Doctors group claims heterosexual marriage better for kids

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

evilthecat:
The AMA, which is a professional organization, has correctly stated that the overwhelming body of empirical evidence does not support these claims.

Glad this has been mentioned. The AMA does not support this claims and has openly revoked them.

Anyone who believes that being a doctor entitles you to make a scientific judgement without any evidence, social services will be round to collect your brain shortly.

Agreed as any Doctor should know in (medical) science, Expert Opinion is the lowest form of evidence.

I'm glad to see Australia has crazy people in the spotlight too too. There should be a weekly feature of "Crazy People from Around the World" just so it doesn't feel like we're alone in America anymore.

Source appears biased. The individuals raising the child matter, not their gender or sexual orientation.

Imperator_DK:
traditional marriage

The most meaningless buzzphrase in common parlance today. (I agree with the rest of your post, just the idea of "traditional marriage" is hilarious when you look at how marriages used to traditionally work).

Dags90:
It is also generally accepted that we aren't born knowing language, but are born with a particular physiology that facilitates the uptake of language (and is time limited).

I may be wrong, I'm getting out of my area, but I believe that's quite a different thing.

The reason, as I understand it, for the incredible language learning ability of young children is their very high levels of neuroplasticity. Young childrens' brains have not yet developed a specific architecture and can be very easily remapped. As we get older, we undergo a process called hemispheric lateralization, whereby our brains change to accommodate specific tasks which we use routinely. Different functions become delegated to particular parts of the brain, but this means that those parts become fixed in their functioning, the same area can no longer be reconfigured to serve a different function as easily as it could in early childhood.

Also, since I was a language student in a past life, I would add that children are not better at all parts of language learning. Children learn pronunciation and accents far better than adults, for example, and usually pick up foreign grammar faster, but adults (particularly adults who have learned languages before) can learn vocabulary much quicker than children by using a structured method. Again, children's brains are flexible, whereas adult brains are specialized.

Could a neurological change like hemispheric lateralization play a role in the development of exclusive human sexual behaviour? I'm not ruling it out. What I have an underlying logical problem with is the idea that people are born with a specific outcome already predetermined, but that's kind of based on what (I think) human sexuality actually is. The physiological mechanics of human sex are actually pretty complicated and diverse, far more so than human sexual orientation can allow for.

..but that probably belongs in another post. This is getting off topic.

Kendarik:
It is my personal and unscientific belief that kids do best in a family with: (in order, with all other things being equal)

1) A loving a male and female roll model
2) Two loving adult roll models of any gender
3) A single loving adult roll model of any gender
4) No parent
5) Abusive parent(s) of any gender(s)

Helmholtz Watson:
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

Uh... You people do realize that "your unscientific opinion" not only means jack shit, but shouldn't actually exist, right? Where kids, on average, do best has nothing to do with opinion, and you guys really should drop it (as should everyone who agrees with this). Look into the actual scientific data, then make your opinions. Careless opinion-building such as this can damn well lead to negative consequences. If your consideration is wrong (which, from what I read, is highly likely), then your wrongness may very well be a contributing factor to the discrimination of a minority group. Either way, please start, you know, using your brains.

Fraser Greenfield:
But I'd draw the line at procreation; if homosexuality is 'genetic' increasing it's numbers in the gene pool is not necessarily a sound idea.

Except that there is no strong correlation between having gay parents (genetically or otherwise) and being gay, just as much as there is no strong correlation between having straight parents and being straight. The "gay gene" still has not been found, and it is far more likely to be a combination of factors going on in the womb from genes that are present in heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. I need to look into this further, but I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is not passed down via genetics (not least of which because it wouldn't actually make any sense).

Blablahb:

Fraser Greenfield:
Yep, I kinda have to agree. In my own view, same-sex couples should be allowed to marry even adopt (I'd rather they be in loving hands than an orphanage). But I'd draw the line at procreation; if homosexuality is 'genetic' increasing it's numbers in the gene pool is not necessarily a sound idea. That and the idea of conceiving children via completely artificial means when there was no possibility of a natural conception doesn't sit right with me. It's just to "Brave New World".

I remember two studies about a genetic perk which made women statistically more fertile, and men homosexual. Genetic homosexuality that's an evolutionary advantage, even.

