening is fecking thorough...

gufcfan

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

voted yes because i couldnt really care less

I could care less also, but people should be able to do what they like. I have a couple of friends, who i believe if they ever met someone they wanted to marry or have a civil union with, should not be denied their right as human beings.

Dave!

darkman2 wrote: »

Do you know that this is a prime reason for teen suicide - ie bullying?
Dont use stupid emoticons either - its a very serious issue in schools.

Yes, and do you know that most students experience bullying/teasing at some point? They don't all kill themselves. In fact, most of them don't, and dealing with bullying is likely to strengthen them as people and benefit them in later life. Protecting children from every bump and bruise does not prepare them for life. If they don't learn to deal with insults and negative situations, they will flounder.

You'll also notice that there are quite alot of things which children are teased about. Having glasses, being bad at sports, having freckles, red hair, being short, being disabled, and indeed having gay parents.... Do you think that every form of bullying is the same? You think calling someone speccy-four-eyes is going to destroy them emotionally for the rest of their life? Or do you accept that there's something of a spectrum, where for example, slagging someone's glasses is minor, and social exclusion is major?

Then maybe you'll actually read the paper which says the student's "self-esteem levels were the same as those of children of heterosexual parents" and "[there is no] evidence that the mental health of children raised in a lesbian or gay household is adversely affected by teasing."

Evidentally, this kind of teasing is on the low end of the scale. See, you don't actually know any kids with gay parents, so you're just drawing your own conclusions based on the fact that kids often call each other 'gay', 'fag', etc. But when you look at the research, it shows that the child is not "bullied into submission" (how dramatic).

You should also consider that the parents of the children are likely to have experienced teasing and bullying while they were growing up, and so will be able to offer their own advice. If a kid is teased about something else (eg. freckles, spots), the tendency is for parents to say "just ignore them", and leave it at that. Do you think that homosexuals are ignorant of the fact that gays experience teasing, or that their family is somewhat different? I don't think so; they would, I suspect, be more likely to sit down with the child and deal with the issue.

Now how about you stop being "selective", and address my other points also:

"Because the child will get slagged" is not a compelling argument when you consider that it will have no bearing on the child's mental state. I was slagged in school. Lots of kids were called "speccy four eyes" cos they had glasses. Kids used to be slagged because they came from a broken home. Kids of inter-racial parents were abused to no end. I don't know any, but it's a pretty safe bet that any Muslims living in Hicksville, USA, will suffer abuse, and their kids will be teased also.

I guess none of them should have kids -- yes? You agree? Yes?

and

Having a lesbian or gay parent does not make a child particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse. In fact “a
child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater
than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual”.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer my child gets a bit of teasing than s/he gets molested!

stovelid

The-Rigger wrote: »

True, I'm a hetrosexual male, but I might just switch (to being a) cock for the tax benefits.

Edited for clarity.

Dave!

You get tax breaks for being a cock?! And nobody told me!?

djpbarry

darkman2 wrote: »

Being parented by gay men and asking your child to attand school and acknowledge that fact is a form of child abuse IMO.

Why is that? Because the child should be ashamed of their gay (male) parents?

What if the child (male) was parented by, shall we say, two rather attractive women? Do you still think the child will be seriously bullied? More so than a child with, say, bad acne?

darkman2 wrote: »

The child would be bullied into submission.

How ironic .

EdgarAllenPoo

Simple answer..yes. What difference does it really make. Gay couples have just as much of a right to a marrital headwrecking as anyone else.

randylonghorn

darkman2 wrote: »

Can I ask what age you two might be?

Old enough to have practical / professional experience of both youth work and education. Have you?

Why does my age matter?

Is there a certain age after which, in your opinion, someone's view becomes more (or less) valid?

darkman2 wrote: »

I know people who have been severly bullied for far less then being parented by gays.

I know lots of kids who have been bullied too. For that matter, I was one at one time. I detest bullying. I think schools should do more to stamp it out, I think DES should support schools better in doing so, I think parents / society generally should actively support both in making it clear that this is not the kind of behaviour we want in our society.

But the problem we need to address is bullying.

Your solution to potential bullying of the adoptive children of gay parents is not to allow gay parents to adopt.

By the same logic, you would have to ban ...

... all non-Irish parents from having children, and especially those from Africa, etc.

... all redhaired or fat parents from having kids, given the likelihood that they would pass on a genetic propensity towards red hair / overweight to their children.

