keep talking in circles I guess....I gain nothing by convincing you of the plain facts thats exist.
Perhaps you should restate your argument instead of picking apart my posts with conjecture and opinion. Why are frogs dying in mass numbers then...hmm environment? anyone? Again interference by man.
If you say man has the right to play god with life then go right ahead... have at it...
Frogs dying in mass numbers might have something to do with interference by man, but I don't get your point. Evolution designed them to be the way they are... the fact that man is responsible for their low numbers is sad, but that has nothing to do with evolution.
And I didn't pick apart your posts. I said what I had to say. Why should I "restate" my argument? So you can accuse me of talking in circles? I don't think so. I stated it fine the first time.
All I am saying is that you have no way to know what evolution has in store. You are not the master of creation, and since homosexuality exists then there must be some reason for it -- possibably a reason beyond your understanding. You're only upset because there is no arguing that. I've stumped you.
Frogs dying in mass numbers might have something to do with interference by man, but I don't get your point. Evolution designed them to be the way they are... the fact that man is responsible for their low numbers is sad, but that has nothing to do with evolution.
And I didn't pick apart your posts. I said what I had to say. Why should I "restate" my argument? So you can accuse me of talking in circles? I don't think so. I stated it fine the first time.
All I am saying is that you have no way to know what evolution has in store. You are not the master of creation, and since homosexuality exists then there must be some reason for it -- possibably a reason beyond your understanding. You're only upset because there is no arguing that. I've stumped you.
Huh? I doubt very highly you could scratch my level of understanding. So you would call introducing unnatural, manmade, undesirable, regressive traits back into the gene pool a natural thing?
Science would call you a fool then. Your emotions would seem to cloud your vision of reality and the laws of nature for that matter.
Does that mean you think a straight couple should adopt once there is a sign of difficulty in conceiving a baby?
Yep. That topic can take us in a whole different direction, so I'll be cool. Adoption can be a beautiful thing. I've always looked at people who adopt and provide another human with a beter chance as a bit of a hero. Hell, we do it with animals. Bring them into our homes and give them our love. Why not a child????
In vitro is not magic, but science and cash. Here is your chance to bash....I see it as selfish and wrong that a procedure like In vitro is used to give same sex couples a chance to dance around the rules and purchase a child from a test tube. Adoption could help out thousands of children who have no choice. If a loving home is what they are trying to provide, spend that cash on someone who needs a home now.
That is what should be done in a non-reproductive couple...gay or not. Adopt!
Forcing the hand of "God" or "evolution" has always brought undesirable consequences.
You have to ask yourself this before you judge whom should raise children,
Will kids be happy with two LOVING parents, regardless of the parents sex (man-man. woman-woman, man-woman)?
Or would it be better to have two hetero people who can't stand each other raise kids for the sake of society, because that is what is expected of them.
Whose children do you think would be raised happier?
Simple fact is that evolution is survival of the fittest, a colonony of gays would not survive, so hence they are undesirable traits. If mother nature intened us to have an option of which sex to mate with then she would have given both sexes the chance to produce offspring.
I really don't think people should be making the argument that we are interfering with evolution by allowing gay people to adopt or have children via IVF for these reasones:
1. To make this argument means that you are turning a blind eye to the fact that modern medicine has essentially removed the human race from natural selection. Think about it, in the wild something like severe nearsightedness would be an extreme debilitation if you had to hunt and gather for your food. Should we not perscribe glasses to people because it is against natural selection? After all, by helping them out we are essentially making poor eyesight a more common disorder. Should people with asthma be allowed to die because in the wild they would be unable to do the daily tasks needed for survival? The list goes on and on. Modern medicine has largely removed people from the process of natural selection and as a result we are becoming a weaker species. Your argument is similar to the "eugenics doctrine" that was preached by Hitler.
2. Second, the proportion of gays in the population will NEVER effect the human population as a whole. The bottom line is the vast majority of us are hetero and even if homosexuality was heritable (which has never been proven) gays having children would never increase the number of gay people enough to have a significant impact on the human population.
