- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Uh-huh, sure. Guess you got me. Have a nice day, and I surely hope you are a spokesman or lawyer for a pro-GM movement.
Obviously demonstrating that you have nothing. YOU have no understanding of the human reproductive system, and seem to be one of those who believe that procreation and genetics are the same. You also have shown that your understanding of sexual orientation is minimal at best. You have, thus far, offered nothing to prove your position. Let me know when you have garnered more information on this topic.
Natural selection is external to the species. It is not internally driven and is not controlled directly or indirectly by the actors. Read Darwin.
Uh-huh, sure. Guess you got me. Have a nice day, and I surely hope you are a spokesman or lawyer for a pro-GM movement.
I think YOU need to read Darwin. Natural selection can occur through genetic of physiological changes that can affect the growth of the species. Species will adapt to their surroundings. This is not external to the species, but internal adjustments. It is not controlled by the actors.
False assumption. The strongest and most adaptable survive.
That's an external factor, regardless it doesn't suggest a species will attempt to limit it's own population for survival.
You seem to be saying that I am claiming that this is directive. I am not.
There is no natural benefit to the species provided by naturally occurring homosexuality, nothing you've said proves otherwise.
Further, claiming the legitimacy of heterosexuality needs to be proven when it's obviously paramount to species propagation is ludicrous. Your assertions are without merit.
And once you kick the door open to redefine marriage to accomodate gays, what makes you think you can shut it again before the polygamists, polyamorists, and who knows what else get their foot in? Seriously, if you can justify gay marriage, it is hard to imagine how you could justify denying the same rights to polygamists, group-marriage, line-marriage, or basically about any damn thing anybody wants. The very same pro-SSM arguments would be used against you.
No. The criteria should be fair. It shouldn't be arbitrarily decided by what might be right or wrong. A good, fair criteria is harm to people or property. Financial considerations are fair, especially when we are talking about the government.
In fact, I have said multiple times that I am not against polygamy, but would rather it be looked into before automatically made legal. From a logical standpoint, marriage becomes more complicated, especially when talking about civil marriage, the more people that the contract involves.
Second, matters of sexuality shouldn't be taught at all in school. It's simply not their business.
And that is why teen pregnancy, and STD's are rampant within high school students.
I've debunked the "what about polygamists" slippery slope argument, several times in the past, Goshen. I'll go look for the post, if I need to, but in essence there is are two major differences. Polygamy is NOT a sexual orientation and though research has show the benefits of gay marriage, research has shown the opposite with plural marriage.
You do understand that there doesn't necessarily have to be a natural benefit. There is no natural benefit to blue eyes. There is no natural benefit to red hair. Natural diversity could be a reason... and that in itself is a benefit. Further, there are theories that suggest that homosexual behavior amongst animals MAY have a population growth basis and/or alter the "tone" of a population. Of course these are postulations, but since we do not know, conclusively, the causes of sexual orientation, we do not know, conclusively, the reasons for it's development.
You are making the classic error of mistaking sexual orientation with sexual behavior. ANYONE can procreate... straights, gays, or other. This is BEHAVIOR. Why we are attracted to one of the same or other sex is what sexual orientation is about. This is ORIENTATION. I am still waiting for you to show links that demonstrate the physiological or genetic basis for heterosexuality. I am not disputing the need for heterosexual BEHAVIOR to propagate the species. But show the causes of heterosexual orientation. Links, please.
The term "Sexual Orientation" is simply a description of ones self identified sexual preference and:
"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation - heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. See generally Am. Psychol. Ass'n, 7 Encyclopedia of Psychol. 260 (A.E. Kazdin ed., 2000); 2 Corsini ["The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences . . . (W.E. Craighead & C.B. Nemeroff eds., 3d ed. 2001)"],"
There being no evidence that there is any cause for any sexual orientation, it leaves me confident in relying on nature to determine what is right.