Not to mention the cause of other factors is indirect. D Swaab, neurologist and brain researcher for instance, found a correlation between size of the brain's timekeeper (and a few other small parts) between homosexuals, where the development in homosexual men looked more like the development in heterosexual women, than heterosexual men. That part of the brain is completely formed at a very early state, suggesting the cause of the variation is genetic (that early makes hormonal influences from the mother less likely). Not really a negative thing there either.

Sad, I have told you before that I have indeed read that research. And I have to admit it stands on really shaky ground. It came up in a previous thread:

Fraser Greenfield:

Blablahb:

Fraser Greenfield:
The idea that there are genetic factors, while possible are incredibly unlikely.

How fortunate then, that the existance of such has already been proven, as has been posted several times in this topic already.

That genetic trait also explains how homosexuality reproduces across generations, because woman with the genetic trait in question remain heterosexual and become more (statistically) fertile.

Proving a correlation exists, is hardly proof. The 'proven' phenomenon you are referring to is (I assume) a questionnaire given out to 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men in Italy by Dr Francesca Corna from the University of Padua. It did not take into account genetic make up, or even eliminate the possibly of the social environment of which it was these people were raised, as did a survey in the USA by on Dr. Bocklandt. There were no experiments to validate their theories, nor are their sample sizes big enough to be considered statistically viable.Please understand what an article says and don't just read what the author of such an article wants you to think.

Also for those who haven't read Brave New World. One of the major plot points is how all people in 'civilized' countries are created artificially and the natural means of procreation has been suppressed. You can even read The Forever War for a similar concept. Again assuming that Homosexuality is genetic; an increase in such genes would increase the proportion of homosexuality over the generations. If artificial insemination were to become unavailable for whatever reason (e.g Increase in the price of Nitrogen, Doctor strike, World wide biohazard epidemic, Nuclear apocalypse etc.) you would have a significant proportion of the population that isn't able to reproduce. A bit far fetched I admit, it would be centuries before such a event could have any lasting effect on a society; as well as the fact that Homosexuality would have to be due to genetics. Which again is unproven. You might argue that this is far fetched, or simply an unlikely worst case scenario. It probably is, but that doesn't make such concerns any less relevant. Nuclear war is highly unlikely, but we're still concerned about that right? Same logic.

And on another note: No one seems to be willing to generate any substantial scientific evidence on these debates. It all seems to be supporting arguments "this is morally wrong", "We deserve Equality" etc. Nearly all the evidence presented for and against this argument has inadequacy sample sizes, presented in a bias manner, or is highly selective on what the data might suggest.

Of course I'm sure that the supporters of gay marriage would drop of quite quickly if someone had solid evidence that same-sex couples are more likely to produce homosexual children. http://authorfbradshaw.hubpages.com/hub/Do-Gay-Parents-Have-an-Affect-on-their-Childrens-Sexual-Preference
Of course the problem is there is no solid evidence available. Much of it is facts on spot. Half the papers I have examined supporting this way or that often fall flat when you see the sample sizes or the methodology of their research.

Oh and here is an interesting article on the topic. I should not it only critiques the pro-gay side of the argument, but the same principles apply
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is01j3

and some more stuff
http://www.queerty.com/gay-parents-far-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids-says-questionable-science-20101018/

Stagnant:
snip

Oh no! You caught us! Good thing we specifically stated that our views were not based on anything.

Helmholtz Watson:

Stagnant:
snip

Oh no! You caught us! Good thing we specifically stated that our views were not based on anything.

Yes, and that's the problem. Such "baseless" views can be extremely harmful, especially when it's a view like this. How many people hold that exact same baseless view, and then turn around and use it to say "well, homosexuality is wrong because of this!"? I'm willing to bet quite a few.

Stagnant:

Helmholtz Watson:

Stagnant:
snip

Oh no! You caught us! Good thing we specifically stated that our views were not based on anything.

Yes, and that's the problem. Such "baseless" views can be extremely harmful, especially when it's a view like this. How many people hold that exact same baseless view, and then turn around and use it to say "well, homosexuality is wrong because of this!"? I'm willing to bet quite a few.

It's especially bad when we have studies showing no significant difference between a child raised by two gay parents and a child raised by two straight parents.

At that point it goes from "baseless view" to "view which directly contradicts evidence we have". I don't wanna get all hyperbole, but it's kind of akin to Flat Earthers.

cahtush:

Karma168:

cahtush:
Soo...
An american organization with "family" in the title?
Sure looks not at all biased in any way to me!

