Fundies Want To Make Gay Adoption 06 Wedge Issue

[jochhejaam]

I didn't avoid the question. .

No, you avoided a direct answer but I see it's a dead end question with you, fair enough.

[Mr. Peabody]

No, you avoided a direct answer but I see it's a dead end question with you, fair enough.

Look, if you can show me some studies demonstrating that being raised by gay parents is harmful to a child, I would be more inclined to listen to your arguments.

All the studies I have seem suggest the opposite. That being the case, I can only assume that this argument really isn't about the welfare of the children, after all the studies show they are fine, it's really about attacking sexuals.

This is evidenced by the fact that the same slippery slope arguments that were made during the gay marriage debate (if we give it to them, we must give it to all), are now being made on the gay adoption issue (a la Peter's hate-inspired post).

Anyway, I've enjoyed the conversation (Peter, I hope I've broadened your horizons, even if just slightly), but life beckons.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Peabody, if you had 2 children ages 2 months and 2 years and you weren't able to care for them would you prefer they be placed in a home with the traditional Mom and Dad or would you prefer that they be place in a home with Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad?

Gay marriage’ and sexuality: some medical comments

There are increased rates of mental ill health among the sexual population compared to the general population. Many studies show much higher rates of psychiatric illness, such as depression, suicide attempts and drug abuse among sexuals then among the general population. The sexual lifestyle is associated with a shortened life expectancy of up to 20 years.

In a New Zealand study, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people. At the age of 21, sexuals/bisexuals were at fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide. (Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.)


In a recent US study of the mental health of sexuals, it was found that gay/bisexual men had a more than 3-fold increased risk of major depression and a five-fold increased risk of panic disorder. They were three times as likely to rate their mental health as only 'fair' or 'poor' and to experience high levels of distress. Gay/bisexual women had a nearly four-fold increased risk of general anxiety disorder and both groups were more than three times as likely than the general population to require treatment in a mental health setting. (Cochran S. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71 :53-61.)


It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among sexuals are the result of ' phobia'. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder ('manic depression'), agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)


Furthermore, if ' phobia' and prejudices were the cause of the high rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide attempts among sexuals, one would similarly expect to find higher rates of suicide attempts and suicide among ethnic minorities exposed to racism. However, this is not usually the case.


In a Vancouver study, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, it is estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. (Hogg RS et al. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Epidemiology.1997; 26:657-61)

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0095.html

So you want to place children in homes with people that have a high occurence of Mental disorders, practice deviant sexual behaviour and have greatly heightened health risks and then multiply the problems by two... Definitely doesn't sound like people I'd trust with my children.

You seem intent on passing those pseudo-scientifici religious websites as hard proof of your arguments. Come on joch! are you serious??? Get me a REAL, respected, and well known scientific source that states that children are better off in hetero households, and THEN you can brag about having a flawless argument and us being closed minded. HAHA unbelievebable!

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Perhaps those acts are illegal for much the same reason that sexual acts were once illegal? Ever manage to consider that?

what? I didn't understand that, could you elaborate please? because last time I checked sexual acts in the past have been illegal because of ignorance and missuderstanding, so if anything, you are proving Peabody's point.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

You avoided the question, which would be your preference?

He did not avoid your question at all! He answered preety clearly. YOu on the other hand seem discontent with his answer, that is your problem. You asked him which would he prefer raising his children a hetero couple or a gay couple, and he quite clearly told you that it would depend on the couple. You wanted a black or white answer, and that is never possible. I for one, agree with Peabody, if the sexual couple is decent and hardworking I would definately consider them. Apparently you wouldn't.

[Trainwreck2100]

Marriage doesn't occur in nature. So, I guess having married parents is also an unnatural situation.

Yes, because all animals mate and split up right afterwards.


Edit: I didn't know this was about gay marriage. Thanks for not arguing my point.

[Mr. Peabody]

Natural-"occuring in nature"
Gay parents don't occur in nature, anywhere. Cause it's impossible.

Marriage also doesn't occur in nature. So, I guess having married parents is also an unnatural situation.

I didn't know this was about gay marriage. Thanks for not arguing my point.

[Peter]

what? I didn't understand that, could you elaborate please? because last time I checked sexual acts in the past have been illegal because of ignorance and missuderstanding, so if anything, you are proving Peabody's point.