3. So you don't believe that infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to use IVF to have children? Surely if "mother nature" made these people infertile then they have no right having kids right?<--sarcasm
I wonder how history will view the people who take such an intolerant stance on gays in the future. I am quite sure that during the civil rights movement that there were many people who felt that it was "unnatural" for black and white couples to be together, let alone have children. I am really discouraged by the ignorance and intolerance that you people are revealing. Your arguments are very misinformed, and spurred by intolerance. Hopefully someday you will realize this, but if you don't, I am sure that future generations will!
Humans are hardly the only living beings that are open to homosexualty. Instances of homosexual behaviour is well documented in other species. Any suggestion that it has no natural basis is just plain false.
I wonder how history will view the people who take such an intolerant stance on gays in the future. I am quite sure that during the civil rights movement that there were many people who felt that it was "unnatural" for black and white couples to be together, let alone have children. I am really discouraged by the ignorance and intolerance that you people are revealing. Your arguments are very misinformed, and spurred by intolerance. Hopefully someday you will realize this, but if you don't, I am sure that future generations will!
And stop having opinions now!!!!! That is a hell of a way to say hello. And a pretty poor blanket statement.
Humans are hardly the only living beings that are open to homosexualty. Instances of homosexual behaviour is well documented in other species. Any suggestion that it has no natural basis is just plain false.
I think the point that was trying to be made is that the homosexual behavior in nature would keep that mammal from being dominant and would not be able to pass on his gene. And Animal Planet tells us that this is the fight for survival. Not much to do with raising kids.
I'd like to know how people have come to this conclusion that the children of homosexual couples have it harder than children of heterosexual couples or single parents. There is only one solid basis for this, and it's the fact that there's intolerant people telling them that their parents way of living is wrong and not have anything solid to back this view up, and thus create unnecessary confusion in their lives.
I'd like to know how people have come to this conclusion that the children of homosexual couples have it harder than children of heterosexual couples or single parents. There is only one solid basis for this, and it's the fact that there's intolerant people telling them that their parents way of living is wrong and not have anything solid to back this view up, and thus create unnecessary confusion in their lives.
it would be kind of hard growing up without a father or mother figure in your life and replacing those essential pieces to growing up and replacing them with two mothers or two fathers... it would fuck with the kids head
I'm not going to settle on either side of the debate on here. This is just something I thought I'd throw in, for people on either side of the debate to ponder. A reaction against one certain argument being put forward on this thread:
As a disabled person who cannot give my wife children, I have visited various hospital departments about it. Waiting in these departments' waiting rooms, I have encountered all types of people: really young girls 'wanting a baby, like, now', gay couples, couples in their mid fifties and thus unable to have children, some even older. However, I have never seen any typically heterosexual couples whose genuine issue is that they cannot have children for medical reasons: never.
My purpose when visiting these clinics has been to talk to fertility experts who can help my wife and I come to terms with issues of my disability in order to have what 'nature', if it was behaving correctly, would bless us with. However, I've almost given up hope because my disability, and the psychological factors concerning being prevented children, is never mentioned, and even if it is, only superficially. Instead, the doctor expects us to be the next customer at the 'baby shop' wanting customer satifaction.
I am constantly undermined because the doctor in front of me is paid to offer IVF or nothing (which, for ethical reasons, is not enough for me). When I first went in, I expected perhaps a consultation, a chat about disability, etc. etc. for a few weeks, until even confronted with the question 'What do you think you might want to do?' This question was 'actually' asked (and much more forcefully) in the first couple of minutes. When I suggested it's a bit soon for that, we just want to discuss the facts/possibilities of children in the future, I was met with a look that said 'I'm busy, there are people here who know what they want, and they're waiting outside.'
I believe that doctors are just too used to people walking into a fertility clinic to 'get the job done' and get out again. This is why I was treated the way I was. Babies are a commodity these days. In my situation, you learn noone has a 'right' to father one, it's nature's blessing, and yet people who 'naturally' should not have children are having them handed out like the next great kitchen product.