Further, what you deemed homosexual acts by other animals has never been shown to be sexual in nature but social as no actual intercourse is performed.
Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. This is precisely what most studies and research has determined. No one is really sure how sexual orientation is created.
And since homosexuality occurs in nature as does heterosexuality, that means you see both in the same light... in order to be consistent and logical of course. And, of course, the moment you place a value judgement on either orientation because of your perception of what their existence means in nature, you commit an appeal to nature logical fallacy.
No, that is not accurate. Plenty of animals have been documented to have had homosexual intercourse. Bisons, giraffes, and dolphins are just three that I can think of.
No, I see it as a choice.
I also see Heterosexuality as natural, and homosexuality as unnatural and there is no evidence available to prove me wrong.
Therefore, it's up to society as a whole what it will accept.
Nothing but your opinion. No conclusive proof, either way... interestingly enough, just as the information you posted in post #1634 said. So, you are contradicting your own information. Good to know.
Of course there is. Both occur in nature, therefore both are natural. That was REAL easy.
This is always true, regardless.
If a conclusion based on analysis of available evidence is an an opinion, then sure, it's my opinion.
The term "Sexual Orientation" is simply a description of ones self identified sexual preference and:
"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation - heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. See generally Am. Psychol. Ass'n, 7 Encyclopedia of Psychol. 260 (A.E. Kazdin ed., 2000); 2 Corsini ["The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences . . . (W.E. Craighead & C.B. Nemeroff eds., 3d ed. 2001)"],"
Yet, you already posted the available evidence. Here, I'll post it for you again, in case you forgot:
I placed the key point in bold. So, since this is a good analysis of the available evidence... as you posted, I must conclude that your opinion is the same as mine. That we do not know conclusively what determines sexual orientation... be it heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Good to know we are on the same page at last.
You are interpreting that to fit your agenda.
What it tells me is that there is not natural evidence supporting lack of choice in regards to homosexuality.
I understand where you are confused, since it doesn't say that the study specifically say heterosexuality is natural.
However, this statement combined with human anatomy, natural selection, the history of ur species and many other factors is proof that homosexuality is natural and heterosexuality (which has no natural function) is not.
No, I am taking what it said as quoted. YOU are the one interpreting it to fit your agenda.
See, it says this about homosexuality AND heterosexuality. You are omitting a part because it contradicts YOUR agenda. For someone who has claimed to have analyzed research, this would be considered a very poor type of analysis. Ignoring information just because you don't like it. Shame.
This is not confusion on my part. It is ignoring what the study DOES say on yours.
Back to this. I thought we had resolved this issue. OK... firstly, please link me to the designer's website, or anything that shows what, precisely, human anatomy was designed for. Since we know that many parts of anatomy have several functions, it is key to go to the source for this information. Secondly, I already showed how the natural selection argument does not hold water. There are certainly reasons for homosexuality in nature, both with humans and with non-humans. Further, a function can be natural diversity, like eye color. And thirdly, since both occur in nature, and both are have functions, both are natural.
Anything else?
No, unless you can prove you have some evidence that says homosexuality is not a choice.
Please show where I made this claim. I'll give you a hint... I asked you to show where I made this claim, yesterday, and you couldn't find it. I haven't made it. I have consistently said the same thing. We do not know how sexual orientation formulates. Researchers state that it is probably a combination of biology, genetics, hormonal chemicals, and environment, but there is nothing conclusive. I have said this, or something like this, repeatedly.
So, since I've never made the claim that homosexuality or heterosexuality is a choice or not, since we have no conclusive evidence proving either, your question is irrelevant.
So, anything else?
Of course your right. My point is if we can redefine marriage, we can redefine pedophilia as well as anything else. Why would anyone want to? For the same reasons they want to redefine marriage...for their own benefit.
Isn't the title of the site debatepolitics.com? And the title of this thread is "gay marriage, is it right to stop it?"
My opinion is yes, it's right to stop it.
You've offered no credible evidence that tells me my opinion is incorrect.
