gay people raising children

13567…24

Comments

  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Pearl Jam and toast wrote:
    But comparing it to those situations can show you that whether the two parents are of a different sex doesn't matter.
    No it doesn't. It doesn't show that at all. It only shows that one situation is worse than the other one. It doesn't turn one less than ideal situation into a good one.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • London Calling
    London Calling Posts: 164
    The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation.

    Rahman Q.

    School of Psychology, University of East London, The Green, London E15 4LZ, UK. q.rahman@uel.ac.uk

    One of the most enduring and controversial questions in the neuroscience of sexual behaviour surrounds the mechanisms which produce sexual attraction to either males or females. Here, evidence is reviewed which supports the proposal that sexual orientation in humans may be laid down in neural circuitry during early foetal development. Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation. Linkage studies are partly suggestive of X-linked loci although candidate gene studies have produced null findings. Further evidence demonstrates a role for prenatal sex hormones which may influence the development of a putative network of sexual-orientation-related neural substrates. However, hormonal effects are often inconsistent and investigations rely heavily on 'proxy markers'. A consistent fraternal birth order effect in male sexual orientation also provides support for a model of maternal immunization processes affecting prenatal sexual differentiation. The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported by available data. These current theories have left little room for learning models of sexual orientation. Future investigations, across the neurosciences, should focus to elucidate the fundamental neural architecture underlying the target-specific direction of human sexual orientation, and their antecedents in developmental neurobiology.


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0J-4G1GFCY-1&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_alid=412369266&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4864&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3f007185ec922765d3c76ee1a1a97d97
  • CenterCity
    CenterCity Posts: 193
    its based on genes, and it involves the x and y chromosome.
    I need to finish writing.
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    Deni wrote:
    If we lived in a world where more than 7-10% of the population was gay and the only way to make babies was by having male/female sexual intercourse then I would say you were right... But we don't live in that world. There are 7 billion people on the planet and if even 10% of them are gay that leaves 6 billion people fully prepared to propagate the species. We are not going to go extinct anytime soon. So don't worry about that. As for the other... I have friends who are lesbian and though the magic of in vitro they have triplets. So -- so much for that. lol

    Peace and Love,
    Deni :)

    Sure we can go on supporting it forever, but we are changing the laws of nature. We are breeding an undesirable trait (according to evolution) into society. Tossing mother nature aside always has grave consequences. Will it in this case? who knows. I am just stating that it is not natural and that canot be disputed without letting your emotions oppose the evolutionary process or the natural progression of nature.
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    Pearl Jam and toast wrote:
    wow.

    wanna nuke iran and lynch a black man while we're at it?

    how bout those women voting.. gotta do away with that.

    and fuck the native americans of course.. savages..



    it only seems wrong because people (ESPECIALLY IN THE US FOR SOME GOD FORSAKEN REASON) see homosexuality like this fucker.

    there's nothing wrong with it, or them raising kids.




    p.s.

    i know we're trying to be nicer to eachother round here, but goddamn man, you are a biggoted motherfucker.

    ill see you in hell.

    Oh please...spaz... get a grip on yourself. I am stating the facts of evolution. Thanks for your wonderfully candid, and apparently useless "opinions" they are very telling of your character.

    State some facts to the opposite...otherwise you're just drooling on the floor...sigh...what a brainless response
  • CenterCity
    CenterCity Posts: 193
    rightondude wrote:
    Sure we can go on supporting it forever, but we are changing the laws of nature. We are breeding an undesirable trait (according to evolution) into society. Tossing mother nature aside always has grave consequences. Will it in this case? who knows. I am just stating that it is not natural and that canot be disputed without letting your emotions oppose the evolutionary process or the natural progression of nature.


    but just the fact that it exists.....says that its part of the nautral process of evolution.....its undesirable trait if you think about it immediately.....like for a generation.....but not in the grander scheme of things......if we don't include it in everyone's gene pool....then we would be in fact doing a great diservice to mother nature. ;)
    I need to finish writing.
  • London Calling
    London Calling Posts: 164
    CenterCity wrote:
    if we don't include it in everyone's gene pool....then we would be in fact doing a great diservice to mother nature. ;)


    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.
  • Deni
    Deni Posts: 233
    rightondude wrote:
    Sure we can go on supporting it forever, but we are changing the laws of nature. We are breeding an undesirable trait (according to evolution) into society. Tossing mother nature aside always has grave consequences. Will it in this case? who knows. I am just stating that it is not natural and that canot be disputed without letting your emotions oppose the evolutionary process or the natural progression of nature.