I think everyone saying 'gay people should have children because they can/look at all the wonderful scientific progress we've made etc.' should have their head checked, I'm sorry. I actually think this is an abuse of the medical system. I recognise that I cannot have babies because an irregularity/deformity of nature prevents me from such a blessing. But because doctors are so used to dealing with people who want a baby as an equivalent to the next cosmetic surgery deal (to exercise their 'rights', or whatever), their customer relation with people like me - whose problems are serious, and should be recognised as such - are trivilaised.
It's not a sob story, please don't take it that way. But just SOMETIMES, we have to stop licking our own.... about our 'human rights' in this world. Children aren't a right, they are a blessing.
All that said, if gay people wish to 'father' a child, I'm torn. On thing I'm NOT torn on is this: adopt. Artificial intervention is medical. Put more training into the medical staff so that people who recognise and admit that they are afflicted with a 'loophole' in the system of nature can have what nature intended them to. Because, as much as we all sometimes want to 'pretty it up,' that's what this sort of disability is it. It's not an excuse to exercise my personal rights, or campaign for human equality either. That game is for a totally different field, not one where the lives of children are concerned.
I do apologise for ranting. Just thought I'd throw this is in as noone has done yet. Incidentally, I think we've decided we're going to adopt.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
it would be kind of hard growing up without a father or mother figure in your life and replacing those essential pieces to growing up and replacing them with two mothers or two fathers... it would fuck with the kids head
And you know this because you've had both experiences, of growing up the first time under the one setting, and then somehow reverting to the beginning to grow up under the alternate setting?
Humans are hardly the only living beings that are open to homosexualty. Instances of homosexual behaviour is well documented in other species. Any suggestion that it has no natural basis is just plain false.
Yes, it's related to populus numbers as a means of control. It is a mutation... It is also evolutionary dead end for a specific reason.
why so many clueless people have such strong opinions when they pose uninformed, factless, conjectured arguments again and again...I'll never know....:rolleyes: anyhow I'll state my beliefs again.
Yes they have the right to adopt and raise children absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that. I do, however, take issue at genetic influence when they have chosen their path, or their path is chosen for them (i.e. god v.s. evolution). I do not support unnatural reproduction.
Any species that cannot reproduce naturally must follow the chosen path of nature, not decieve, or manipulate it.
And you know this because you've had both experiences, of growing up the first time under the one setting, and then somehow reverting to the beginning to grow up under the alternate setting?
you seem to know it wouldnt be hard, have you grown up in both settings?
i know people that never had a father figure in their affected by it, children are meant to be raised by a man and a woman, leave it at that
you seem to know it wouldnt be hard, have you grown up in both settings?
i know people that never had a father figure in their affected by it, children are meant to be raised by a man and a woman, leave it at that
No, my point is there's no proof to this proposition that, outside of their exposure to discriminatory behaviour of those morally opposed to these settings, that it is somehow harder.
The experience I do have is of talking to people raised under such circumstances who have nothing but nice words to say about their parents.
No, my point is there's no proof to this proposition that, outside of their exposure to discriminatory behaviour of those morally opposed to these settings, that it is somehow harder.
The experience I do have is of talking to people raised under such circumstances who have nothing but nice words to say about their parents.
i still think, imho, that it would affect their kids
i still think, imho, that it would affect their kids
Fair enough. As long as you don't act out on these beliefs and impose on such children, and make preposterous statements suggesting that their lives are a lie, that they should just suddenly abandon their established systems and go out and adopt a totally unrelated father/mother figure because that's the only way, there's really not much wrong with holding these moral positions.