They're Australian, the .au web address gives it away

My mistake, thanks for pointing it out.

You're still right on the whole though. The *family* tag is pretty samey everywhere.

We have a party here in Australia called "family first". I'm sure they are pro family, as long as you fit their definition of "family".

Stagnant:

Helmholtz Watson:

Stagnant:
snip

Oh no! You caught us! Good thing we specifically stated that our views were not based on anything.

Yes, and that's the problem. Such "baseless" views can be extremely harmful, especially when it's a view like this. How many people hold that exact same baseless view, and then turn around and use it to say "well, homosexuality is wrong because of this!"? I'm willing to bet quite a few.

Wait, you think that people will say that they think homosexuality is wrong based on nothing, and then they use their claim(which they admitted is based on nothing) as a justification for not liking homosexuality?

Amnestic:

Stagnant:

Helmholtz Watson:
Oh no! You caught us! Good thing we specifically stated that our views were not based on anything.

Yes, and that's the problem. Such "baseless" views can be extremely harmful, especially when it's a view like this. How many people hold that exact same baseless view, and then turn around and use it to say "well, homosexuality is wrong because of this!"? I'm willing to bet quite a few.

It's especially bad when we have studies showing no significant difference between a child raised by two gay parents and a child raised by two straight parents.

At that point it goes from "baseless view" to "view which directly contradicts evidence we have". I don't wanna get all hyperbole, but it's kind of akin to Flat Earthers.

Actually I have read in a study that if a kid is raised by lesbian parents, the kid is less likely to be a violent person when they grow up. Study didn't say anything for straight or gay parents though :/

mrdude2010:

Imperator_DK:
traditional marriage

The most meaningless buzzphrase in common parlance today. (I agree with the rest of your post, just the idea of "traditional marriage" is hilarious when you look at how marriages used to traditionally work).

Well, It think the term has taken on a meaning of its very own by now, as in "Idealization of Christian heterosexual marriage, as well as condemnation of any other form, particularly the same-sex variety".

Imperator_DK:
Well, if you're calling yourself "doctors4family", then it's obvious that it's not exactly unbiased research devoid of preconceived notions you're engaging in. Like a fair few of the global warming scientists, they've completely undermined their academic integrity by tying themselves to a fixed political agenda. You don't start with a conclusion - least of all an unrelated political one - and then try to find facts to support it.

Now, if people who didn't positively reek of wanting to find results in support of traditional marriage had found indications that it was inherently better for children than other family forms, then it'd be interesting. This is just pathetic.

Sorry, I can't let bullshit like this go. Scientists did not politicise climate change(use the proper term, the one scientists have been using in the literature for decades, global warming was a description of one effect of climate change that has been distorted by sensationalist media twats), they have studied the evidence and adopted a consistent position which is in complete congruence with the available data. That they continue to hold this position in the face of slanderous lies, innuendo, insinuations about their character, and the well-funded propaganda of the fossil fuel industries which HAVE been trying to politicise the subject is a fucking testament to their academic integrity.

The only "fixed political agenda" that has been endorsed by climate scientists is "we should really do something about this", and considering that they are CORRECT, that's a pretty fucking unassailable sentiment.

And before you even think about replying, go to YouTube, search for "potholer54", and watch his video series which carefully and painstakingly explains why your position is a load of nonsense, including full lists of citations.

Better title of this thread:

"Conservative Christians who happen to have medical degrees say traditional Christian values superior."

Magichead:
...
Sorry, I can't let bullshit like this go. Scientists did not politicise climate change(use the proper term, the one scientists have been using in the literature for decades, global warming was a description of one effect of climate change that has been distorted by sensationalist media twats), they have studied the evidence and adopted a consistent position which is in complete congruence with the available data. That they continue to hold this position in the face of slanderous lies, innuendo, insinuations about their character, and the well-funded propaganda of the fossil fuel industries which HAVE been trying to politicise the subject is a fucking testament to their academic integrity.

The only "fixed political agenda" that has been endorsed by climate scientists is "we should really do something about this", and considering that they are CORRECT, that's a pretty fucking unassailable sentiment.

And before you even think about replying, go to YouTube, search for "potholer54", and watch his video series which carefully and painstakingly explains why your position is a load of nonsense, including full lists of citations.

When did "we should really do something about this" become a scientific position that can be objectively right or wrong?

