Homosexual Marriage and Adoption

[IndigoSensor]

Unless I am wrong (and someone correct me), a gene just doesn't 'become' dominant. It is dominant or it is a recessive.

Correct. Of course there are some varaitions, such as a hybrid having it's own seperate trait. But a gene is what it is, it doesn't just change like that. If a gene mutates, it becomes something else intirely.

 

[NaeturVindur]

While this is probably not accurate, I've read before that in some Arab cultures, sex with women is for procreation while sex with men is for 'fun'.

I can't answer most of that post (you SEEM correct, but you confused me, so I don't know), however, I Can respond to this ^ bit. It seems that would be ancient Arab cultures (pre-ismal, probably pre-christian). both those religions for bid any homosexuality (prob. because it was for fun, and both religions are very much about self-sacrifice). Today, in almost all arab countries (all that come to mind, I could be forgetting one, and even though it's in the middle east, I'm obviously excluding Isreal), a person can be executed on suspision of homosexuality (this holds for most of the middle east, the "-stans", and Africa minus South africa).

 

[Pristinegirl]

Yes alcyone you are correct, the same goes for me. In my case my mother has blue eyes and my father brown and I got yellow/green.
So variations are present indeed.

Once I overheard a proposition that homosexuality in humans is a defence mechanism against intolerance, because they could not recieve attraction from the opposite gender.

[NOTE:These are not my words, I consider it to be an evil saying actually and irrational]

 

[Satya]

I think we are being drawn towards a common conclusion though of mutual understanding as we straighten missunderstandings out, and realise things on the way! Don't you agree?

Pretty much all debates on homosexuality eventually deteriorate into differences of opinion on the significance that actual sex (male or female) plays in gender roles. People like to think that a gender role is inseparable of the actual sex of an individual because of the long held patriarchal Christian perspective of which most people are indoctrinated into long before they are aware of it. Any variation from that schematic is deemed detrimental or dangerous. That is why feminism is detested by many Christian groups just as much as homosexuality.

The studies have shown pretty consistently that a same sex couple can raise a child to be just as well adjusted as a heterosexual couple can. However, because of that long held conception of the importance of gender roles, not of the actual capabilities of the adoptive parents, many people rely on that traditional belief that a male and female are needed to raise a well adjusted child.

So the common conclusion we are probably going to reach is that you have a patriarchal value ingrained within you which argues the traditional belief that a male and female are needed to raise a child, whereas I have an egalitarian value ingrained within me which argues that the actual capabilities of the parents are of far greater importance than the classification of their gender or sex.

 

[Pristinegirl]

So the common conclusion we are probably going to reach is that you have a patriarchal value ingrained within you which argues the traditional belief that a male and female are needed to raise a child, whereas I have an egalitarian value ingrained within me which argues that the actual capabilities of the parents are of far greater importance than the classification of their gender or sex.

Oh don't be such a pessimist, I believe we can negotiate on a mutual conclusion. Mine is not necessarily the traditional of christianity, It remains natural and I still believe that both sexes are needed, yes or at least a real 'male figure'. However homosexuals can raise problem free children and so I have understood. The sample population is questionable and these families may have males visiting and connecting with the child, which provides the child the male which I believe is needed. You cannot dissknowledge this possibility and I will say that I am an ambivert even here because: the parent qualities matter but SO does having one of each sex. And this is a female survivor speaking, as my father is in another country!! So maybe I am ignorant, and maybe the whole world is ignorant, Satya. I tried to reach an agreement and even conform slightly as I found a firm ground in what you were saying. But still you have to oppose me and critisize everything I say.

Maybe it is your perception and prejudice against my views that is the problem here? or your perception on that everyone who believes as such follows the christian path?
Think about it...

 

[Satya]

Oh don't be such a pessimist, I believe we can negotiate on a mutual conclusion. Mine is not necessarily the traditional of christianity, It remains natural and I still believe that both sexes are needed, yes or at least a real 'male figure'.

There are two fundamental definitions of natural...

The first definition of natural, which is the Christian definition, is "living in accordance with the grand design". That is the definition you seem to be consistently expressing. So even if you don't identify as a Christian, you are using their thinking. You believe a male and female are necessary because nature is "designed" that way. A male and a female are needed to reproduce, so the "design" dictates that a male and female are needed to raise the child.