Thanks Harmless. That pretty much raps it up. I like the connection to plastic surgery.
lol it was a long rant. I got there in the end.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
gay people bringing up kids? god forbid! hahaha. sorry.
i dont see the problem. if a child has loving, caring parents then it shouldn't matter wheather they are two men, two women, a man and a woman, two men and a woman, two women and a man....
just becuase you are gay does not mean you cannot raise children
Yes, it's related to populus numbers as a means of control. It is a mutation... It is also evolutionary dead end for a specific reason.
why so many clueless people have such strong opinions when they pose uninformed, factless, conjectured arguments again and again...I'll never know....:rolleyes: anyhow I'll state my beliefs again.
Yes they have the right to adopt and raise children absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that. I do, however, take issue at genetic influence when they have chosen their path, or their path is chosen for them (i.e. god v.s. evolution). I do not support unnatural reproduction.
Any species that cannot reproduce naturally must follow the chosen path of nature, not decieve, or manipulate it.
"Clueless people"? Please state you credentials for being so "in the know."
I happen to have a degree in Biology/Biochemistry and have taken many courses in evolution and animial behavior. So, I'm curious...what is you knowledge based on? Google?
You haphazardly use the word "mutation" over and over again. Clearly, you aren't a genetics expert because this would not be coming out of your 'mouth'.
"Clueless people"? Please state you credentials for being so "in the know."
I happen to have a degree in Biology/Biochemistry and have taken many courses in evolution and animial behavior. So, I'm curious...what is you knowledge based on? Google?
You haphazardly use the word "mutation" over and over again. Clearly, you aren't a genetics expert because this would not be coming out of your 'mouth'.
Great. I would be interested to hear your views on how homosexuality has it's place in contributing to the human gene pool. Would you consider homosexuality a natural human progression, or is the word "mutation" on some level misleading? What would you offer as evidence towards homosexuality as a normal course of evolution i.e. not deviated in some way? Degrees don't mean much without experience, I have some degrees too...
Numerous tests have been conducted. If you would care to show me the opposite, I'll take note of your opinion...
I'd really like to know what tests have been conducted, and by what bodies, and what kinds of critiques have been made of the tests. Do you have any links to any journal articles or websites with this information?
Great. I would be interested to hear your views on how homosexuality has it's place in contributing to the human gene pool. Would you consider homosexuality a natural human condition, or is the word "mutation" on some level misleading? What would you offer as evidence towards homosexuality as a normal course of evolution i.e. not deviated in some way? Degrees don't mean much without experience I have some degrees too...
please enlighten me...
I see you didn't answer my question.
Annnnyways :rolleyes:
The problem is that human evolution is difficult to understand unless you look at the genetic aspect of it. Many different forms of taxonomy can be put forth based on genetic mapping. Whoa!
Despite the google search of a fellow jammer earlier, there still hasn't been any significant...and I repeat, SIGNIFICANT data to support any claim that there is a "gay gene." :eek: If I could get my old genetics professor on here I would, but I don't think that's reasonable.
Yes, "mutation" is misleading. Based on what I just said, a mutation is an abnormality based on the expression/or lack thereof of a specific gene.
"The normal course of evolution"? What is normal? Over time, what seems like would be the natural occurance of an event always seems to take a deviation in some aspect from what one would expect. Look back...in many cases what Darwin said as being the definition of "the survival of the fittest" isn't always clear. Nature has it's own way of expressing itself (that's in the most non-anthropomorphic way I can describe.)
I'm going to go talk to the wall now...
I'd really like to know what tests have been conducted, and by what bodies, and what kinds of critiques have been made of the tests. Do you have any links to any journal articles or websites with this information?
Comments
Frogs dying in mass numbers might have something to do with interference by man, but I don't get your point. Evolution designed them to be the way they are... the fact that man is responsible for their low numbers is sad, but that has nothing to do with evolution.
And I didn't pick apart your posts. I said what I had to say. Why should I "restate" my argument? So you can accuse me of talking in circles? I don't think so. I stated it fine the first time.
All I am saying is that you have no way to know what evolution has in store. You are not the master of creation, and since homosexuality exists then there must be some reason for it -- possibably a reason beyond your understanding. You're only upset because there is no arguing that. I've stumped you.
