You just compared being gay to being mentally handicapped.

12/28/2011 8:50:33 AM

Well let's be honest....

12/28/2011 9:32:04 AM

now THAT'S some Grade-A trolling

12/28/2011 3:33:28 PM

Quote :

"I think the bottom line here (and my big point) is that just because someone doesn't support everything about homosexuality, or questions its genesis, etc etc, doesn't mean they are backwards, close-minded, intolerant people. Sure, some definitely are, but others, due to religious reasons, philosophical reasons, morality reasons, or other reasons, just aren't going to share the same opinions when it comes to this topic. A lot of people's immediate reaction is to start spewing forth how intolerant they are, which is akin to playing the "race card". It's entirely overused and very difficult to refute, but oftentimes completely unfounded. "

"I kinda feel like being a bigot and since there isn't definitive emperical data proving beyond a doubt that homosexuality isn't a choice I think I can get away with it."

You know what? Fuck your "religious", "philosophical", "morality" reasons to dislike other people solely for whom they are attracted to. And you questioning whether they should be allowed to adopt? You are ignorant of the data. Let me help you:

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf

Quote :

"From a conceptual perspective, our results have a number of implications. Our findings challenge received notions about the importance of children having both one female and one male parent (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). In this sample, regardless of whether they had one mother and one father, two mothers, or two fathers, children were thriving. Our findings are also at odds with the notion that only heterosexual adults make capable parents and that lesbian and gay parents are somehow ineffective or harmful. Inasmuch as there were no significant associations between parental sexual orientation and child adjustment, our results are consistent with notions that two parents of the same gender can be capable parents and that parental sexual orientation is not related to parenting skill or child adjustment (e.g., Bos et al., 2004; Golombok et al., 2003; Patterson, 2009; Tasker & Patterson, 2007). Indeed, our findings point to the positive capabilities of lesbian and gay couples as adoptive parents, and add to the limited literature about adoptive lesbian and gay families (e.g., Erich et al., 2005, 2009; Leung et al., 2005)."

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 8:39 AM. Reason : formatting]

12/29/2011 8:37:59 AM

Quote :

"I think the bottom line here (and my big point) is that just because someone doesn't support everything about homosexuality, or questions its genesis, etc etc, doesn't mean they are backwards, close-minded, intolerant people. Sure, some definitely are, but others, due to religious reasons, philosophical reasons, morality reasons, or other reasons, just aren't going to share the same opinions when it comes to this topic."

What are non-backwards/close-minded/intolerant reasons based in religion, philosophy, and morality for being anti-homosexuality?

12/30/2011 10:25:59 AM

Haha disco_stu, being a dumbass idiot as always.

First of all, I fully support homosexuals being able to adopt. I clearly stated that both in the original post, and in my follow on post. I'm sure the big words and coherent sentences got in the way of your comprehension.

What I did say, is I can understand why people would/could be opposed to something like adoption. I could really give a flying fuck if homosexuals are born that way (I fully believe they are). People are also probably born with a predisposition to murder people, rape people, and have sex with little children. So I could really give a fuck if someone is born a certain way if their actions cause negative affects on those around them. So the only important question is, does the behavior of homosexuals have a negative impact on people around them?

Obviously, two men or women sleeping together and/or getting married causes no ill effects towards those around them. But if you can't acknowledge that there is even a remote possibility that two people who cannot produce a child on their own might (I said might, not would) be detrimental to a child, than you are just fucking stupid.

I hate the argument that because something occurs in nature, it must be OK. Yeah, I get it, male dogs hump eachother, and these kind of shenanigans occur throughout nature. Whoop dee fucking doo. You know what else happens in nature as well? Creatures slay their mate. They eat their young. They have sex with their siblings and parents. So just because something occurs in nature, does not make it inherently good or bad, right or wrong.

If you really want to look at nature, look at what doesn't happen. Men don't become women or vice versa. Two same-sex mates do not have children. I could go on and on, but there are many things that do not occur naturally. They occur because humans meddle with a natural process - kind of like why some species of harmful plants and animals have migrated to an area which they would otherwise not have gone. So in the case of adopting and raising children, humans are meddling in a process that would otherwise not be seen in nature.

Once again, after looking at all the available information on the subject, I fully support their right to adopt. However, if someone were to come to a different conclusion, I could not fault them for their logic.

But disco_stu, I do fault you for being an angry, stupid human being. You must have an immensely small cock, or some other disorder that makes you consistently try to be some kind of know-it-all internet tough guy. I would truly love to meet you in real life to see how big of a fucked up loser you truly are.