I am seriously anti-discrimination.
I believe that every consenting adult has the right to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home, and that society dictates what is acceptable in public.
Were there compelling evidence that showed me that homosexuality was not a choice then I would determine that it was only discrimination that stood against legalizing gay marriage.
I don't believe that to be true, and all that's been offered over the last few pages are personal interpretations of studies that are claimed to say something they do not.
You've certainly offered no compelling evidence to prove that I, and the majority of the American voters, are wrong on this issue.
To be honest, I wish you had.
If you're anti-discrimination, Mac, on what basis do you oppose gay marriage then?
Again, this is in no way an adequate explanation...
If you're anti-discrimination, Mac, on what basis do you oppose gay marriage then?
That's a horrible argument that simply doesn't make sense, Mac.
What I've gotten out of this, Mac, is that you oppose gay marriage and while you claim you're anti-discriminatory, I don't see that actually coming through.
You seem to oppose gay marriage on the basis that it's gay marriage and nothing more.
I think you try to present yourself as logical and open, empirical and pragmatic, but when your arguments are finally pulled out and examined, they don't seem to pass those tests of reason.
First and foremost I believe that the American family is on the decline for many reasons, and that it is leading to the major weakness we see in our society. I feel that it affects everything from our economy, to our health, to our safety, etc.
615 offspring from gay parents; 387 controls from straight parents. No differences in 7 types of functioning.Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.
Reviewed 23 empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty studies reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 yrs.) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires, or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
No difference between children raised by gay parents vs. straight parents on 3 scales. Only issue was society's issue with homosexuality; parenting was a non-issue.Gottman, J. S. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 177-196). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Reviews research literature on children of homosexual (HS) parents, including comparisons with children of heterosexual parents. Children of HS parents did not appear deviant in gender identity, sexual orientation, or social adjustment. Issues that emerged during their upbringing related more to society's rejection of homosexuality than to poor parent-child relationships. Most social adjustment problems occurred in both groups and were commonly related to family history of divorce. Results are supported by J. Schwartz's (unpublished manuscript) investigation of the above variables in adult-aged daughters in relation to mothers' sexual orientations, with a focus on role modeling theory.
Interesting study. No significant issues when homosexual parents obtain custody when a divorce occurs.Kleber, D. J., Howell, R. J., & Tibbits-Kleber, A. L. (1986). The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 81-87.
Reviews the literature on the impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases. As a result of the relatively high rate of divorce in the United States and the increasing awareness that many parents (an estimated 1.5 million) are homosexual, the courts and divorce mediators have become actively involved in child custody placement decisions involving homosexual parents. While custody decisions have tended to reflect stereotyped beliefs or fears concerning the detrimental effects of homosexual parenting practices on child development, the research literature provides no evidence substantiating these fears. Several specific custody issues are discussed as well as social factors relevant to lesbian motherhood.
No significant difference in important emotional health issues between children raised by lesbian parents vs. straight parents.Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456-479.
Reviews 56 studies (published from 1971 to 1994) on lesbian mothers and their children. Three main family patterns and some common misconceptions about these families are addressed. Research suggests there are no differences between children of lesbians and children of heterosexuals with regard to their emotional health, interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, or gender development. Psychological adjustment and parenting skills were not significantly different for lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Implications for school psychology practice and training are discussed.
Homosexual parenting vs. Heterosexual parenting is explored. No significant differences were found, though homosexual parents tended to be more strict, more responsive, and more consistent with their children.Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 173-186). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Compared the responses of 33 homosexual (HMS) fathers with those of 33 heterosexual (HTS) fathers on the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory. HMS subjects did not differ significantly from HTS subjects in their reported degree of involvement or in intimacy level with children. HMS subjects tended to be more strict and more responsive to children's needs and provided reasons for appropriate behavior to children more consistently than HTS subjects. Possible explanations for these similarities and differences in parenting styles are explored.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?