    Nobody is breeding an undesirable trait. We don't purposefully breed for homosexuality. That's ridicules. And as to "not natural" well... umm *thinking thinking* ... I’m going to equate "not natural" with unnatural... meaning outside of nature. I lived on a farm and I saw many examples of homosexuality in nature. It is witnessed in nature, so therefore it is a part of nature, so it is natural. Now if you had said its not normal then I wouldn’t have been able to argue that as it is certainly “outside of the norm.” If it is natural, which clearly I have just demonstrated that it is, than it is part of the human condition. If it is part of the human condition, than we have evolved to what we are now to have this trait as a part of our species. So your evolution argument is nil as well.
    "Ideas are bulletproof." --V

    Peace and Love
    Deni
    :)
  • Deni
    Deni Posts: 233
    London Calling wrote:
    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.

    This is true, but evolution knows ahead of time that a colonony of gays would not naturally happen. And that generally gays only represent 10% of any society. Therefore the population will never be so devoid of heterosexual members to ever render homosexuality a threat to the survival of the species.
    "Ideas are bulletproof." --V

    Peace and Love
    Deni
    :)
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    Deni wrote:
    Nobody is breeding an undesirable trait. We don't purposefully breed for homosexuality. That's ridicules. And as to "not natural" well... umm *thinking thinking* ... I’m going to equate "not natural" with unnatural... meaning outside of nature. I lived on a farm and I saw many examples of homosexuality in nature. It is witnessed in nature, so therefore it is a part of nature, so it is natural. Now if you had said its not normal then I wouldn’t have been able to argue that as it is certainly “outside of the norm.” If it is natural, which clearly I have just demonstrated that it is, than it is part of the human condition. If it is part of the human condition, than we have evolved to what we are now to have this trait as a part of our species. So your evolution argument is nil as well.


    What makes a gay man gay? Gays are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce. Period. Nature would select them out. If you don't inderstand that I can't debate it with you as you're missing some key knowledge.

    When a gay man mates with a hetero woman he in introducing this flaw into the gene pool...that's obvious. I'm not making this stuff up. That is nature that is evolution. Unless you wnat to start debating the laws of nature and evolution.

    People who oppose this are using emotion over logic. Evolution is cruel but it has brought us thus far. Study the Thomsons gazelle. Ever wonder why the all look the same? Why most animals all look exactly the same? Because nature has made them perfect. Now look at all the screwed up genetic flaws size shapes, and mental diseases in people. Coincidence? Nope... human emotion has introduced much of these mutations by keeping alive things that would die in nature and they reproduce into the gene pool. Don't take my word for it learn something...read about it... ps the human condition is a useless argument in this case.
  • CenterCity
    CenterCity Posts: 193
    i his point.....you're right.....but i refuse to see it as a flaw or something i personally would "eek" at if it was in my genetic makeup.....and i hope whether if my kids or grandkids were gay, that they would raise families and children.
    I need to finish writing.
  • CenterCity
    CenterCity Posts: 193
    i SEE his point. gosh....typing.
    I need to finish writing.
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,824
    Meatwagon wrote:
    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.

    Does that mean you think a straight couple should adopt once there is a sign of difficulty in conceiving a baby?
  • pickupyourwill
    pickupyourwill Posts: 3,135
    IndianSummer wrote:
    i am not opposed to gays and lesbians getting married and enjoying the rights that married folk have.

    but do you think gays/lesbians should raise kids???



    i think it would be hard on the child.


    put yourself in the child's shoes - who amongst us would like to have 2 homosexual dads or 2 homosexual moms ??


    your opinions on homosexuals raising kids??


    My aunt is a gay school teacher whose partner is a nurse. They have adopted 4 kids who had drug-addicts for moms. Some of them were born premature or with many complications because of this and are now very healthy and happy. In my opinion, two gay mommies are better than two "normal" druggie parents.
  • Deni
    Deni Posts: 233
    rightondude wrote:
    What makes a gay man gay? Gays are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce. Period. Nature would select them out. If you don't inderstand that I can't debate it with you as you're missing some key knowledge.

    Seriously. I think you are missing some key knowledge. Homosexuality has ALWAYS existed. It ALWAYS will. Nature hasn't gotten rid of it. So maybe there is a reason why it is part of the human condition, and we just don't know what that reason is yet.

    Ligers are an evolutionary dead end too according to you, but they're still cool as hell.
    When a gay man mates with a hetero woman he in introducing this flaw into the gene pool...that's obvious. I'm not making this stuff up. That is nature that is evolution. Unless you wnat to start debating the laws of nature and evolution.

    Wasn't it you that said that something happened to the brain of the fetus during gestation and that is what causes homosexuality? Well, that implies that being gay is a birth defect not a genetic abnormality. If it is not genetic then it can not be passed on. Guess how many children of gay people grow up to be gay-- around 10%, same as the population at large. If it were true that gay people passed gayness to their children the number of gay people born to gay parents would dramatically increase. Even if it is genetic what I have a problem with is your statement that being gay is unnatural and would halt evolution. How do you know that evolution isn't currently brewing up an answer to homosexuality right now? How do you know that we wont become a species that is say hermaphroditic like toads or where the man carries the baby like seahorses in a million or a billion years? You just don't know. Obviously you have no real understanding of how evolution works.
    People who oppose this are using emotion over logic.