Peace and Love
Deni
Huh? I doubt very highly you could scratch my level of understanding. So you would call introducing unnatural, manmade, undesirable, regressive traits back into the gene pool a natural thing?
Science would call you a fool then. Your emotions would seem to cloud your vision of reality and the laws of nature for that matter.
That is what should be done in a non-reproductive couple...gay or not. Adopt!
Forcing the hand of "God" or "evolution" has always brought undesirable consequences.
Will kids be happy with two LOVING parents, regardless of the parents sex (man-man. woman-woman, man-woman)?
Or would it be better to have two hetero people who can't stand each other raise kids for the sake of society, because that is what is expected of them.
Whose children do you think would be raised happier?
I really don't think people should be making the argument that we are interfering with evolution by allowing gay people to adopt or have children via IVF for these reasones:
1. To make this argument means that you are turning a blind eye to the fact that modern medicine has essentially removed the human race from natural selection. Think about it, in the wild something like severe nearsightedness would be an extreme debilitation if you had to hunt and gather for your food. Should we not perscribe glasses to people because it is against natural selection? After all, by helping them out we are essentially making poor eyesight a more common disorder. Should people with asthma be allowed to die because in the wild they would be unable to do the daily tasks needed for survival? The list goes on and on. Modern medicine has largely removed people from the process of natural selection and as a result we are becoming a weaker species. Your argument is similar to the "eugenics doctrine" that was preached by Hitler.
2. Second, the proportion of gays in the population will NEVER effect the human population as a whole. The bottom line is the vast majority of us are hetero and even if homosexuality was heritable (which has never been proven) gays having children would never increase the number of gay people enough to have a significant impact on the human population.
3. So you don't believe that infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to use IVF to have children? Surely if "mother nature" made these people infertile then they have no right having kids right?<--sarcasm
I wonder how history will view the people who take such an intolerant stance on gays in the future. I am quite sure that during the civil rights movement that there were many people who felt that it was "unnatural" for black and white couples to be together, let alone have children. I am really discouraged by the ignorance and intolerance that you people are revealing. Your arguments are very misinformed, and spurred by intolerance. Hopefully someday you will realize this, but if you don't, I am sure that future generations will!
And stop having opinions now!!!!! That is a hell of a way to say hello. And a pretty poor blanket statement.
As a disabled person who cannot give my wife children, I have visited various hospital departments about it. Waiting in these departments' waiting rooms, I have encountered all types of people: really young girls 'wanting a baby, like, now', gay couples, couples in their mid fifties and thus unable to have children, some even older. However, I have never seen any typically heterosexual couples whose genuine issue is that they cannot have children for medical reasons: never.
My purpose when visiting these clinics has been to talk to fertility experts who can help my wife and I come to terms with issues of my disability in order to have what 'nature', if it was behaving correctly, would bless us with. However, I've almost given up hope because my disability, and the psychological factors concerning being prevented children, is never mentioned, and even if it is, only superficially. Instead, the doctor expects us to be the next customer at the 'baby shop' wanting customer satifaction.
I am constantly undermined because the doctor in front of me is paid to offer IVF or nothing (which, for ethical reasons, is not enough for me). When I first went in, I expected perhaps a consultation, a chat about disability, etc. etc. for a few weeks, until even confronted with the question 'What do you think you might want to do?' This question was 'actually' asked (and much more forcefully) in the first couple of minutes. When I suggested it's a bit soon for that, we just want to discuss the facts/possibilities of children in the future, I was met with a look that said 'I'm busy, there are people here who know what they want, and they're waiting outside.'
I believe that doctors are just too used to people walking into a fertility clinic to 'get the job done' and get out again. This is why I was treated the way I was. Babies are a commodity these days. In my situation, you learn noone has a 'right' to father one, it's nature's blessing, and yet people who 'naturally' should not have children are having them handed out like the next great kitchen product.