I don't question that the climate is slowly changing, nor even that it's probably to no small extent caused by humans. But I do question that climate scientists are the right ones to prioritize and weigh it against other concerns that also demand attention and funding from out limited pool of resources, such as the economy, risk of pandemics, overpopulation, nuclear disarmament, and all kinds of other risks that might get us all at some point.

That's what democratically elected politicians are for, who can then base their decisions on what to weigh and pursue on the scientists' findings and prognosis (in this and the other fields). Once the scientists actively start lobbying for certain political actions to be taken though, then they are pushing an agenda, rather than acting in any scientific capacity, as politically neutral seekers and communicators of measurable facts and nothing more (unless asked to formulate a strategy).

In short, they might be correct, but the concerns they're raising aren't our only ones - certainly not our most immediate ones - and whether they're to be given the attention and resources the climate change advocates would like them to is a political question. They get involved in that subsequent debate, they are pushing a political agenda.

Helmholtz Watson:
Wait, you think that people will say that they think homosexuality is wrong based on nothing, and then they use their claim(which they admitted is based on nothing) as a justification for not liking homosexuality?

A justification for not liking homosexuality, a justification for voting against equal rights for homosexuals, a justification for all manner of nasty shit?

Yes. Yes, I do think that, because that's how such "baseless beliefs" tend to function in society.

Imperator_DK:

When did "we should really do something about this" become a sci

Are you really incapable of drawing a distinction between the discipline of science and having a political opinion?

Do you really think that for a scientist to work on something necessarily means they should be barred from commenting on what they think their work means? Do you think Tim Berners-Lee should shut the fuck up about internet freedom? Do you think Richard Dawkins should shut the fuck up about religion because of his work on evolution? Do you think biomedical scientists should shut the fuck up about whether it's right to use animals in research? Do you think any and all that do are compromised, second-rate scientists for doing so?

Apparently so.

Agema:
...
Are you really incapable of drawing a distinction between the discipline of science and having a political opinion?

Do you really think that for a scientist to work on something necessarily means they should be barred from commenting on what they think their work means? Do you think Tim Berners-Lee should shut the fuck up about internet freedom? Do you think Richard Dawkins should shut the fuck up about religion because of his work on evolution? Do you think biomedical scientists should shut the fuck up about whether it's right to use animals in research? Do you think any and all that do are compromised, second-rate scientists for doing so?

Apparently so.

Certainly not, but their opinions shouldn't be held as scientifically validated truths, and their bias towards certain views and ideals taken into account as margins of error. A margin that seems rather significant when it comes to climate change given how politically charged the topic is, the massive media interest, and just how much funding is at play here. The positively alarmist tone from their camp doesn't help either, as though the end of the world is neigh, and there aren't equally significant challenges for humanity to deal with.

The problem even for excellent scientists is that they tend to overestimate how important their field is in the grand scope of things. The problem with these scientists is that they have sensationalist media outlets that'll happily listen, create a bandwagon, then jump on it. Which they're fine with, because hey, more focus and funding.

Stagnant:

Kendarik:

snip

Except that there is no strong correlation between having gay parents (genetically or otherwise) and being gay, just as much as there is no strong correlation between having straight parents and being straight. The "gay gene" still has not been found, and it is far more likely to be a combination of factors going on in the womb from genes that are present in heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. I need to look into this further, but I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is not passed down via genetics (not least of which because it wouldn't actually make any sense).

There are documented cases of identical twins where one is gay and the other is not. This rules out 'gay' being fully genetic, although there may still be an element of genetic predisposition.

Fraser Greenfield:

Also for those who haven't read Brave New World. One of the major plot points is how all people in 'civilized' countries are created artificially and the natural means of procreation has been suppressed. You can even read The Forever War for a similar concept. Again assuming that Homosexuality is genetic; an increase in such genes would increase the proportion of homosexuality over the generations. If artificial insemination were to become unavailable for whatever reason (e.g Increase in the price of Nitrogen, Doctor strike, World wide biohazard epidemic, Nuclear apocalypse etc.) you would have a significant proportion of the population that isn't able to reproduce. A bit far fetched I admit, it would be centuries before such a event could have any lasting effect on a society; as well as the fact that Homosexuality would have to be due to genetics. Which again is unproven. You might argue that this is far fetched, or simply an unlikely worst case scenario. It probably is, but that doesn't make such concerns any less relevant. Nuclear war is highly unlikely, but we're still concerned about that right? Same logic.