    Well, I'm not doing that.
    Evolution is cruel but it has brought us thus far. Study the Thomsons gazelle. Ever wonder why the all look the same? Why most animals all look exactly the same? Because nature has made them perfect.

    Is that why panda bears are going extinct, because they are evolutionary perfect? Geez, I thought it was because they have a genetic flaw that makes it really hard for them to breed. Besides, who's to say that humans are perfect? Part of my point here is that we may still be in the process. There's really no way to tell.
    Now look at all the screwed up genetic flaws size shapes, and mental diseases in people. Coincidence?

    So you are saying that there are no genetic flaws or mutations that occur in nature? No animals are ever born deformed or different? Holy hell, that's AMAZING! Well that one eyed kitten must have been a con that somebody pulled. This is exactly why evolution works. A so called "mutation" pops up and it gets bread into the population and changes the species.
    Nope... human emotion has introduced much of these mutations by keeping alive things that would die in nature and they reproduce into the gene pool. Don't take my word for it learn something...read about it...

    I think you could do with some reading yourself. May I suggest The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

    With that I would like to end here by saying... Ligers are cool.

    Peace and Love,
    Deni :)
    "Ideas are bulletproof." --V

    Peace and Love
    Deni
    :)
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    Does that mean you think a straight couple should adopt once there is a sign of difficulty in conceiving a baby?


    That's the exact same argument with homosexuality. It you cannot reproduce nature says you shouldn't. When women take loads of fertility drugs just to concieve, that is unnatural, and her children then carry this undesirable trait forward. Adoption is an entirely different story. I can adopt a tree or highway if I want to, same as a child. Nothing wrong with that at all. Lots of children need a loving home gay or not.
  • Thorns2010
    Thorns2010 Posts: 2,201
    Dear lord I am very surprised by this thread. The stupidity of it, bothers me. My brother is gay, and as of right now, I know he doesn't have plans of wanting children. But if tomorrow he said he wants kids I would support him 100%. He would be a very very good parent and would only do such with a partner who would also be a good parent.

    Man....just wow, and to think....I would call myself a 'Republican' hehehehehehe
  • brain of c
    brain of c Posts: 5,213
    rightondude wrote:
    Being gay is a disease where the brain mutates during fetus fevelopment. Some just wanna be gay by choice though it seems. I doubt the kid would care at all until it was old enough to start asking questions and realizing why he's different.

    Bottom line is that one of the parents is merely a participant not paternal.

    Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. An extinction.


    you got the ignorant. it spreads very quickly.
    d'oh!!!!!!

    http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    Deni wrote:
    Seriously. I think you are missing some key knowledge. Homosexuality has ALWAYS existed. It ALWAYS will. Nature hasn't gotten rid of it. So maybe there is a reason why it is part of the human condition, and we just don't know what that reason is yet.

    Ligers are an evolutionary dead end too according to you, but they're still cool as hell.



    Wasn't it you that said that something happened to the brain of the fetus during gestation and that is what causes homosexuality? Well, that implies that being gay is a birth defect not a genetic abnormality. If it is not genetic then it can not be passed on. Guess how many children of gay people grow up to be gay-- around 10%, same as the population at large. If it were true that gay people passed gayness to their children the number of gay people born to gay parents would dramatically increase. Even if it is genetic what I have a problem with is your statement that being gay is unnatural and would halt evolution. How do you know that evolution isn't currently brewing up an answer to homosexuality right now? How do you know that we wont become a species that is say hermaphroditic like toads or where the man carries the baby like seahorses in a million or a billion years? You just don't know. Obviously you have no real understanding of how evolution works.



    Well, I'm not doing that.



    Is that why panda bears are going extinct, because they are evolutionary perfect? Geez, I thought it was because they have a genetic flaw that makes it really hard for them to breed. Besides, who's to say that humans are perfect? Part of my point here is that we may still be in the process. There's really no way to tell.



    So you are saying that there are no genetic flaws or mutations that occur in nature? No animals are ever born deformed or different? Holy hell, that's AMAZING! Well that one eyed kitten must have been a con that somebody pulled. This is exactly why evolution works. A so called "mutation" pops up and it gets bread into the population and changes the species.



    I think you could do with some reading yourself. May I suggest The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

    With that I would like to end here by saying... Ligers are cool.

    Peace and Love,
    Deni :)

    keep talking in circles I guess....I gain nothing by convincing you of the plain facts that 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. reading oots by Darwin means nothing if you don't even understand it :rolleyes: maybe read it over again, or keep going until you do.

    If you say man has the right to play god with life then go right ahead... have at it...
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    brain of c wrote:
    you got the ignorant. it spreads very quickly.

    Thanks for the killfile suggestion :D

Categories