The second definition of natural is "that which actually occurs in nature". A male and female is what is needed to reproduce, but those two are not necessary to raise offspring as is evident by what actually occurs. For example, the studies of same sex couples which show that they can raise a well adjusted child just as well a heterosexual couple can.

That simply means we have two different definitions by which we are approaching this issue, which come from two different values.

However homosexuals can raise problem free children and so I have understood. The sample population is questionable and these families may have males visiting and connecting with the child, which provides the child the male which I believe is needed.

So if this is the case, then why is a male figure needed as a parent?

You cannot dissknowledge this possibility and I will say that I am an ambivert even here because: the parent qualities matter but SO does having one of each sex. And this is a female survivor speaking, as my father is in another country!!

I understand you have your personal circumstances for believing the way you do.

So maybe I am ignorant, and maybe the whole world is ignorant, Satya. I tried to reach an agreement and even conform slightly as I found a firm ground in what you were saying. But still you have to oppose me and critisize everything I say.

You are not ignorant. You have a different value than me. I tried to sum up the value in one word, "patriarchy" for you and "egalitarian" for me. Having different values does not make anyone ignorant. It just means we have different ways of approaching the world and issues like these.

Maybe it is your perception and prejudice against my views that is the problem here? or your perception on that everyone who believes as such follows the christian path?

No I don't think you are Christian. You don't have to be Christian to have a patriarchal conception of gender roles.

 

[Pristinegirl]

There are two fundamental definitions of natural...

The second definition of natural is "that which actually occurs in nature". A male and female is what is needed to reproduce, but those two are not necessary to raise offspring as is evident by what actually occurs. For example, the studies of same sex couples which show that they can raise a well adjusted child just as well a heterosexual couple can.

The second definition applies. Yes and therefore as they are the ones who are capable of reproducing, one would think that a male and female should raise their child for a reason in that case. Since they can reproduce and homosexuals cannot.

So if this is the case, then why is a male figure needed as a parent?

As I suggested earlier they may have had a male figure to bond within their child - AS WELL. However the study does not outline anything as such when studying this, which is a weakness.

I understand you have your personal circumstances for believing the way you do.

Both yes and no. Yes, because I was fatherless during my teens and no because I find it is logical to see that male + female = infant. So naturally they should raise what they created. Even you exist because of it.

You are not ignorant. You have a different value than me. I tried to sum up the value in one word, "patriarchy" for you and "egalitarian" for me. Having different values does not make anyone ignorant. It just means we have different ways of approaching the world and issues like these.

Okay. Very nicely expressed Satya. I appreciate it, and your patience as well. I thought that you were labelling us in accordance to degree of righteousness. For this I appologize, I admit that I am bad at taking critique. I associate 'you not agreeing' with 'me being wrong', which is irrational of me. I appologize for this. I don't mean to. Hence, I am learning ^^

 

[Satya]

The second definition applies. Yes and therefore as they are the ones who are capable of reproducing, one would think that a male and female should raise their child for a reason in that case. Since they can reproduce and homosexuals cannot.

No, the second definition is what "actually" occurs. What "actually" occurs is that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples. You are still arguing the first definition. That heterosexual couples "should" raise children because they are capable of reproducing.

You are arguing "should", I am arguing "actually". You believe things "should" follow the design. I am arguing how things "actually" happen.

As I suggested earlier they may have had a male figure to bond within their child - AS WELL. However the study does not outline anything as such when studying this, which is a weakness.

The study did point out that children did associate with people of both genders. It welcomed your argument, especially since it is another argument that a male figure is not necessarily needed as a parent.

Both yes and no. Yes, because I was fatherless during my teens and no because I find it is logical to see that male + female = infant. So naturally they should raise what they created. Even you exist because of it.

It sounds like you are making an argument against adoption in general in this case.

Okay. Very nicely expressed Satya. I appreciate it, and your patience as well. I thought that you were labelling us in accordance to degree of righteousness. For this I appologize, I admit that I am bad at taking critique. I associate 'you not agreeing' with 'me being wrong', which is irrational of me. I appologize for this. I don't mean to. Hence, I am learning ^^

It's ok.

 

[NaeturVindur]

The second definition applies. Yes and therefore as they are the ones who are capable of reproducing, one would think that a male and female should raise their child for a reason in that case. Since they can reproduce and homosexuals cannot.

You've made an assumption here. It is not the case in nature that those who create the offspring are the ones who raise it. It is actually very common that the male will come along, impregnate the female, and leave (rather common in mammals, not as common in great apes, but it still happens enough to be valid). What's actually VERY common among apes is that the entire clan will raise the child, and with the males common off to find food, that means the offspring are often raised by a group of females.

 

[Pristinegirl]

No, the second definition is what "actually" occurs. What "actually" occurs is that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples. You are still arguing the first definition. That heterosexual couples "should" raise children because they are capable of reproducing.

You are arguing "should", I am arguing "actually". You believe things "should" follow the design. I am arguing how things "actually" happen.

I use the word should because I am openminded and giving my best effort to be humble as opposed to you. Because you are so sure that your study prooves worldly evidence for your point. So I shall not interfer with it no more as you have chosen the blue pill Satya. I say 'should' because my argument may not be absolute (NEITHER IS YOURS) but so far the argument I have acknowledged indicates a part. And yes yours is a part but there is an interfering variable.Hence the *.

I know this already:
Homosexuals actually can raise children as well as heteros.*

Although you don't seem to understand:
That gender and figures have an impact on the childs outcome

The study did point out that children did associate with people of both genders. It welcomed your argument, especially since it is another argument that a male figure is not necessarily needed as a parent.

*
Therefore it is to see that there was an interfering variable. You just opposed yourself. FINALLY!!! The children associated with people of both genders, so their outcome may have been affected of that in having a male figure but not beeing recorded in the study. HA!

It sounds like you are making an argument against adoption in general in this case.

Absolutely not , stop assuming that I am and making me look bad in front of all of your friends just because you have a higher position than me.

 

[alcyone]

Absolutely not , stop assuming that I am and making me look bad in front of all of your friends just because you have a higher position than me.

I'm not sure how you meant that, but that comment was unnecessary.

 

[alcyone]

I can't answer most of that post (you SEEM correct, but you confused me, so I don't know), however, I Can respond to this ^ bit. It seems that would be ancient Arab cultures (pre-ismal, probably pre-christian). both those religions for bid any homosexuality (prob. because it was for fun, and both religions are very much about self-sacrifice). Today, in almost all arab countries (all that come to mind, I could be forgetting one, and even though it's in the middle east, I'm obviously excluding Isreal), a person can be executed on suspision of homosexuality (this holds for most of the middle east, the "-stans", and Africa minus South africa).

It is good to finally know where and when that information comes from.

Although I think that to some degree there is an under culture where things are happening but aren't talked about.

My mom is an RN at the last Urban located hospital in Milwaukee. She spent a lot of my childhood complaining about the imported doctors doing their residencies and bringing their 'boyfriends'. All of these doctors were married as well. I drew conclusions based on the article i read and the stories mom used to tell.

 

[Satya]

I use the word should because I am openminded and giving my best effort to be humble as opposed to you. Because you are so sure that your study prooves worldly evidence for your point. So I shall not interfer with it no more as you have chosen the blue pill Satya.

Blue pill? Is that really called for just because I disagree with you?

I say 'should' because my argument may not be absolute (NEITHER IS YOURS) but so far the argument I have acknowledged indicates a part. And yes yours is a part but there is an interfering variable.Hence the *.

I've said more than once already that we are simply approaching this from different values and definitions. I don't think I've made the argument that my argument is absolute. I'm basing my arguments on the studies in this country at this time. I'm pretty sure homosexual couples in Iran would probably not provide a great environment for raising children, as it would be illegal and the parents would be hung.

I know this already:
Homosexuals actually can raise children as well as heteros.*

Excellent.

Although you don't seem to understand:
That gender and figures have an impact on the childs outcome

I'm sure they do.

*
Therefore it is to see that there was an interfering variable. You just opposed yourself. FINALLY!!! The children associated with people of both genders, so their outcome may have been affected of that in having a male figure but not beeing recorded in the study. HA!

I'm only arguing that having a male figure as a parent isn't necessarily necessary. Go back and read what I said. I can't remember arguing that children don't need any male figures.

Absolutely not , stop assuming that I am and making me look bad in front of all of your friends just because you have a higher position than me.

Higher position?

 

[alcyone]

Therefore it is to see that there was an interfering variable. You just opposed yourself. FINALLY!!! The children associated with people of both genders, so their outcome may have been affected of that in having a male figure but not beeing recorded in the study. HA!

That same interfering variable may also be why some people come out of dyfunctional childhoods to NOT continue whatever distructive cycle of behavior their parents engaged in.

There aren't any figures available for the development of children raised in a total single sex environment. Such a community doesn't exist to my knowledge nor is it ethical to construct some sort of social experiment using those perimeters. So it is something we'll never know.

Should is a perception. Satya could be saying that according to the data available children raised in single sex relationships households should develop no differently than children raised iwith the average hetero relationship.

 

[Pristinegirl]

That same interfering variable may also be why some people come out of dyfunctional childhoods to NOT continue whatever distructive cycle of behavior their parents engaged in.

There aren't any figures available for the development of children raised in a total single sex environment. Such a community doesn't exist to my knowledge nor is it ethical to construct some sort of social experiment using those perimeters. So it is something we'll never know.

Should is a perception. Satya could be saying that according to the data available children raised in single sex relationships households should develop no differently than children raised iwith the average hetero relationship.

Satya proposes ''actually'' whereas I say ''should'' is what was said.
Also the children I was refering to were those of homosexual homes who get to associate with both genders by the way and my point was that both genders are needed for the welbeing of a child. Therefore as the kids associated with both genders they may as well have had a figure, so this is the interfering variable, which makes the data very questionable.

I'm arguing that a child needs both a female and a male
- Homosexuals may raise children perfectly well hence the two mentioned above are needed.

What do I base this on?

1. Male and females are actually able to attain children.
2. A father figure is needed for females to attain a sense of self and self esteem. Lack of father indicate higher likelihood to arise psychological problems.
3. Black Swan shared her husbands story, that it can be hard for him to be a father and a husband as he was raised by lesbians. (He does his best though)
4. This shows that in the case of lesbians raising a child, a father, by means a male, is not there, so problems may develope due to it.

 

[NaeturVindur]

Black swan actually said that, even though her husband has worries because he doesn't have a role model, he's doing a wonderful job.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Black swan actually said that, even though her husband has worries because he doesn't have a role model, he's doing a wonderful job.

Yes, which I think is great. ALOT of credits to him for this. It is creditable, from the bottom of my heart he tries and does his best so gzillion + points for that. *applause* ^^

 

[Satya]

Male and females are actually able to attain children.

And as I have said, just because you need a male and female to reproduce doesn't mean you need a male and female to raise children. I think Vinder's post about how primates typically live in tribes, with the males going off to get food and the females staying behind to look after the young, emphasizes that point.

A father figure is needed for females to attain a sense of self and self esteem. Lack of father indicate higher likelihood to arise psychological problems.

Are you basing this solely on your personal circumstances or is there an actual study that says as much?

Black Swan shared her husbands story, that it can be hard for him to be a father and a husband as he was raised by lesbians. (He does his best though)

It isn't exactly fair to generalize from a single case.

This shows that in the case of lesbians raising a child, a father, by means a male, is not there, so problems may develope due to it.

Problems of which none of the studies have indicated exist. And if a male figure is needed, then it doesn't necessarily have to be a parent.

 

[TK*]

She's right on daughters needing fathers. That's a fact. I've read ton of books on the matter. Just google "father daughter" and you'd see that. But here are some articles and books I found:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990927064822.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_35/ai_84017198
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/flp/conference/files/ftp07_graham_fathers.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1129031

etc. etc. etc.

 

[Satya]

She's right on daughters needing fathers. That's a fact. I've read ton of books on the matter. Just google "father daughter" and you'd see that. But here are some articles and books I found:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990927064822.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_35/ai_84017198
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/flp/conference/files/ftp07_graham_fathers.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1129031

etc. etc. etc.

The first two articles are interesting. The last two are more of the same that we have been debating for the last few pages. Information about single mother homes is pretty irrelevant to homosexual couples.