And on another note: No one seems to be willing to generate any substantial scientific evidence on these debates. It all seems to be supporting arguments "this is morally wrong", "We deserve Equality" etc. Nearly all the evidence presented for and against this argument has inadequacy sample sizes, presented in a bias manner, or is highly selective on what the data might suggest.

Of course I'm sure that the supporters of gay marriage would drop of quite quickly if someone had solid evidence that same-sex couples are more likely to produce homosexual children. http://authorfbradshaw.hubpages.com/hub/Do-Gay-Parents-Have-an-Affect-on-their-Childrens-Sexual-Preference
Of course the problem is there is no solid evidence available. Much of it is facts on spot. Half the papers I have examined supporting this way or that often fall flat when you see the sample sizes or the methodology of their research.

Oh and here is an interesting article on the topic. I should not it only critiques the pro-gay side of the argument, but the same principles apply
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is01j3

and some more stuff
http://www.queerty.com/gay-parents-far-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids-says-questionable-science-20101018/

I can't remember much about Brave New World (haven't read it in many years), but I can't help but think that equating gay procreating with the suppression of natural procreation is a little... reactionary. There's no reason that both can't exist in tandem, is there?

Also, in The Forever War it's suggested that people are gradually moved to homosexuality socially, not genetically. Because the Earth it overpopulated, successive governments promote homosexuality as a way of decreasing population growth. There's no implication that it's passed on genetically.
And thematically it isn't even meant to be a commentary on homosexuality - the 'foreign' future society is seen as such from the perspective of the main characters. It isn't intended to be an objective look at the merits of a homosexual society, but a commentary on how much things have changed while they've been gone. It's not limited to sexual tastes either; clothing styles, make-up, social norms, and other things are also described as being different.
It's a metaphor for soldiers being gradually detached from the values of the society they fight to protect, and was written as a political statement about such happening during the Vietnam War. Hell, the entire book is riddled with anti-vietnam allegories, so holding it up as an example of "When Gay Rights Go Bad" is a bit of a misrepresentation!

As for homosexuality being hereditary, the simple answer is no-one knows. There have been many studies claiming to have found a gay gene, most have been discredited. We can debate it all day, but until there's a scientific consensus either way, it's kind of pointless.

What isn't pointless is arguing the moral and social merit of political change. This is R&P after all!

Damien Granz:

Kendarik:

evilthecat:

If there's one thing we can now say with a fair degree of conviction that homosexuality is not, it's genetic.

I'm not sure about that. There is still some research going that way, including the stuff showing that if a man is gay his sister is likely to be more fertile. That does sound like a possible genetic twist.

In the end I bet it will be like cancer (no, I'm not calling gay a cancer) and be a combination of genetics and environent (particular inutero), with possibily a dash of nurture/life experience thrown in for good measure.

Research tends to show that genetic factors combined with hormones in utero are more or less all that matter. Emotional/moral nurturing environment plays practically no real role, aside from possibly chemical factors in the environment. Or else you'd have no gay kids born to conservatives or whatever. No amount of 'moral upbringing' is going to make a child gay, or not gay. Your kid isn't going to become gay because of some sort of trauma, nor does he being gay mean he's suffered some sort of sexual abuse, etc.

Be aware though that it's possible for some genetic factors to be 'unlocked' by environmental factors, like overcrowding or nutrition intake, etc. Which isn't the same as just saying the environment 'made' you one way.

You've given more details than I did, but your explanation is basically what I was thinking. The minor possibility of life experience I was bringing in is that I've noticed many people seem to pick a "type" or "preferred" partner based on early experiences. I'm not just talking sexual here, but a repeating "look" in gf, preference for hair colour/type, etc. And I think there is an "experience" thing too that can trigger you. I had my first experience with a woman at a point when I had no interest in women and I did it as a favor to another. I know another woman who was bi and after being raped, only had an interest in women.

I guess my feeling is the genetic/chemical stuff that happens to you sets up a predisposition for where you will land on the gay-straight spectrum (because I don't consider it just 2 or 3 points but a continuous spectrum) and experience can sometimes nudge you a bit one way or the other on that spectrum.

