presumably by 'get out of the marriage business altogether' you mean get out of all payments, grants, tax refunds etc. as well?
Question On Homosexuality
- Thread starter twelvetwentytwoam
- Start date
Not really. Any reasonable person already knows that "deviancy" is nothing more than a difference from the norm, and the norm is relative. These are social standards. But in the question of homosexuality as nature vs nurture, I think that nature and nurture are very closely linked because I think that homosexuality develops very early in a child's life and completely unintended from the will of the parents no matter what they explicitly choose to teach or model for the child. There is no homosexual gene, for if there was, it would be a genetic trait that is passed down and could be traced - like eye colour. You could then say that if the child turns out homosexual, it was just part of the child's natural development because nature and nurture are effectively fused at such a young age. That it later is labeled "deviant" is just a social construct. The nature vs nurture debate is a misdirection to force people into 2 camps that are nowhere near the truth.
It's definitely a complex issue...but what you're stating as fact is quite confusing. Are you saying, to clarify, that your gender role and what gender you prefer to rub against is based on whether you were left alone to rub one out, while having either two parents of same sex, different sexes, or a single parent, of which sex...religion, what's on tv, what you're exposed to at a young age....right? If that's what you're saying....how would your theory account for all those who knew they were 'gay' at a very young age, regardless of whether they grew up in a religious family, or a family with both parents of opposite sex...?
I was at a very young age when I realized I really liked girls, and really had no influence at that age to make that choice...there was no 'choice', it just was a fact of my exisitence, much like if you realized that you liked men and were 'gay'....there was no superhero or hockeyplayer that convinced me to be hetero...I just am. As my gay friends are just that....gay. Or Lesbian...whatever...you know where I'm going with that.
What you've proposed is not really how it works, and though the influences we experienced in our early childhoods can and do change the courses we follow in our lives, it just kinda happens like your eye colour or tone of your skin, whether you have a dick or pussy, as you say...
BTW, Miss Melody...you were right, I oughta lighten up. Yo Momma!
I don't agree with that at all. If you're opposed to gay couples adopting children because it's not fair that the child can't choose, then what about the kids born to heterosexual parents who are shitty, irresponsible, alcoholics, drug dealers, cheaters, etc....? They didn't choose to have shitty parents and end up growing up to be scumbags either. I'd say that's worse than having daddy/mommy issues growing up in a family with gay parents (which is very disputable). I doubt this issue is about gay/heterosexual couples at all. It's more about the parents' ability to raise their children at the end of the day.
I agree and I think they're pushing it into the open to influence children.Agenda 21 population control.Vaccines & gmo's is another way to sterilize the population.
well that right there is the wrong analogy. at least with gay parents its the same species raising the offsprings. you argue about what's natural and necessary but who decides that?
Not necessarily. Current tax laws already treat common law relationships as defined in the tax act no different from actual marriages, and there is no reason that can't continue. Whether married (or common law) couples should be taxed differently than unmarried persons is a separate policy matter on which there can be debate and disagreement.
I wouldn't categorize that as homosexuality, thats a different type of affliction...pedophilia or something. Its a cycle, young boys get sexually abused by adult men, and they end up doing the same thing in adulthood, and on and on it goes. I know a few unfortunate men in this situation, they had sex with women and married, had kids...but because they were sexually abused in their past, they also have that urge and lust for young men. I wouldn't class them as being homosexual - instead they have a mental sickness that needs treatment. Homosexuality is usually healthy and natural and not destructive.
yea but I'm saying how do you know what nature intended? you can't claim to have an answer to that. maybe the way people think, act, behave, so on are all according to what nature intended? if we don't even know what nature intended us to act or be like then who are you and I to decide what is natural or necessary?
No I'm not arguing just to argue. I just question everything and enjoy having a friendly debate that's all. But back on topic, I don't want to assume so I wanna clarify. If I'm understanding your premise correctly you're saying homosexuals aren't natural because gays can't reproduce?
okay if that's the case then the entire institution of adoption is man-made, artificial and therefore unnatural. in that case this is not exclusive to LGBT families. we're talking about single straight mothers and fathers who adopt as well.
Adoption.