I only proved my point, which is that the rationale for banning those activities was the same essential reason why sexual acts were banned. Polygamy is a perfect example. It was banned due to it being deemed immoral, yet it has been allowed in some cultures in the past, much like sexual relationships. A reason why it has been made illegal is because it went against the majority religious viewpoint in the West over the last few centuries (at least). The ban is based upon a tradition which is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no reason why 3 or more people cannot have a relationship. Those who wish to practice polygamy do so often out of their own religious belief and are unfairly discriminated against, which should make them a "minority" and should make those who disagree with me "ignorant bigots".

[Nbadan]

Nice discussion everyone, but Mr. Peabody, defaming people has never been condusive to promoting mutual respect in this forum.

That said, no one is born a polygamist, or a sadist, or any other of the real preversions found in societies around the world throughout time. What it comes do to is whether you believe that all gay people are born gay, or that some people are naturally predispositioned to be gay and are somewhat affected by their environment. I don't think anyone seriously believes that a hetrosexual is going to become gay just because one of his parents turns out to be gay, or is being raised by gay parents, that just silly.

[jochhejaam]

Nice discussion everyone, but Mr. Peabody, defaming people has never been condusive to promoting mutual respect in this forum.

That said, no one is born a polygamist, or a sadist, or any other of the real preversions found in societies around the world throughout time. What it comes do to is whether you believe that all gay people are born gay, or that some people are naturally predispositioned to be gay and are somewhat affected by their environment. I don't think anyone seriously believes that a hetrosexual is going to become gay just because one of his parents turns out to be gay, or is being raised by gay parents, that just silly.

I agree with that although IMO the child raised in the home of those that practice illicit or unethical behaviour, be it racism, sexuality, satanic worship, drug use, alcoholism or whatever it may be would in all probablilty be much more inclined to take on those behaviours than one in a home where those behaviours are not practiced.

Speaking from a strictly Biblical viewpoint those who unrepentingly practice deviant sexual behaviour, in this case sexuality, will receive God's judgement. With that being the case along with the child being more inclined to pick up the behaviour of the parents it would go against a Christians beliefs to condone or support children being adopted into the home of same sex parents. I'd feel the same way regarding prospective adopting parents with any of the other disorders or criminal tendencies aforementioned.
I'd say that's the bottom line for me.

[Nbadan]

I agree with that although IMO the child raised in the home of those that practice illicit or unethical behaviour, be it racism, sexuality, satanic worship, drug use, alcoholism or whatever it may be would in all probablilty be much more inclined to take on those behaviours than one in a home where those behaviours are not practiced.

I imagine being a racist, or satanic worshiper, or druggie, or alcoholic is a life-style choice, but nobody chooses to be gay or not. You either are or your not.

[jochhejaam]

I imagine being a racist, or satanic worshiper, or druggie, or alcoholic is a life-style choice, but nobody chooses to be gay or not. You either are or your not.

I think the study that came out in support of that theory whereby they alledgedly discovered a gay gene was deemed skewed as it was done by a gay male .(I'll try to find it later) I also have seen surveys where most gays state that they were not born gay but that it is a choice they have made, most recently Sheryl Swoopes.


In fact, the sports ministry consultant contends, Swoopes' lesbian relationship has nothing to do with what is commonly known as a "lesbian core iden y," where an individual acknowledges having experienced same-sex attractions since childhood. For the WNBA star, as she herself acknowledges, sexuality was not an inborn trait but was a conscious choice.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archi...ian_share.html

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

I agree with that although IMO the child raised in the home of those that practice illicit or unethical behaviour, be it racism, sexuality, satanic worship, drug use, alcoholism or whatever it may be would in all probablilty be much more inclined to take on those behaviours than one in a home where those behaviours are not practiced.

You are putting things that shouldn't be on the same list...

Racism: Social problem
Satanic worship: Bunch of heavy metal fans with too much time on their hands.
Drug Use: No problem. Drug Abuse: Social Disease.
Alcoholism: Social Disease.
sexuality: Sexual choice.

Speaking from a strictly Biblical viewpoint those who unrepentingly practice deviant sexual behaviour, in this case sexuality, will receive God's judgement. With that being the case along with the child being more inclined to pick up the behaviour of the parents it would go against a Christians beliefs to condone or support children being adopted into the home of same sex parents. I'd feel the same way regarding prospective adopting parents with any of the other disorders or criminal tendencies aforementioned.
I'd say that's the bottom line for me.

