Yet, you have admitted that gays have a desire to procreate as well but that they choose to be with someone that they know they can't have children with. So do you think that an infertile heterosexual couple is more desirable than a gay couple, just because of their sexual orientation? Because afterall, some couples know before they get married that one of them can't have children. Do you think that gay couples should not be allowed to have their own children, via in vitro or surrogate help? Why should a gay couple have to prove that their relationship is more stable than a straight couple (like the 3 or 10 years marriage thing)?
Again you aren't reading what I've typed. I NEVER said that a gay couple has to prove that their relationship are more stable than a straight couple. I have specifically made the point that
anyone wishing to adopt should have this same rule applied. Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I have said or any further responses from you won't deserve a response from me.
Okay. If being gay is a choice, then they have chosen not to procreate in choosing a partner of the same sex. Why then would they want to raise kids? Procreating
includes or
is having heterosexual sex with the objective to create a child, the mother carrying the child for nine months conditioning it to her voice, smells, etc., giving birth, and then raising the child once born. So your telling me that gays are choosing to skip all the most important aspects of
procreating, to jump all the way to the end part of raising a child. Why? How is that at all favorable to the child when it's obvious that the child should be with it's mother or father whom it was conditioned to know while in the womb?
According to the latest data, homosexuals accout for 8% of the population. That is from the largest nationally representative study of sexual and sexual-health behaviors ever fielded.
National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior
Stastically speaking, on a normal curve, a behavior is only abnormal if it is two standard deviations from the mean. In percentages, that means a behavior is only considered abnormal or deviant if it occurs in less than 5% of the population. So statically, homosexuality is normal.
Sigh. Read again. I was talking about the world population, as we've been talking about the species as a whole, not just from a certain nationality or culture. When applying the rest of the world's population, and not just the U.S., which has a higher percentage of gays than anywhere else, it's much lower.
Let's assume that the world homosexual percentage is 8%. That is still lower than the 10% rule that 10% of a population are self-centered, anti-social, psychopathic, abusing, people. Should these kinds of people raise kids? You and I both agree that we already have to more than enough kids to adopt, why add more by allowing these kinds of people to procreate?
As we discussed earlier, homosexual behavior also occurs prevalantly in nature. That doesn't make it moral, but it does make it normal in the natural sense.
No. We we never discussed this as all you do is ignore what others write and nick-pick through posts, taking things out of context and putting words in peoples mouth. That is not a discussion. Again, for the umpteenth time, anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are
exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called normal.
Homosexual behavior, in and of itself, also does not cause dysfunction in day to day life. It doesn't lead to procreation, but there are heterosexual people who choose not to procreate and we still consider them normal.
Of course they are normal. They have no wish to procreate and I applaud them for making that decision and not have kids when they don't want them. However they are not then wanting to raise someone else's unwanted kids. Their actions aren't contradictory.
Homosexual behavior, in and of itself, is not harmful or dangerous. Certain sexual practices, such as promiscous, unprotected anal sex can be dangerous, but that is a matter of choice, and either gay or straight people can practice it.
Right. So homosexual kids or children raised by homosexual are never made fun of? That isn't placing unnecessary stress on a child? And don't give me the crap about people should be more open-minded. We're talking about kids bullying other kids and parents and kids making the
choice of not wanting their kids or themselves around homosexuals or kids raised by homosexuals, which according to you, is normal since it's frequency is higher than the frequency of homosexual behavior in humans.
Homosexual behavior does not cause distress. To date, there is no psychological test or instrument that can measure a difference between the mental health of gay and straights.
Sheesh! Listen to yourself. All through this thread you have made claims to be the authority of logical and intelligent debate while at the same time making blithering comments like this. You should seriously consider changing your name to
Hypocritical Thought. If we have no test or instrument that can measure a difference between the mental health of gay and straights, then how did you arrive at the conclusion that homosexual behavior does not cause distress?:doh
I don't know if I chose to be gay or not. It is not a choice I remember making. However, assuming I did make a choice to be gay, what basis do you have to argue that someone should be denied the right to raise children because they chose a sexual partner of the same sex?
LOL. You make a choice everyday when you overlook mens' sexual attractiveness and focus on women's sexual attractiveness. When you hate pears and love apples and are offered one of each, which one do you "choose"?
You are free, to date, to pass laws stating that people have to be married to adopt children, but that is the limt. And as I said before, given that we already have more children in state care than we have homes to adopt them, I think it would be irresponsbile policy.
Yes, I heard you. I read what you type. If you can't do the same for me then you don't deserve another response from me either. If you are so concerned over the rights of gays to adopt, how can you not be concerned over the rights of innocent children who have no loving homes? By your own arguments you should be demanding that gays adopt rather than use in vitro or surrogate help to have a kid. Unconceived beings don't have rights and aren't waiting for a loving home. Put your money where your mouth is and demand this of all people who want to have kids but can't. Demand that people who have kids yet never wanted them, to stop doing this. This is the issue. Not gay rights to adopt. The social injustice of gays not being able to adopt is virtually non-existent in comparison with the social injustice of neglected and abused children without a loving home.