Yes, I wish more people would do this. The gay couples who cannot have children do fill a need. The need to adopt all the unwanted babies arond the world that have made it to birth. (As opposed to being aborted)
That was precisely my point. Absolutey nothing wrong with gay marriage, couples or dating. When it comes to raising children, I don't think it would take much research to find evidence to support that it takes both a man and woman to raise a child, properly, under the best of circumstances. You can side track about dead beat dads, stripper moms, and anything else in between, but it's irrelevant with regards to gay couples adopting. How would two gay dads explain the birds and the bees to a teen female growing up in highschool with zero experience in that realm? Or about her first period, or any of the other million other issues relating to growing up. How are two lesbians going to explain puberty to a hormone raging 14 year old boy? It is simply unnatural in a physical and psychological sense no matter the good intentions.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. This is from the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
LGBT families are unnatural and not intended by nature? Possibly. Children living in LGBT families more likely to be bullied by their peers? Absolutely, especially if they're living in conservative communities. Growing up in a LGBT family is detrimental to a child's growth and development physically or psychologically? Research would disagree with that.
That is totally fine. I am just hard wired a certain way. To an extent perhaps why I think hetero couples should make every attempt at staying together, even if only for the sake of raising their children.
I feel very fortunate I was raised in a very loving home with a mom and dad that are still together over 35 years later. This is becoming less and less common.
I feel very fortunate I was raised in a very loving home with a mom and dad that are still together over 35 years later. This is becoming less and less common.
+1 to that. relationships are hard enough. marriages seems almost impossible these days, partly because people don't respect it anymore. people get married to get married. no one thinks about why or what's gunna happen afterwards. they just get married because that's the thing to do. and celebrities like Kim Kardashian isn't doing the whole marriage gig any justice either. I refuse to be a part of something that doesn't mean anything anymore. When I find that someone I can spend the rest of my life with. I don't need a piece of paper and rings to prove I'll love her forever. I just will.
They did that in the old days too. They stayed together because they were expected to after their relationship fell apart, just they were miserably unhappy and raised dysfunctional families. That happened as much then (probably even more so) as now, just it was one of those things people didn't talk about. Women had to stick it out because they had very little or no economic opportunity outside of marriage, so they had to stay even though things got really ugly. The old ways were not "better" because people stayed together no matter what.
If you can't decide stuff like that then you are little better than a wild animal.
Personally, I am sentient and have no problem doing the right thing. This idea that gay parents can't raise a kid is absurd. A person is a person and a parent is a parent. The particular sex they are has no bearing what so ever on their capabilities as a parent.
A child doesn't need more than one parent to be raised properly. Just one. More is better, but one is all you need. Let me say it again, just one. If there is a second parent, as long as that parent has adequate skills and is not a disruptive influence on the family, it makes no difference if they are male or female, old or young (or are even related).
^ Well said!
Stating that two women/men are not capable of raising a family is the same as saying one woman/man is not capable of raising a family
Stating that two women/men are not capable of raising a family is the same as saying one woman/man is not capable of raising a family
Some of the posts here really make me laugh. People against gay couples adopting kids? Do you think they'll program their kids like a cult or something? How about biracial adoption, against that too?
I find quoting studies or research and books funny too. Books are mostly opinion and speculative in nature and you need to understand who's actually funding research and studies to determine if it's influencing the outcome, which it usually does. I have a lot of opinions on stuff but I understand the many questions I do have regarding things like the human body, psychology, "God", the "after life", and space or what's actually out there, will go unanswered in my lifetime at least and that's profoundly disappointing. When it comes right down to it, science and medical science know shit about shit. I'd especially love to know the absolute truth about "God", spirits, and other potential planetary lifeforms and I kind of think they're connected but that's for another thread. We'll never know though.
And on second thought, maybe biracial adoption is fucked up.....
I find quoting studies or research and books funny too. Books are mostly opinion and speculative in nature and you need to understand who's actually funding research and studies to determine if it's influencing the outcome, which it usually does. I have a lot of opinions on stuff but I understand the many questions I do have regarding things like the human body, psychology, "God", the "after life", and space or what's actually out there, will go unanswered in my lifetime at least and that's profoundly disappointing. When it comes right down to it, science and medical science know shit about shit. I'd especially love to know the absolute truth about "God", spirits, and other potential planetary lifeforms and I kind of think they're connected but that's for another thread. We'll never know though.
And on second thought, maybe biracial adoption is fucked up.....
