Specific arguments you're just SICK of

(1) So the species can procreate (2) The ones that allow for the continued existence of the species through procreation (3) Presumably through observation of a man and woman with children (4) Children have more contact with their parents than with other adults (5) Possibly; there is certainly piles of evidence that children of single parents are at higher risk for becoming single parents themselves (6) There is no scientific evidence that I am yet aware of to answer this question (7) For the continued existence of the species (8) Answer is obvious

FTR, I am in favor of homosexual adoption and union/marriage (digression: “I am in support of union but not marriage”, biggest red herring ever, WTF does this mean? it’s just semantics, people!) but felt like answering those questions for you since you wanted them answered.

  1. How will gender roles help the species do that? 2) What gender roles favouring the continuation of the species will be promoted by having a mommy and a daddy? 3) If this is true, why do people who were raised in such households frequently make shitty parents? 4) See question 2. 5) What is the relation between single parenthood and improper gender roles? 6) Didn’t think so 7) Is the species in danger of death by underpopulation? 8) not quite yet…

I’m sick and tired of people who avoid the issues in such debates by “arguing” that all homosexuals are promiscuous. Or those that assert that MOST homosexuals are promiscuous, or indeed that homosexuals as a population are MORE promiscuous than heterosexuals as a population - all without a single cite.

matt_mcl:
(1) Man and woman who live together make babies together
(2) Intercourse between man and woman
(3) Because they had children accidentally… biology wins again
(4) OK, see question 2 for you too then :slight_smile:
(5) Presumably children learn gender roles from their parents (the basis of this entire argument); thus, children of single parents learn that the role of one parent is to abandon the other and his or her child; thus, children of single parents will subconsciously be more likely to seek out others who fit this role
(6) The fact there is no scientific evidence doesn’t support your claim either, the question cannot be answered, it’s as likely either way
(7) Assuming for a second that our population grows by 2.5% each generation but 5% of children of heterosexual parents in each generation become homosexual, homosexuals and heterosexuals are parents in at equal rates, and 50% of children of homosexual parents become homosexual, and homosexuals bear no offspring, then the population would stop growing. Raise the percentages and the population would be shrinking and thus eventually be in danger of death by underpopulation (or famine or disease caused by reduced genetic diversity). Of course neither you and I can affirm these percentages in any way, because there are few studies to create these numbers, but again, that supports neither your claim nor mine. Normative debate, it’s great.
(8) I answered your questions, whether you agree with my answers or whether they are to your satisfaction or not is a different issue.

Am I allowed to say “every single goddamn argument about homosexuality?” I don’t see why people just can’t let us be happy and mind their own damn business. Or be happy for us.

1-5) What relevance do these have to gender roles?
7) “and 50% of children of homosexual parents become homosexual” - what reason could there possibly be to assume this, and what relevance does it have to gender roles? We’re talking gender roles here, not sexual orientation.
8) Well, none of your answers had any relevance to gender roles.

Okay, this is a giant fallacy. Children raised by homosexuals are NO MORE LIKELY than children raised by heterosexuals to turn out homosexual. That is simply not true, and it’s that sort of nonsense that the bigots (not you) use to deny people like me equality under the law.

So switch that 50% back to 5%, please, or whatever arbitrary number you’re using for the homo-portion of the population.

Apparently we have a different definition of gender roles. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role

Seeking heterosexual relationships was the “gender role” I was specifically focused on. Do you still disagree that my points had no relevance to gender role?

Screwing chicks is part of the male gender role? So I’m somehow less masculine than other men just because I don’t like vaginas? Being gay has nothing to do with confused gender roles. I was raised by two heterosexual parents, part of a family with 2.5 children (if the dogs count as 0.5) and had exactly the sort of gender exposure that one is supposedly required to have, yet I’m gay.

I’m also not at all gender-confused or otherwise not functioning in the proper gender role. My gender identity is fine.