That is the problem...we are talking about laws for a secular state, whatever the Religion is, nobody should care what they say about those issues.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

You are putting things that shouldn't be on the same list...
Racism: Social problem
Satanic worship: Bunch of heavy metal fans with too much time on their hands.
Drug Use: No problem. Drug Abuse: Social Disease.
Alcoholism: Social Disease.
sexuality: Sexual choice.

Manu I put them on the list because they are all environments that I see as detrimental for the children in that home. I do appreciate you qualifying sexuality as a choice.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Manu I put them on the list because they are all environments that I see as detrimental for the children in that home. I do appreciate you qualifying sexuality as a choice.

It is a choice to a certain point. The thing is...that there is not a right or wrong choice in this issue, simply different choices to be made. And as I asume you already guess, I'm not talking about "Choice God or Gay and go to ". No, what I'm talking about is another kind of choice (whether to be accepted in some social circles if the person admits its sexuality).

[jochhejaam]

The Myth of the Gay Gene

All the scientific evidence to date has not
conclusively proven that genes
determine sexual orientation in human beings.



In the past year, the clergy pedophilia scandal has reignited the debate over sexuality. 1 The Catholic Church’s millennia-old teaching is clear: sexual activity is immoral because it is contrary to nature. 2 Not surprisingly, however, this counter-cultural position has come under much criticism in recent decades not only within the Church but also within other ecclesial communions. 3 One popular argument that is often put forward by revisionists is that the Church’s stance should be re-evaluated in light of new scientific evidence which suggest that sexuality is a genetically inherited condition that is a permanent state. 4 Thus, it is claimed, sexuality should be accepted as a natural variant within a wide spectrum of gender iden ies and sexual orientations, a manifestation of the richness of God’s creation. 5

This essay will respond to this revisionist argument in three ways. First, it will critically examine the scientific evidence that has been used to argue for the genetic origins of sexuality. In recent years, the scientific reports that originally proposed the existence of the so-called gay gene have been seriously questioned and discredited. Thus, today, the widely held belief that a single human gene exists that determines sexual orientation remains a myth. Next, it will investigate the claim that sexuality is both permanent and nonpathological by reviewing four recent studies that suggest that this may not the case. First, a study authored by Robert Spitzer, a leading figure in the 1973 American Psychiatric Association (APA) decision that removed sexuality from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders, has now shown that with some form of reparative therapy, a few persons whose sexual orientation had been predominantly or exclusively sexual became predominantly or exclusively heterosexual. Thus, it appears that at least in select cases, the sexual orientation is not as permanent a state as it has been touted to be. Second, three independent studies published in the past four years have also shown that sexual and bisexual men and women are at greater risk of suicide and overall mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts. These studies suggest that contrary to claims advanced by gay activists, sexually active persons as a group appear to be less psychologically healthy than the general population. Finally, this essay will review the ethical argument that used the flawed scientific data to justify sexual behavior. This argument is flawed, because it endorses too much. In fact, the same argument could be used to excuse many human behaviors that are immoral. Not insignificantly, one of these behaviors would include rape.

Is There a Human Gay Gene?

Revisionists often cite three scientific studies published in the early 1990s to prove that sexuality is a genetically inherited condition. It is now clear that there were scientific problems with each of these reports that undermine the validity of their conclusions. 6

First, in August of 1991, Simon LeVay, a scientist at the Salk Ins ute in San Diego, reported that a group of neurons in the hypothalamic region of the brain appeared to be twice as large in heterosexual men than in sexual men. 7 Previous studies had suggested that the hypothalamus is a region of the brain involved in the regulation of sexual behavior in non-human primates. Furthermore, other studies had shown that these neurons are larger in men then in women. Thus, LeVay concluded that sexual orientation had a biological basis.