Stagnant:

Kendarik:
It is my personal and unscientific belief that kids do best in a family with: (in order, with all other things being equal)

1) A loving a male and female role model
2) Two loving adult role models of any gender
3) A single loving adult role model of any gender
4) No parent
5) Abusive parent(s) of any gender(s)

Helmholtz Watson:
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

Uh... You people do realize that "your unscientific opinion" not only means jack shit, but shouldn't actually exist, right? Where kids, on average, do best has nothing to do with opinion, and you guys really should drop it (as should everyone who agrees with this). Look into the actual scientific data, then make your opinions. Careless opinion-building such as this can damn well lead to negative consequences. If your consideration is wrong (which, from what I read, is highly likely), then your wrongness may very well be a contributing factor to the discrimination of a minority group. Either way, please start, you know, using your brains.

So I used my brain to generate an opinion and you try to insult me and tell me to use my brain?

You need to learn a bit about human beings, no one will take you seriously with this type of argument.

Amnestic:

Stagnant:

Helmholtz Watson:
Oh no! You caught us! Good thing we specifically stated that our views were not based on anything.

Yes, and that's the problem. Such "baseless" views can be extremely harmful, especially when it's a view like this. How many people hold that exact same baseless view, and then turn around and use it to say "well, homosexuality is wrong because of this!"? I'm willing to bet quite a few.

It's especially bad when we have studies showing no significant difference between a child raised by two gay parents and a child raised by two straight parents.

At that point it goes from "baseless view" to "view which directly contradicts evidence we have". I don't wanna get all hyperbole, but it's kind of akin to Flat Earthers.

"no SIGNIFICANT" != "no"

While I have stated VERY clearly in this thread my positive opinion on gay marriage and gay adoption and gay infertility treatments, I do have life experience that matches my personal feelings. The issues are not huge, but from my personal experience, exist in the area of male-female interaction, particularly during formative teen years.

Kendarik:

"no SIGNIFICANT" != "no"

BY JOVE HOLMES I THINK YOU CRACKED THIS ONE.

Kendarik:

While I have stated VERY clearly in this thread my positive opinion on gay marriage and gay adoption and gay infertility treatments, I do have life experience that matches my personal feelings. The issues are not huge, but from my personal experience, exist in the area of male-female interaction, particularly during formative teen years.

"Anecdotes"!="Data"

See? I can do it too. "Data"="Data" however, and we have data. Data which contradicts your view so either come up with some (credible) data of your own, or kindly realise that your opinions aren't only baseless but they fly in the face of scientific studies.

150 guys, who also happen to hold a ton of other socially conservative views. That's nothing.
Let me direct you to this bit in the article in case you didn't see it yet:

But AMA president Steve Hambleton has rejected the claims, saying there is no evidence that children with same-sex parents are any different to those with heterosexual parents.

"There is a growing body of evidence that says there's no difference in their psychological development, their general health, their sexual orientation," he said.

Dr Hambleton says the opinions expressed in the submission do not reflect the views of the wider medical community, saying there are nearly 90,000 doctors in Australia.

So, do I put my money on the AMA's stance or some small splinter group of social conservatives? You can probably guess.

Also: Another instance of "family" in a group's name denoting hatred. These types of groups' continuous use of the word "family" really soils it. "Family" used to be such a positively connotated word, but these people really twisted it in a most Orwellian way over the years.

Kendarik:
While I have stated VERY clearly in this thread my positive opinion on gay marriage and gay adoption and gay infertility treatments, I do have life experience that matches my personal feelings. The issues are not huge, but from my personal experience, exist in the area of male-female interaction, particularly during formative teen years.

There's one problem with such complete uncertainties though:

Having kids is considered a right. For everyone. Including mentally retarded, metaphorically retarded people, parents whose backgrounds you know will lead to abusive and repressive parenting (think of the fanatically religious for instance) and people whose parenting skills are quite questionable. They can have kids, as many and whenever they like, nobody stops them, there's no law against it.

If we allow that, it's utterly indefensible to bar homosexuals from having or adopting children on vague speculative small disadvantages for a child, even if those should ever be proven.

Amnestic:

Kendarik:

"no SIGNIFICANT" != "no"

BY JOVE HOLMES I THINK YOU CRACKED THIS ONE.

Kendarik:

While I have stated VERY clearly in this thread my positive opinion on gay marriage and gay adoption and gay infertility treatments, I do have life experience that matches my personal feelings. The issues are not huge, but from my personal experience, exist in the area of male-female interaction, particularly during formative teen years.