I wouldn’t mind a cite on this, especially as it specifically contradicts the immediately following phrase:

So you must mean 50% of adopted children. Again, cite? As avowedly homosexual couples have only recently and very limitedly been allowed to adopt. But it’s bullshit anyway, as both male and female homosexuals have been known to have biological children. So, again, cite?

“Bigger fish to fry.” This is one that I encounter a lot in real-life discussion, as in “Why are you discussing sports when there are such horrible things going on in Rwanda?” or “Why are you bothering with law school when you could be working for the Peace Corps and doing something?” The implication is that it’s useless to do X when Y is so much more important, though irrelevant.

This is especially maddening because, while I have a gut sense that it’s wrong, I can’t articulate why.

According to the definition I linked, yes. Perhaps you disagree with it, in which case, that’s fine, we’re talking about different things. Your decision that my definition of “gender role” is wrong does not invalidate my argument.

This supposes that there are not multiple factors that may cause one to identify as a homosexual when one reaches adulthood.

I meant 50% of children raised by homosexual parents. This would include those adopted and those created by other means (e.g. artificial insemination.) As you noticed, homosexuals have only recently and limitedly been allowed to adopt. Thus, neither of us could have a cite! Just as I don’t have a cite saying that 50% would become homosexual you don’t have a cite saying that less than 50% would become homosexual! Neither of us are more right than the other. The beauty of normative debate, as I stated. The only thing is, I am proposing that it is INDEED possible for the human race to become extinct under certain circumstances, and the people who believe that it is true aren’t morons worthy of contempt.

Ahem. It has been known for a male homesexual to have sex with a woman, and for a female homosexual to have sex with a man. Usually this is before they have acknowleged, or are even aware of, their true sexual orientation. According to your made up statistic, 50% of these children will turn out to be homosexual if raised by the homosexual parent, only 5% if raised by the heterosexual parent. There have certainly been enough studies on homosexuality to show a nature/nurture correlation with homosexuality, if one exists. To my knowledge, only a nature correlation exists, which is likely quite close to your 5% figure. Your claim of 50% passes the bounds of common sense, therefore it is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary proof.

Very true, can’t argue with you there. The people who believe homosexuality has anything to do with a potential extinction of homo sapiens have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

…because it’s just so far removed from anything even barely resembling an hypothesis based on actual evidence that I wouldn’t even know where to start and words just fail me…

So how does allowing homosexuals to go through a marriage ceremony (as distinct from just living together as they do now) stop heterosexuals from having children?
For the OP: whenever I get into a discussion with Americans about what’s wrong with the way America behaves in the world, at some point the statement inevitably comes up “we saved your ass in WWII, you ought to be grateful”. As if, even if true, that excuses spending moral authority from WWII like a drunken sailor.

Can I get a cite to show there’s no difference between incidence of homosexuality between children raised by a pair of homosexuals and children raised by a pair of heterosexuals? Since that’s what you’ve asserted is true and you’ve also denigrated my “made up statistic” which I KEEP POINTING OUT IS MADE UP and FOR PURPOSES OF DEBATE ONLY.

The assertion is that allowing homosexuals to adopt would raise the incidence of homosexuality among those who would otherwise be heterosexual and thus reduce the number of individuals interested in procreating and thus reduce the population. Not that heterosexuals would be stopped from having children – that there would be fewer heterosexuals in general with each generation.

While we’re at it, my question was not, “Are there a set of circumstances under which the human race could go extinct due to underpopulation?” I know that there are. The human race could go extinct due to underpopulation if all women joined the Sisters of Charity, too. The question was, “Is the human race in danger of extinction due to underpopulation?” with the implication of, “Are these ‘gender roles’ of which you speak saving us from this extinction?”

So basically, the answer boils down to:

a) letting gay people raise kids will make those kids gay, because
b) well, it could happen!

Oh, and

c) if this were true, it would be somehow bad, possibly because there aren’t enough people in the world.