Am I The Only One Who's Scared ?

[Yanksfan396]

https://www.sportscardforum.com/showt...ght=gay+rights

[mintman2]

In 2006, 3.2 million cases of child abuse were opened by law enforcement or social workers. 79.4% were caused by parents. Maybe the argument for hetero couples isn't quite so strong?

What an incredible example of how something can be twisted to support a position using faulty logic ! That statistic means absolutely nothing without context.

How many children live with their parents ? I'm guessing likely far more than 79.4%. It's the same reason when someone is killed they first look at the family for suspects. OF COURSE parents are the main cause of child abuse. They're the ones closest to and spend the overwhelming majority of time with the kids.

And then there's also the consideration of what exactly gets termed "child abuse" ? If a parent burns their child with a cigarette it would be called child abuse but if anyone else were to do the same thing it would be called an assault.

[themanishere]

The bigger picture is that a large number of people should not be allowed to be parents, period. Too many people have no idea how to raise a child, let alone embody the mentality of putting their child(ren) before their own lives.

As for the gay issue: if it were detrimental or counter to society, it would have been naturally weeded out over time. It is not like homosexuality is a new issue - it is just more tolerable to be open about it now. Yes, there are more gays now, but it is likely the proportion was the same as in past populations. Homosexuality has been part of human society for a long, long time. One would think if homosexuality has substantial negative effects on human society or direct [reproductive] fitness, it would be gradually forced out of the gene pool. Obviously, it still persists, which means the 'benefits' of homosexuality outweight the 'costs' to fitness.

I find it quite ironic that a group of people are anti abortion and yet are anti gays adopting. Let me ask, which is worse to that group? being aborted or being adopted by a gay couple?

Anyone in that group care to respond?

I do not buy the 'there are plenty of heterosexual couples that are more qualified for adoption' idea. Please...

[haybierman]

Ok, how about THESE example which are a little more to the point --

American Psychological Association. Lesbian and Gay Parenting: A Resource for Psychologists, District of Columbia, 1995

All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation. Other key findings include:

1. There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents.

2. Home environments with lesbian and gay parents are as likely to successfully support a child's development as those with heterosexual parents.

3. Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight.

4. There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.

5. The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.

Please read it for yourself if you like.

[Aikman_TheGreat]

The bigger picture is that a large number of people should not be allowed to be parents, period. Too many people have no idea how to raise a child, let alone embody the mentality of putting their child(ren) before their own lives.

As for the gay issue: if it were detrimental or counter to society, it would have been naturally weeded out over time. It is not like homosexuality is a new issue - it is just more tolerable to be open about it now. Yes, there are more gays now, but it is likely the proportion was the same as in past populations. Homosexuality has been part of human society for a long, long time. One would think if homosexuality has substantial negative effects on human society or direct [reproductive] fitness, it would be gradually forced out of the gene pool. Obviously, it still persists, which means the 'benefits' of homosexuality outweight the 'costs' to fitness.



Anyone in that group care to respond?

I do not buy the 'there are plenty of heterosexual couples that are more qualified for adoption' idea. Please...

Sin has been a part of society since the beginning of time. Does that make it right?

And I will go ahead and say that I would much rather a homosexual couple raise a baby than someone abort it. Do I think its right? No. I dont. But I'd rather give the baby a chance than kill it.

[themanishere]

Sin has been a part of society since the beginning of time. Does that make it right?

And I will go ahead and say that I would much rather a homosexual couple raise a baby than someone abort it. Do I think its right? No. I dont. But I'd rather give the baby a chance than kill it.

Does that make it wrong? Who's to say? Certain religions? What of those that are not part of that religion, or not religious at all? What does 'sin' mean to different groups? Does 'sin' even have a relative meaning for some groups? Are there not separate systems of morality where 'sin' and/or 'wrongness' are determined differently? Come on...

My point was not about the 'rightness'/'wrongness' of homosexuality. I am arguing, biologically, that homosexuality persists because it's benefits to fitness outweight the costs. Its a pretty basic idea.

[mintman2]

The bigger picture is that a large number of people should not be allowed to be parents, period. Too many people have no idea how to raise a child, let alone embody the mentality of putting their child(ren) before their own lives.

100% agree with that !

As for the gay issue: if it were detrimental or counter to society, it would have been naturally weeded out over time. It is not like homosexuality is a new issue - it is just more tolerable to be open about it now. Yes, there are more gays now, but it is likely the proportion was the same as in past populations. Homosexuality has been part of human society for a long, long time. One would think if homosexuality has substantial negative effects on human society or direct [reproductive] fitness, it would be gradually forced out of the gene pool. Obviously, it still persists, which means the 'benefits' of homosexuality outweight the 'costs' to fitness.

Anyone in that group care to respond?

Okay, I'm all tuckered out and about to hit the sack but I have to respond.

I have so many things to respond with but I'll keep it to the BIG question you emphasize of the natural "gene pool". Please tell me WHAT is the natural benefit of being homosexual ? Are they faster ? stronger ? more intelligent ?

In fact, if it wasn't for our current technological and medical expertize, somthing like 75% of homosexuals would now be dead due to "natural selection". The reason MANY things "persist" is because man has intervened.

[themanishere]

I have so many things to respond with but I'll keep it to the BIG question you emphasize of the natural "gene pool". Please tell me WHAT is the natural benefit of being homosexual ? Are they faster ? stronger ? more intelligent ?

In fact, if it wasn't for our current technological and medical expertize, somthing like 75% of homosexuals would now be dead due to "natural selection". The reason MANY things "persist" is because man has intervened.

Some rock solid numbers there.

Sure, man intervenes in a lot of things. But in early human life, man did not have the awareness or technology to intervene. Some hormone response, instinct, or mechanism brought about homosexuality. It is not as though one day a person randomly decided to be sexual with another person of the same sex. It does not follow human reproductive processes, but that does not mean it is harmful to them.

The idea of 'benefits vs. costs' simply means there are dimensions of homosexuality which contribute to the overall fitness of society, not necessarily specific genes. Perhaps variability in gene expression to prevent the concentration of certain genes (which can result in things like inbreeding effects). Essentially, it can act as a gene pool control. This is where 'benefits' come into play. In this, it is foolish to suppose genetics have no part in homosexuality, just as it is foolish to subscribe to either of nature/nurture alone.

[cubsarelife]

You forgot to add where he wants to keep companies from going overseas, yet will eliminate tax breaks to corporations. That's the best way to keep companies here, make it more expensive to do business.

Hahaha! Yeah, that oughta help the economy! LOL...and mintman, I couldn't agree more on your 5 points

Good Post

[mintman2]

Thanks cubby, always nice to get a vote of confidence :)

More importantly though, it's nice to see someone actually address what this thread was about. It hasn't happened in awhile.