I think everyone saying 'gay people should have children because they can/look at all the wonderful scientific progress we've made etc.' should have their head checked, I'm sorry. I actually think this is an abuse of the medical system. I recognise that I cannot have babies because an irregularity/deformity of nature prevents me from such a blessing. But because doctors are so used to dealing with people who want a baby as an equivalent to the next cosmetic surgery deal (to exercise their 'rights', or whatever), their customer relation with people like me - whose problems are serious, and should be recognised as such - are trivilaised.
It's not a sob story, please don't take it that way. But just SOMETIMES, we have to stop licking our own.... about our 'human rights' in this world. Children aren't a right, they are a blessing.
All that said, if gay people wish to 'father' a child, I'm torn. On thing I'm NOT torn on is this: adopt. Artificial intervention is medical. Put more training into the medical staff so that people who recognise and admit that they are afflicted with a 'loophole' in the system of nature can have what nature intended them to. Because, as much as we all sometimes want to 'pretty it up,' that's what this sort of disability is it. It's not an excuse to exercise my personal rights, or campaign for human equality either. That game is for a totally different field, not one where the lives of children are concerned.
I do apologise for ranting. Just thought I'd throw this is in as noone has done yet. Incidentally, I think we've decided we're going to adopt.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Yes, it's related to populus numbers as a means of control. It is a mutation... It is also evolutionary dead end for a specific reason.
why so many clueless people have such strong opinions when they pose uninformed, factless, conjectured arguments again and again...I'll never know....:rolleyes: anyhow I'll state my beliefs again.
Yes they have the right to adopt and raise children absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that. I do, however, take issue at genetic influence when they have chosen their path, or their path is chosen for them (i.e. god v.s. evolution). I do not support unnatural reproduction.
Any species that cannot reproduce naturally must follow the chosen path of nature, not decieve, or manipulate it.
i know people that never had a father figure in their affected by it, children are meant to be raised by a man and a woman, leave it at that
The experience I do have is of talking to people raised under such circumstances who have nothing but nice words to say about their parents.
lol it was a long rant. I got there in the end.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Over himself, over his ownbody and mind, the individual is sovereign.
PEACE
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
i dont see the problem. if a child has loving, caring parents then it shouldn't matter wheather they are two men, two women, a man and a woman, two men and a woman, two women and a man....
just becuase you are gay does not mean you cannot raise children
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
"Clueless people"? Please state you credentials for being so "in the know."
I happen to have a degree in Biology/Biochemistry and have taken many courses in evolution and animial behavior. So, I'm curious...what is you knowledge based on? Google?
You haphazardly use the word "mutation" over and over again. Clearly, you aren't a genetics expert because this would not be coming out of your 'mouth'.
Great. I would be interested to hear your views on how homosexuality has it's place in contributing to the human gene pool. Would you consider homosexuality a natural human progression, or is the word "mutation" on some level misleading? What would you offer as evidence towards homosexuality as a normal course of evolution i.e. not deviated in some way? Degrees don't mean much without experience, I have some degrees too...
please enlighten me...
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Numerous tests have been conducted. If you would care to show me the opposite, I'll take note of your opinion...
I see you didn't answer my question.
Annnnyways :rolleyes:
The problem is that human evolution is difficult to understand unless you look at the genetic aspect of it. Many different forms of taxonomy can be put forth based on genetic mapping. Whoa!
Despite the google search of a fellow jammer earlier, there still hasn't been any significant...and I repeat, SIGNIFICANT data to support any claim that there is a "gay gene." :eek: If I could get my old genetics professor on here I would, but I don't think that's reasonable.
Yes, "mutation" is misleading. Based on what I just said, a mutation is an abnormality based on the expression/or lack thereof of a specific gene.
"The normal course of evolution"? What is normal? Over time, what seems like would be the natural occurance of an event always seems to take a deviation in some aspect from what one would expect. Look back...in many cases what Darwin said as being the definition of "the survival of the fittest" isn't always clear. Nature has it's own way of expressing itself (that's in the most non-anthropomorphic way I can describe.)
I'm going to go talk to the wall now...
Credentials and proof aren't his strong point.