... actually, probably ALL adoptive parents, as being adopted in the first place is something which bullies will often focus on and use.

Btw, how do you define "far less than being parented by gays" in this context? Or "far more", for that matter? What grounds provide more / less acceptable reasons for bullying?

darkman2 wrote: »

Being parented by gay men and asking your child to attand school and acknowledge that fact is a form of child abuse IMO.

Wow! Are you trying to establish a new corollary to Godwin's Law?

darkman2 wrote: »

You honestly have no idea of what that child will be subjected to in an IRISH school. Im sure others will enlighten you but your completely out of touch with this. You dont understand. I have genuine concerns for the well being of students with this.

You're right, I have no idea ... I didn't attend school in Ireland, I haven't worked with young people in Ireland, I haven't worked in education in Ireland, I haven't been involved with teachers, youth workers and the young people themselves in developing anti-discrimination and anti-bullying programmes ...

Oh, wait ... sorry ... for a minute there I forgot we weren't playing "opposites"! Doh!

darkman2 wrote: »

Bare in mind that the most common slag in Irish schools is the word 'f*ggot'. Id say you think im wrong. Well im not.

Actually, I think that's the first thing you've said in this thread I more or less agree with.

It ranges from the fairly good-natured banter among mates: "Gtfo off me, you faggot!" ... "Bite me, ya ghey!" ... which is relatively harmless, at least to the people involved, though unfortunately it can serve to reinforce negative stereotyping ...

... to the far more serious, direct and sometimes violent bullying of kids who are perceived or labelled as gay.

Please note my emphasis on the word labelled ... in my experience, what often happens is that the bully or bullies will pick on the weaker kid, or the odd or eccentric kid, and label that person as "a faggot" both as a form of bullying in itself, to provide justification for their own behaviour and in an attempt to split that youngster off from his peer group. It's classical animal behaviour ... the predator splits the weak member of the herd away from the rest of the herd.

I have actually known situations where youngsters were open about their sexuality (gay or bi) from maybe 15 or 16, and received relatively little hassle in school ... in fact, quite often received a lot of support from the majority of their peers ... and in the same school less "popular" kids, loners very often, were targetted and bullied in the pattern I have described above, even though they were not in fact gay, and their behaviour gave no reason to suggest that they were.

darkman2 wrote: »

Almost every slag commonly used today amongst teens is associated with homosexuality.

An exaggeration, I would suggest, but as I said above, I do take your basic point.

darkman2 wrote: »

The child would be bullied into submission. Mentally it will certainly be destructive to the childs development and possibly physically if enough students are inclined that way.

And here we part company again. As the report Dave quoted pointed out ... as the experience of my two English friends would suggest ... as the pattern I have mentioned above would suggest ... the problem isn't going to be having adoptive gay parents per se. The problem often doesn't occur even when the young person is gay, and even when s/he admits it openly.

The problem is about bullying and bullies. Schools, parents, society ... we all need to make it clear that bullying is not acceptable, that we will not tolerate it for whatever reason. We need to provide support for the young person who finds themselves a target, we need to tackle the bullies themselves, we need to encourage a culture among young people which does not tolerate bullying among their peer group. And young people will stand up, as a group, to the bullies ... which is why the bullies so often seek to isolate the intended target ... especially if they feel they have the support of the responsible adults in doing so, and if they know they will have the support of the majority of their peers in doing so ... which is why it is so important to discuss these issues openly in the classroom or youth group or whatever.

And bullies will back down very quickly faced with a strong response, because the old cliche that bullies are cowards is usually true. They are often the former victims of bullying themselves, as well, and feel that it is now their "turn" to be on top. Or they may have other issues which are sparking off their behaviour. They too deserve support and help in tackling the issues which are at the root of their behaviour. But while they are entitled to this support, their behaviour cannot be allowed to continue in the interim, or their need for support allowed to "excuse" their behaviour.

Reku

I don't see why not, all it really is is legal recognition that they are partners.

Aard

I just want to agree with randylonghorn's post above me. Being gay was not something that would cause one to be the target of bullying - but being a loner, or being introverted and eccentric was.


Also, in several instances where a gay person *was* attacked with "fagg0t" etc, there would often be a backlash from other students, telling the bully "stfu". I think there's a general concensus among teenagers that slagging somebody for being gay is seriously uncool.