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.
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.
How does heterosexuality have a positive effect? If you're going to say conception of a child, save it. You do know there are other ways to make a baby without heterosexual activity, yes? It is not heterosexuality that actually forms and cultivates a human life.
At any rate, you not seeing a benefit does not justify restricting another person's freedom. It's just that simple. If you could identify some specific harm that comes with homosexuality in and of itself (and provide credible sources to support your claims), then you might just have a case. As of now, you have absolutely none at all.
As for the benefits of a male role model, there is nothing objective to suggest that this has any significant negative impact on boys raised by lesbian parents. Sure, in theory, your argument might have been valid. But we already have studies showing what has occurred in reality. It's a bit late to be making biased little theories, now that we already understand the effects of gay parenting.
Of course, I know those who oppose gay marriage so rarely like to step foot into the real world
1. I don't think the federal government should be in the marriage business any more than I think Congress should be in the Major League Baseball business. Let religions make their own decisions on who they will or will not marry according to their own laws. If the Catholic Church won't marry you, for example, go get married in a church that will. Let them issue the license.
2. I'm not gay or currently married. I have no dog in this hunt. The issue is not in my Top 25. I wouldn't vote for anyone based on this issue one way or another. See 1 above.
3. Logically, I can't see how X & Z's marriage impacts A & B's marriage. You know, I'm not seeing how the union of John and Harry impacts the union of Jane and Joe.
4. If marriage promotes stability, and you think that's a good thing (and I do), wouldn't you want more people to partake in it? I mean, they want something that is a good thing.
5. Studies show married people live longer.
6. Public schools should stay out of your social life. They shouldn't be promoting anyone's lifestyle. That's the job of their parents.
My parents were hard core, religious conservatives and always said that less government was best. They didn't want the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and wanted me to treat everybody the same regardless. Love thy neighbor, never judge, etc. Therefore, I support marriage equality.
I think of the world in terms of subjective well-being. And then look at the psychology of homosexuality.
The simple question you have to ask is, is humanity better off because homosexuality exists?
In my opinion, I see absolutely no benefit to society by the existence of homosexuality. And homosexuality itself is inherently inferior for a variety of reasons, regardless of its levels of acceptance.
Secondly, does homosexuality necessarily need to exist? Yes and No.
There is something called the Kinsey scale which was used to try to gauge sexual attraction. There has even been a recent scientific study that says that they can gauge sexual attraction by pupil dilation.
The interesting thing is, all women are basically attracted to other women biologically(but not necessarily consciously or emotionally), but men vary significantly. Either they are only attracted to men, only attracted to women, or attracted to both. And the percentage that are effectively "responsive" to both is a larger percentage than the current gay population.
So in my opinion, we both need to focus our efforts on getting rid of the root causes of homosexuality(genetics and hormonal imbalances during development), and also try to encourage anyone who effectively is "Bi" to stay heterosexual.
And part of the way to achieve that, is to encourage a more optimal family structure, while discouraging homosexuality.
I also believe that there should be no gay adoption.
While I understand, many gay couples might make good money, and have a relatively stable home. I would still say that it is far from an optimal environment for rearing children. It seems the argument about gay adoption is less about gay couples being good parents, but rather that they are "good enough" when comparing them to drug addicts and other irresponsible people.
If it was up to me, about a third of all the children would be taken out of their homes and their parents would be forcefully sterilized.
For those who are interested in evidence on gay and lesbian parents, (and not uneducated prejudiced personal opinions like that above) here is a review of most of the research:
And from health professionals who actually know what they are talking about because they use evidence instead of parroting prejudiced ignorant nonsense:
"Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:
Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior)."
"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."
"Overall, the belief that children of lesbian and gayparents suffer deficits in personal development has no empirical foundation. .....
The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003)."
The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).
Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation). Our analysis confirms an emerging consensus among prominent researchers of fathering and child development. The third edition of Lamb's (1997) authoritative anthology directly reversed the inaugural volume's premise when it concluded that "very little about the gender of the parent seems to be distinctly important" (p. 10). Likewise, in Fath-erneed, Pruett (2000), a prominent advocate of involved fathering, confided, "I also now realize that most of the enduring parental skills are probably, in the end, not dependent on gender" (p. 18).
For those who are interested in evidence on gay and lesbian parents, (and not uneducated prejudiced personal opinions like that above) here is a review of most of the research:
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 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.
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.
And while a boy might be able to find a male role-model even if he is being raised by lesbian mothers, I still don't see how it could possibly be the same thing. And it leaves a huge deficit in the boys mind in regards to how he should treat his girlfriend, because he never really sees it first-hand. And I'm sure this all applies in reverse to girls and female role-models, I'm just not a girl.
Seriously, lets put all the data to the side for a minute, and I assume you are a homosexual male. Do you really believe that the homosexual male cohabitation failure rate is lower than the heterosexual cohabitation failure rate?
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. How in the hell could anyone with any sense believe that the homosexual male cohabitation failure rate is lower than it is for heterosexuals?
When it comes to statistics, I understand that it is about the number of people who get married vs the number of people who get divorced. 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.
Your ''well known facts' (which you haven't supported with any kind of source) only seem to be found on anti-gay religious propaganda websites, not legitimate sources. Why do you think that is?
Many homosexuals do want to have children, their own children, and they can't. Adoption is simply not the same as having a child that is genetically yours.
Homosexuals can't have children of their own?? You really should have taken Biology in school instead of Bible Thumping 201.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
The Family Research Council? Seriously? That's where you pull your 'statistics'?
It's an anti-gay hate group which promotes misinformation and vilification of gay people by distorting and misrepresenting studies and statistics.
For those who are interested in evidence on gay and lesbian parents, (and not uneducated prejudiced personal opinions like that above) here is a review of most of the research:
And from health professionals who actually know what they are talking about because they use evidence instead of parroting prejudiced ignorant nonsense:
"Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:
Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior)."
"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."
"Overall, the belief that children of lesbian and gayparents suffer deficits in personal development has no empirical foundation. .....
The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003)."
The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).
Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation). Our analysis confirms an emerging consensus among prominent researchers of fathering and child development. The third edition of Lamb's (1997) authoritative anthology directly reversed the inaugural volume's premise when it concluded that "very little about the gender of the parent seems to be distinctly important" (p. 10). Likewise, in Fath-erneed, Pruett (2000), a prominent advocate of involved fathering, confided, "I also now realize that most of the enduring parental skills are probably, in the end, not dependent on gender" (p. 18).
I'm going to play the devils advocate here to offset the need many people have to attack Heterosexuals:
So what do we gather from the above:
That Gays and Lesbian parents "do not differ from children with heterosexual parents" as the AACAP says?
or
do we believe as the APA suggests, that gays are superior? "lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples."
Then
Theres the The Journal of Marriage and Family "The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood,divorce,gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim."
I wonder why they tried to capture single motherhood, divorce and gay marriage and parentling all at once? As pointed out in another thread the vast majority of our prisons are filled with inmates that had no fathers in they're lives. For what ever reason the supporters of Gay marriages in many of these threads like to attack the value of fathers in children's lives? As if it gives more validity to they're arguement
'Research to date, however, does not support this claim."
Sure ^
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
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.