There are three problems with LeVay’s paper. First, LeVay compared the brain structures of 19 sexual men with the brain structures of 16 men whom he presumed were heterosexual. However, he was unable to confirm the heterosexuality of the men in his control group. Significantly, six of these 16 presumed heterosexual men had died from AIDS, a disease whose transmission is often associated with sexual behavior! Thus, it would not be surprising if some of LeVay’s presumed heterosexual men were in fact, sexuals, a possibility which would seriously discredit the conclusions of his study. Second, LeVay obtained his brain samples from sexual men who had all died from AIDS. In contrast, for his control group, he obtained brain samples from men who had died not only from AIDS (6 subjects) but also from a diversity of other causes (10 subjects). As LeVay himself acknowledged, however, this raises a legitimate scientific question: Could the differences in the sizes of the neurons have been caused not by sexual orientation but by AIDS? This certainly is a possibility that was not definitively ruled out the study. Finally, LeVay concluded that the differences in neuronal size could explain sexuality. In other words, they could be linked to a biological cause for a sexual orientation. This, however, is an illegitimate conclusion arising from faulty logic. One alternative explanation for the differences in the sizes of the neurons in the hypothalamus is that sexual behavior is the cause for rather than the effect of the difference in neuron size. To illustrate this, let us say that a scientist tells you that he has discovered that there is a difference in the size of the bicep muscles between weight lifters and pianists. Furthermore, he concludes that the large muscle mass is the cause for these men becoming muscle builders. What would you say? Would you not respond by pointing out that it is more likely to be the case that the large muscle mass was in fact not the cause for but the effectof muscle training? In the same way, LeVay’s study was unable to rule out the possibility that sexual behavior was not caused by, but rather, caused the differences in neuronal cell size. In sum, in light of these significant problems, it is difficult to conclude with any certainty that sexual orientation is caused in any way by the neurons of the hypothalamus.

Second, in December of 1991, John M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, reported that it was more likely for both identical twins to be sexual than it is for both fraternal twins or for both adopted brothers. 8 They found that 52% (29 pairs out of 56) of the identical twins were both sexual; 22% (12 pairs out of 54) of the fraternal twins were both sexual; and 11% (6 of 57) of the adoptive brothers where both sexual. Thus, Bailey and Pillard concluded that there is a genetic cause for sexuality.

Again, there were significant problems with the study. First, if sexuality is genetically determined, why did only 52% of the identical twins share the same sexual orientation? How about the other 48% of the twins who differed in their sexual orientation? How do we account for them? Second and more importantly, the study was based upon a sample of twins which was not random. As critics have pointed out, Bailey and Pillard did not rule out the possibility that they had preferentially recruited twins were both brothers were gay by advertising in sexual newspapers and magazines rather than in periodicals intended for the general public. Indeed, it now appears that preferential recruitment did occur in the 1991 study – a more recent 2000 study by Bailey and his colleagues, using volunteers recruited, not from the gay community but from the Australian Twin Registry, revealed that only 20% and not 52% of identical twins share the same sexual orientation. 9 This is not as significant a difference between identical and fraternal twins as earlier reported. Thus, as the authors of the 2000 paper conclude, it is very difficult to distinguish the genetic from the environmental influences on sexual orientation.

The third and most publicized study suggesting a genetic link for sexual orientation was a paper published by Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Ins utes of Health. The researchers studied 40 pairs of sexual brothers and concluded that some cases of sexuality could be linked to a specific region on the human X chromosome (Xq28) inherited from the mother to her sexual son. 1 0 This study has come under much criticism – the Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services even investigated Hamer for alleged fraud in this study though it eventually cleared him 11 – and most significantly, has never been reproduced. In fact, two subsequent studies of other sexual brothers have since concluded that there is no evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by an X-linked gene. 12

In sum, all the scientific evidence to date has not conclusively proven that genes determine sexual orientation in human beings. The existence of a human gay gene remains a scientific myth. Thus gay activists are incorrect when they insist that science has proven that an individual with sexual inclinations is “born that way.”


It's a long article, here's the link if you want to read more.
http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/austriaco.htm

[Nbadan]

For the WNBA star, as she herself acknowledges, sexuality was not an inborn trait but was a conscious choice.

Blah, no one knows this for sure. It's always toughest to examine your own motivations. Swoopes may have been gay at birth and still be in self-denial. None-the-less, I am not saying that enviromental factors may not influence some people who may be inclined to be gay. However, no one is going to turn gay from watching a gay porn or interacting with gay people, even if you are related.

[jochhejaam]

Blah, no one knows this for sure. It's always toughest to examine your own motivations. Swoopes may have been gay at birth and still be in self-denial. None-the-less, I am not saying that enviromental factors may not influence some people who may be inclined to be gay. However, no one is going to turn gay from watching a gay porn or interacting with gay people, even if you are related.

See post #96

[Nbadan]

See post #96

See my post from this weeK:

UESDAY, Feb. 21 (HealthDay News) -- New research adds a twist to the debate on the origins of sexual orientation, suggesting that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women.