"Anecdotes"!="Data"

See? I can do it too.

Yes, and if I was claiming that my comments were scientific fact you would have a point. However, since I'm claiming them as anecdotal evidence on which I'm basing an opinion, your comment is just silly and is confirming that what I said was exactly what I said it was.

"Data"="Data" however, and we have data. Data which contradicts your view so either come up with some (credible) data of your own, or kindly realise that your opinions aren't only baseless but they fly in the face of scientific studies.

Sorry, I don't agree with you that the data is so conclusive. "how well adjusted they are" depends on what you measure and how you measure it. I continue to believe there are certain issues that are, on average, problematic to some degree. I have never seen any studies that contradict, or even directly address, the type of issues I'm talking about. Basically, I've never seen hard data on the subject.

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
While I have stated VERY clearly in this thread my positive opinion on gay marriage and gay adoption and gay infertility treatments, I do have life experience that matches my personal feelings. The issues are not huge, but from my personal experience, exist in the area of male-female interaction, particularly during formative teen years.

There's one problem with such complete uncertainties though:

Having kids is considered a right. For everyone. Including mentally retarded, metaphorically retarded people, parents whose backgrounds you know will lead to abusive and repressive parenting (think of the fanatically religious for instance) and people whose parenting skills are quite questionable. They can have kids, as many and whenever they like, nobody stops them, there's no law against it.

If we allow that, it's utterly indefensible to bar homosexuals from having or adopting children on vague speculative small disadvantages for a child, even if those should ever be proven.

Just currious, did you actually READ what I said? Because you seem to be stating exactly what I said only your done is as if you are disagreeing with me.

These "doctors" have been discredited as being biased, have no evidence, and existing studies show they're wrong. Add to it the fact that their leader ran as apart of a party that A) does not represent a majority of Christians and B) has long-term ambitions to turn Australia into a Therocracy (although that could be the Australian Christian League I'm thinking of), you can safely disiss what these idiots say.

As for the idea of gays passing on the gay gene through procreation, there is such a thing as IVF which is used today, and there are gays who either have children while still in the closet, make the decision to get knocked up after coming out because they want kids, or in the worst cases for women are raped and impregnated, it's stupid to say there' negative effects to gay procreation. And even if there was, how is that a bad thing? The world is already approaching overpopulation (in the sense that there are going to be more people than the Earth can reasonably support), so anything to reduce that is a plus.

Kendarik:
So I used my brain to generate an opinion and you try to insult me and tell me to use my brain?

You need to learn a bit about human beings, no one will take you seriously with this type of argument.

All right, lemme reformulate my argument: "start using your brain as if you were a rational human being". I don't care about your "personal experience" any more than I care about your prejudices, your speculations, or your wild guesses; I care about the actual scientific data. And you should too - you might realize that you're perpetuating a meme that is seriously hurting other people.

Kendarik:
Yes, and if I was claiming that my comments were scientific fact you would have a point. However, since I'm claiming them as anecdotal evidence on which I'm basing an opinion, your comment is just silly and is confirming that what I said was exactly what I said it was.

"Data"="Data" however, and we have data. Data which contradicts your view so either come up with some (credible) data of your own, or kindly realise that your opinions aren't only baseless but they fly in the face of scientific studies.

Sorry, I don't agree with you that the data is so conclusive. "how well adjusted they are" depends on what you measure and how you measure it. I continue to believe there are certain issues that are, on average, problematic to some degree. I have never seen any studies that contradict, or even directly address, the type of issues I'm talking about. Basically, I've never seen hard data on the subject.

Kendarik... How many gay people do you know? How many gay people do you personally know to a level where you could accurately judge their parenting? How many children do you know whose parents are gay? Because I have this slinking feeling that those numbers are, respectively, "not many" and "almost none". You think the data is Despite the multiple studies all pointing in the same way? Well fine then, what's your data?

Stagnant:
All right, lemme reformulate my argument: "start using your brain as if you were a rational human being".

Are you capable of having a discussion without trying to turn it into a personal attack?

Kendarik:

Stagnant:
All right, lemme reformulate my argument: "start using your brain as if you were a rational human being".

Are you capable of having a discussion without trying to turn it into a personal attack?

Are you capable of actually responding to my points without trying to turn it into an argument from tone?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked