Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take a poll of adoptive parents who wish they could have just had their own child. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people who adopt children are doing it because that is their only option. Making due with what you have available is more an act of desperation and settling, and is not the same as being optimal.
I think you're confusing "optimal" with "ideal". Yes, ideally, everyone would be able to have kids naturally. But just because something doesn't fit the image you/society originally had for "the way it should go" doesn't mean it can't turn out to be for the absolute best. Like I said, this is all subjective. What you think is inferior someone else might think is perfect. You cannot sit there and tell people how they're living their life isn't "optimal" when what they feel is contrary, unless you can give some practical reason (supported by the evidence, mind you), which you haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I will agree that my evidence is largely anecdotal. But, it is most certainly the truth that young men learn a lot about how to interact with women, especially in relationships, from seeing how his father interacts with his mother. And men tend to treat their girlfriends how they treat their mother.
You're talking to someone who never knew his father, nor had any "father figures" around the house for the vast majority of his upbringing. You're gonna have a hard time selling me on the notion that it takes a father to teach his son... well, anything of import in the dating/relationship realm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The truth is, boys need a male role-model. Every study I have ever seen says this exact same thing. They continually preach the need for male role models all the time. There are organizations like Big brother Big sister for this very purpose. To pretend that a boy doesn't need a father is absolutely ludicrous.
Lol, I happen to know that boys do not need a male role model to develop normally, be successful, or to be happy in adulthood. That's in addition to all the research I've presented to you (which barely makes up a fraction of all the research out there) which shows this to be false. Whatever study you've read that you think confirms boys raised by lesbian parents are not every bit as happy, healthy, successful, or fill in the blank as boys raised by heterosexual couples; feel free to share it with us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Seriously, lets put all the data to the side for a minute, and I assume you are a homosexual male.
No, and no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Do you really believe that the homosexual male cohabitation failure rate is lower than the heterosexual cohabitation failure rate?
We were talking about marriage earlier; I don't know why you're changing the terminology. But what you're not getting is that what a person merely believes should not be the basis of our legal system and what is/isn't allowed for homosexuals. I could believe that it's immoral to put a 'z' in your user name. Would that give me the right to keep you from getting married or adopting children? And you'd be quite upset if these rights were denied all because of that, wouldn't you? You'd immediately demand justification for it (beyond "Well, I believe it's wrong"), would you not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it is a well-known fact that homosexual men are far more likely to have many many many more partners than heterosexual men on average. That homosexual men are more likely to have non-monogamous relationships. And that they are much more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.
I asked you to support all this with a reference, not just repeat yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
But what I'm saying is that, the states with the lowest divorce rates are coincidentally the states with the lowest marriage rates. And if you ever look at the statistics, you will also see that the people who do marry, tend to marry later in life. And in bible-belt states which have high divorce rates, you see that people who marry tend to be younger. And this pattern existed long before gay-marriage existed in any state. So to pretend that gay-marriage has absolutely anything to do with divorce rates is completely unfounded.
I'm not suggesting a direct causation between the banning of gay marriage and the rising of the divorce rate. Could just be that that sort of baseless intolerance and the failure to make a marriage last are both caused by some third factor. What I'm telling you is that allowing gays to marry seems to be associated with a higher statewide success rate of marriages of all kinds. Whatever the actual cause of their relative lacking of marital happiness, each state would do well to let go of unjustifiable intolerance, rigidity, and flat-out prejudice against homosexuals.
From the link, spelled out for you once more...
Quote:
Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates.
Think of it like drinking orange juice to prevent cancer. It isn't the absence of orange juice that causes cancer, but the presence of it does certainly seem to help
I think you're confusing "optimal" with "ideal". Yes, ideally, everyone would be able to have kids naturally. But just because something doesn't fit the image you/society originally had for "the way it should go" doesn't mean it can't turn out to be for the absolute best. Like I said, this is all subjective. What you think is inferior someone else might think is perfect. You cannot sit there and tell people how they're living their life isn't "optimal" when what they feel is contrary, unless you can give some practical reason (supported by the evidence, mind you), which you haven't.
Look, it has to do with subjective well-being, basically happiness. Psychologists have ways to determine the well-being of children raised in a variety of environments. And psychologists know what lifestyles tend to produce the most happy people. The same can be said for many other aspects of life.
I always think of it this way. Lets pretend you could code a computer program that could exactly emulate the world. And in the program, you could basically test the outcome of a change to the world(such as a law or policy) to see what would happen. Then you could compare the well-being of the world in our current world vs the alternate world in the program to see in which world people are better off.
While that computer program does not exist. You can attempt to do those calculations in your head, and try to predict what the world would look like with such a change.
In my opinion, I see no actual benefit to homosexuals existing at all. A world without homosexuals would simply be better than a world with homosexuals on every level of human well-being. So it is hard for me to imagine that any policy that seeks to eliminate this abnormality, would be unjustified.
Quote:
You're talking to someone who never knew his father, nor had any "father figures" around the house for the vast majority of his upbringing. You're gonna have a hard time selling me on the notion that it takes a father to teach his son... well, anything of import in the dating/relationship realm.
You are going to have a hard time convincing me that children don't need male role models. Every study I have ever seen talks about the issue of the lack of positive male role models, and about how a great many fathers don't spend enough time with their kids.
As for relationships. Relationships are certainly something that is learned. How people in relationships interact with each other is something that is best learned by seeing it. From conflict resolution, to just the daily household responsibilities. If you believe that not having having a father around makes things just as easy for a boy in terms of learning who he is, and what being a man is, I think you are delusional.
In fact, I know girls also need a male role model as well. Isn't the old saying, girls who are whores and sluts have daddy issues and need to feel loved by a man?
I think it is. You are obviously so biased towards homosexuality, that you refuse you look at reality and logic.
Quote:
We were talking about marriage earlier; I don't know why you're changing the terminology. But what you're not getting is that what a person merely believes should not be the basis of our legal system and what is/isn't allowed for homosexuals. I could believe that it's immoral to put a 'z' in your user name. Would that give me the right to keep you from getting married or adopting children? And you'd be quite upset if these rights were denied all because of that, wouldn't you? You'd immediately demand justification for it (beyond "Well, I believe it's wrong"), would you not?
You are really missing my point. I wanted you to just use some logic for a minute, rather than searching for something, anything, that might justify your obviously biased opinion.
If you simply used logic, you wouldn't even need the studies and statistics. It only takes a very basic understanding of human psychology to understand that there is no real benefit to homosexuality. That it is by its very nature inferior. And that its necessary lack of proper role models and proper relationship dynamics, can and many times do make it much more difficult for children to enter society, who are raised in such an environment.
Quote:
I asked you to support all this with a reference, not just repeat yourself.
In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.
This talks about alcohol and drug abuse. Which says "Substantially higher proportions of the homosexual sample used alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine than was the case in the general population."
Sounds like fun?
Quote:
I'm not suggesting a direct causation between the banning of gay marriage and the rising of the divorce rate. Could just be that that sort of baseless intolerance and the failure to make a marriage last are both caused by some third factor. What I'm telling you is that allowing gays to marry seems to be associated with a higher statewide success rate of marriages of all kinds. Whatever the actual cause of their relative lacking of marital happiness, each state would do well to let go of unjustifiable intolerance, rigidity, and flat-out prejudice against homosexuals.
When we look at the 10 states with lowest divorce rates for men. It goes like this... New Jersey 6.1, New York 6.6, Connecticut 6.7, Minnesota 7.4, Idaho 7.7, Pennsylvania 7.7, Massachusetts 7.8, California 8.0, Illinois 8.0, North Dakota 8.0, South Carolina 8.1
And for lowest divorce rates by women. It goes like this... New Jersey 6.0, Massachusetts 7.0, New York 7.3, Pennsylvania 7.4, Wisconsin 7.5, South Carolina 7.8, Hawaii 7.8, Minnesota 7.8, Illinois 8.0, Maryland 8.2, North Dakota 8.3
Do you find it odd that North Dakota and South Carolina are so high on the list?
Moreover, there are six states where same-sex marriage is legal. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire. If we pull just those numbers for women its, New York 7.3, Iowa 10.8, Connecticut 10.7, Massachusetts 7.0, Vermont 11.5, New Hampshire 9.6.
For a comparison the national average is 9.7.. Which means that of the six states where same-sex marriage is legal, half of them have divorce rates above the national average. For further reference, Utah(probably the most intolerant state) has a divorce rate of 10.8, and Louisiana a 10.0.
I just have a hard time believing that tolerance of homosexuality is somehow connected to lower divorce rates. Maybe I'm missing something?
Look, it has to do with subjective well-being, basically happiness. Psychologists have ways to determine the well-being of children raised in a variety of environments. And psychologists know what lifestyles tend to produce the most happy people. The same can be said for many other aspects of life.
In my opinion, I see no actual benefit to homosexuals existing at all.
Well, your opinion is clearly incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You are going to have a hard time convincing me that children don't need male role models. Every study I have ever seen talks about the issue of the lack of positive male role models, and about how a great many fathers don't spend enough time with their kids.
I've asked you to direct us to one of these studies and you haven't done so... I can only concede that having negative role models will be harmful to children. But according to both the research and my personal experiences, having an older male around the house while growing up does no seem necessary, no. Not for any specific benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
In fact, I know girls also need a male role model as well. Isn't the old saying, girls who are whores and sluts have daddy issues and need to feel loved by a man?
Not so sure that's supported by evidence, either. Again, it may just be that girls who are neglected/abused by the fathers who are already present in their childhood suffer in this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You are obviously so biased towards homosexuality, that you refuse you look at reality and logic.
How is your mountain of unsupported claims "reality"? How is the fact that these claims directly contradict the evidence "logical"?
What I'm finding here is that teens who identify as gay are more likely to become sexually active at a younger age (12 instead of 15 for boys, 15 instead of 16 for girls). While this is certainly a problem, the following paragraph beginning with "Of heterosexually active adults in the general population..." seems to make the argument that it isn't homosexuality in and of itself that's causing this difference in sexual behavior between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Because more recent studies are finding the difference between to be less common. Even goes on to say...
Quote:
Blumstein and Schwartz reported that women in lesbian couples had fewer outside partners than women in heterosexual couples.
The same paper goes on to address the higher prevalence of alcohol and drug use among homosexuals, calling the few studies inconclusive. We cannot determine whether it's something about the sexuality itself or all the stress put on them by the large degree of judgement and discrimination they face everyday. I know that if I were constantly being told that I was wrong for just liking a particular person, I'd probably start drinking and behaving irresponsibly in general more often myself *shrugs*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I just have a hard time believing that tolerance of homosexuality is somehow connected to lower divorce rates. Maybe I'm missing something?
Instead of comparing individual states, you should take averages. And you should address the point this link is actually making. Not just that there seems to be a discrepancy between them, but that a difference was observed following statewide constitutional bans on gay marriage. Here's another excerpt:
Quote:
On the other hand, the seven states at the bottom of the chart all had constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage in place throughout 2008. The state which experienced the highest increase in its divorce rate over the period (Alaska, at 17.2 percent) also happens to be the first one to have altered its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, in 1998.
And you can't use your "Bible Belt" theory on this one, either.
It's not even that views on gay marriage affect the divorce rate, per se. Coupled with the other link I provided, it could just mean that when you deny marriage for the group of people most capable of making marriage last, you hurt your state's average divorce rate. Not too hard to see that.
I flip flop back and forth on many of the GLBT issues, but marriage is not one of them. If they're adults and it doesn't affect children then I'm fine with it.
There's way too many issues that are just too wacked out for me to jump behind many homosexual or close to homosexual issues. The Whole Chaz Bono thing is a perfect example: Gets molested as a child by a woman, She comes out as a Lesbian, Gets a Lesbian Girlfriend, Decides she's a man in a womans body, then gets turned into a man, which makes her girlfriend now straight. And this is supposed to be looked at as normal by most in socity. Ehh, lets be real, many of us have are limits.
Another thing I find most interesting is when Homosexuals attack Heterosexuals in this post implying that homosexual couples are superior in many ways, and they site a few examples. Considering most Heterosexuals are ok with Homosexual marriage the attack on Heterosexual couples is only going to backfire with the whole homosexual superiority thing.
Another thing I find most interesting is when Homosexuals attack Heterosexuals in this post implying that homosexual couples are superior in many ways, and they site a few examples. Considering most Heterosexuals are ok with Homosexual marriage the attack on Heterosexual couples is only going to backfire with the whole homosexual superiority thing.
I'm a heterosexual, and I can acknowledge there's evidence to suggest homosexuals do certain things better as both spouses and parents. I don't see anything wrong with that. I actually have never seen anyone on this board (other than me) even bring this up, come to think of it. Unless you're referring to anecdotal evidence?
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?
2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?
3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?
1. By my parents: Homosexuality was the worst sin possible for man to commit growing up. It was preached on quite regularly at my church and I had been told it would be the catalyst for the destruction of America
2. Election of 1992: My parents at the time told me they could vote for Bush who was a man of God or vote for Clinton who killed babies and thought men should marry men.
3. My views on same-sex marriage have moderated in the past three years. I have went back and forth between supporting and not supporting it. I do realize we aren't a theocracy and we have separation of church and state, so if you aren't Christian there is nothing wrong with homosexuality to you. However, its going to be extremely difficult and counter-productive to push gay marriage on a populace that isn't ready for it as the liberals are trying to do. If nothing else, it distracts the American people from thinking about issues that are really important to the country such as the economy, jobs, national security, healthcare, etc. A great compromise would be at this time to institute civil unions that offer 100% of the benefits of heterosexual marriage.
I'm a heterosexual, and I can acknowledge there's evidence to suggest homosexuals do certain things better as both spouses and parents. I don't see anything wrong with that. I actually have never seen anyone on this board (other than me) even bring this up, come to think of it. Unless you're referring to anecdotal evidence?
I would have to disagree as I believe a responsible, involved Mother and Father in a childs life is ideal. Would any of us that had good moms and dads trade them in for 2 moms or 2 dads, no way! The only people who would disagree with this would have poor parents. Are two Lesbians going to be able to relate to they're male son as well as a good father. No way! I'm not talking about poor parent on either side. I don't mean that many Gay couples aren't great because the only gay men I know personally are fantastic.
I would have to disagree as I believe a responsible involved Mother and Father involved in a childs life is ideal. Would any of us that had good moms or dads trade them in for 2 moms or 2 dads, no way! I don't mean that many Gay couples aren't great because the only gay men I know personally are fantastic.
This is how I feel, but I feel that a man and a woman who are white especially can and do provide the best household and outcome for children over any other combination of MF, FF, or MM.
Blacks and hispanics should only raise kids in rare circumstances, as it's not an ideal environment. My parents are white and I would NEVER have traded them in for a black or Hispanic parent! No way!!
I don't mean that blacks and hispanics aren't great, because the ones that I am friends with are fabulous. I just wouldn't want them around my kids, ya know what I mean?
We've had a discussion of how the public came to accept the idea of homosexuals arrying so rapidly, but I am posing this question on a more personal scale:
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?
2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?
3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?
1. Reading and listening to stories of the things my LGBT friends went through because they weren't allowed to marry.
2. Reading, discussion and debating in on-line forums around 1998-99.
3. No change - I still believe that any couple of legal age should be allowed to marry.
I would love for you to explain to me why homosexuality has a positive effect on society. How are two men having sex with each other helpful to anyone at all, ever.
I am not saying individuals can't contribute, I'm saying homosexuality itself doesn't contribute anything that would positively affect the well-being of humankind. And if it were to disappear from the Earth, we would simply be better off.
Quote:
I've asked you to direct us to one of these studies and you haven't done so... I can only concede that having negative role models will be harmful to children. But according to both the research and my personal experiences, having an older male around the house while growing up does no seem necessary, no. Not for any specific benefit.
Good lord man, are you to lazy to just look it up?
I mean, just type in lack of male role model statistics in google for christs sake. I assumed that maybe you understood human psychology, and would realize automatically that obviously having a male role model is important, and that the most important male role models are fathers. I mean, it doesn't take a damn genius. Seriously.
Quote:
Not so sure that's supported by evidence, either. Again, it may just be that girls who are neglected/abused by the fathers who are already present in their childhood suffer in this way.
So being abused has a negative effect on child development? No ****?
I don't even want to sit around and argue every single point you are making. It seems to be a whole line of excuses, and does nothing to explain why homosexuality itself has any value.
Quote:
Instead of comparing individual states, you should take averages. And you should address the point this link is actually making. Not just that there seems to be a discrepancy between them, but that a difference was observed following statewide constitutional bans on gay marriage.
Okay, lets look at average. This table shows three time periods, 1990, 2000, and 2009. Lets look at trends.
Lets pull out 10 states, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, and New York(same-sex marriage states). And then Utah, South Carolina, Texas, and Arizona(conservative states). Do you feel that that is a fair comparison?
Ok, lets break it down... The numbers go 1990-2000-2009, then the percentage drop over the period.
The national average in 2009 is 3.4. So we know that Vermont and New Hampshire both have above-average divorce rates. New Hampshire has higher divorce rates than all four of these very intolerant conservative states. Vermont only slightly edges Utah.
Every single one of the conservative states had significant divorce rate drops over two decades, while all the same-sex marriage states barely declined(minus Iowa, which didn't pass same-sex marriage through popular vote, but rather it was the result of a state Supreme Court case).
From those statistics, I am completely puzzled how a person might believe that same-sex marriage or tolerance somehow has any effect at all on divorce rates. The least tolerant states in the entire country tended to have the largest drops in divorce rates. And many of the least tolerant states already have lower divorce rates than tolerant states.
The only argument a person could make in my view is, 66% of tolerant states have below-average divorce rates, while 66% of the least tolerant states have above-average divorce rates. But what does that really mean? It really means absolutely nothing.
You could probably make an argument that the states with below-average divorce rates have above-average numbers of white people. Or that states that have cold weather have lower divorce rates. Or that states where housing is more expensive, have lower divorce rates. Or that wealthiest states have lower divorce rates. Etc Etc. And you might seem just as right as saying that tolerant states have lower divorce rates. You might find a weak correlation, but its unlikely that you could simply point randomly at a state on a map and know for sure that they have a higher or lower than average divorce rates.
I mean, if I was a betting man, I would have bet that South Carolina and Texas had a higher than average divorce rate, and I would have lost my money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Ehh, lets be real, many of us have are limits. 