Scientists found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways -- half go one way, half go the other.

The research "confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved," said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The link between genetics and sexual orientation has been a hot topic for more than a decade as a few scientists have tried to find genes that might make people gay or straight. In the new study, Bocklandt and colleagues examined a phenomenon called "X-chromosome inactivation."

Yahoo News

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

In sum, all the scientific evidence to date has not conclusively proven that genes determine sexual orientation in human beings. The existence of a human gay gene remains a scientific myth. Thus gay activists are incorrect when they insist that science has proven that an individual with sexual inclinations is “born that way.”

I do agree on this. But there also isn't any "straight", "bisexual", "voyeurist", etc., gene. Sexual behaviour is an individual choice, influenced by enviroment to some point, but there is not a right or wrong enviroment or choice. Anyone can do as they like in their bedrooms.

[jochhejaam]

See my post from this weeK:



Yahoo News

It starts out with "Moms genetics might"... <sigh>
Using mythology (skewed scientific studied) as attempts to accelerate the acceptance of deviant sexual behaviours are advanced by anti-Christian activists dan. They're full of holes with the mainstream scientific community and with the majority in the Christian community, those that haven't allowed secularism to permeate the tenets of their religions to the point where there's little difference between their brand of Christianity and what is diametrically opposite of their foundational tenets.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I agree with that although IMO the child raised in the home of those that practice illicit or unethical behaviour, be it racism, sexuality, satanic worship, drug use, alcoholism or whatever it may be would in all probablilty be much more inclined to take on those behaviours than one in a home where those behaviours are not practiced.

Speaking from a strictly Biblical viewpoint those who unrepentingly practice deviant sexual behaviour, in this case sexuality, will receive God's judgement. With that being the case along with the child being more inclined to pick up the behaviour of the parents it would go against a Christians beliefs to condone or support children being adopted into the home of same sex parents. I'd feel the same way regarding prospective adopting parents with any of the other disorders or criminal tendencies aforementioned.
I'd say that's the bottom line for me.

Seriously man, how can you even think of putting all those in the same list? I seriously don't get your way of thinking, it pisses me off! First of all, being a satanic worshiper is neither illicit nor unethical and neither is being a sexual, so I really don't get what the you are talking about!

You know what, you and I are NEVER going to be able to see eye to eye on this matter. You view sexuality as some sort of deviant, unholy choice of lifestyle. Thats fine, believe what you want, but when people who think like you start trying to oppress and impose your absurd ideals on the rest of the world, it makes me sick! and it pisses me off!

Now I know you, personally, are not trying to oppress anyone or impose your way of thinking on anyone, but what you are doing is condoning it, and that makes me sick too. Call me irational, call me hotheaded, in fact call me whatever you like, but my part in this discussion ends here, because I simply cannot stomach your views on the matter.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

You know what, you and I are NEVER going to be able to see eye to eye on this matter. You view sexuality as some sort of deviant, unholy choice of lifestyle. Thats fine, believe what you want, but when people who think like you start trying to oppress and impose your absurd ideals on the rest of the world, it makes me sick! and it pisses me off!

My view? I have the backing of the Creator of the Universe so that would mean that you will never see eye to eye with God and me and I'm very content with that scenario.

Now I know you, personally, are not trying to oppress anyone or impose your way of thinking on anyone, but what you are doing is condoning it, and that makes me sick too. Call me irational, call me hotheaded, in fact call me whatever you like, but my part in this discussion ends here, because I simply cannot stomach your views on the matter.

Okay, you're hotheaded and irrational...and intolerant.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

My view? I have the backing of the Creator of the Universe so that would mean that you will never see eye to eye with God and me and I'm very content with that scenario.

YOU and God???

I guess he needs a new personal advisor then...that was the problem...

And again, you are trying to impose a religious point of view on a law issue...except for religious liberties, religion has nothing to do in the law.

[jochhejaam]

YOU and God???

I guess he needs a new personal advisor then...that was the problem...

And again, you are trying to impose a religious point of view on a law issue...except for religious liberties, religion has nothing to do in the law.

God and me means that I've joined his camp and adhere to His truths not that He's gravitated towards me. (I didn't think I'd have to clarify that)

I'm not trying to impose anything Manu I'm just explaining how and why I feel the way I do about the issue. My belief is that morality and law are not at all mutually exclusive.