12/31/2011 12:14:59 AM

To be honest, FeebleMinded has a point here. The prospect of gay people eating their adopted children is very concerning.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 1:21 AM. Reason : .]

12/31/2011 1:20:49 AM

Gay men are huge fans of Jonathan Swift.

12/31/2011 2:33:14 AM

Quote :

"However, if someone were to come to a different conclusion, I could not fault them for their logic. "

Yes, of course you can.

What youre saying is that if someone isn't biologically capable of producing a child, then they might reasonably be worse parents, which makes literally ZERO sense. There is no rationale to this statement at all. The things that make good parents have absolutely nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with behavior. There is no research or theory that says otherwise.

So there's no logical reason, no practical reason, and no causal reason to believe that people who adopt children because they can't have their own kids are likely to be worse parents because of their biology.

12/31/2011 2:42:04 AM

I find it incredibly offensive that you disagree with my bigoted beliefs.

12/31/2011 8:12:33 AM

Quote :

" disco_stu, I do fault you for being an angry, stupid human being. You must have an immensely small cock, or some other disorder that makes you consistently try to be some kind of know-it-all internet tough guy. I would truly love to meet you in real life to see how big of a fucked up loser you truly are"

So it's threats now, is it?

12/31/2011 5:30:11 PM

Oh goddamn, there's no threat there.

Not that I'm siding with him; I just expect at least reasonable reading comprehension from you.

12/31/2011 7:36:24 PM

Homosexuality makes perfect sense in the context of herding creatures whose young require attention for long periods of time after birth, since they essentially act as uncles/aunts or otherwise additional child-raisers. I could even see how, in a herd or tribe with too many children and not enough parents, mothers would experience high levels of stress hormones, leading to more gay children in the future to balance out the parenting crisis.

Probably not the case, but entirely conceivable I think, and the point is that people trying to crow, even for a second, about what's "natural" or not are implicitly assuming they have full knowledge of the machinations of nature. "Natural" is a silly, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless distinction anyway, as anyone knows who's tried to talk objectively with a Foodie.

1/3/2012 10:31:43 AM

Quote :

"are implicitly assuming they have full knowledge of the machinations of nature"

Seeing this, from you, is priceless.

I actually agree, though. Homosexuality seems like it could be related to overpopulation. The stress explanation makes some sense. If that is the case, homosexuality is a response to environmental stimulus by the mother, rather than an inherited trait that is passed down like eye or hair color.

1/3/2012 12:18:40 PM

Quote :

"Seeing this, from you, is priceless."

I don't wanna derail this thread: but faith in markets requires VERY significant assumptions about human nature, just one example being the role of rationality in human decision-making. Since I don't want to derail I'll just leave it to you to identify and question your own assumptions in that area, I hope you at least try (I do to my own semi-regularly).

Quote :

"I actually agree, though. Homosexuality seems like it could be related to overpopulation. The stress explanation makes some sense. If that is the case, homosexuality is a response to environmental stimulus by the mother, rather than an inherited trait that is passed down like eye or hair color."

Adding this to the list of "threads I don't disagree with destroyer in" along with the Iran one


[Edited on January 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2012 2:48:14 PM

Quote :

"I could really give a flying fuck if homosexuals are born that way (I fully believe they are). People are also probably born with a predisposition to murder people, rape people, and have sex with little children. So I could really give a fuck if someone is born a certain way if their actions cause negative affects on those around them."

The proper phrase is "I could not give a fuck". Unless you really do care.

Quote :

"But if you can't acknowledge that there is even a remote possibility that two people who cannot produce a child on their own might (I said might, not would) be detrimental to a child, than you are just fucking stupid."

So this means that we should be questioning of any two people who can't have a child, for whatever reason. What about men who have a vasectomy? Is that man now magically someone of whom we should be skeptical regarding his ability to be a good father. There's just all kinds of stupid in what you said, man.

Quote :

"If you really want to look at nature, look at what doesn't happen. Men don't become women or vice versa."

to be fair, some animals are capable of changing their physical sex...

Quote :

"Homosexuality makes perfect sense in the context of herding creatures whose young require attention for long periods of time after birth"

after tortured logic, yes.

1/4/2012 9:48:56 AM

What's tortured about it?

A) Animals that require long parenting periods benefit from a stable balance between the number of parents and children

B) Gay animals are capable of raising children without actually creating additional ones

C) A hormonal response to stress that can increase the chance of (B) could help maintain (A)

I'm not saying that's what it is, this is just a hypothesis, but I fail to see what's so "tortured" about it?

[Edited on January 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2012 12:37:02 PM