Sorry, I missed this post from earlier. If this is true, then clearly, the argument I have been making falls apart. Are there studies to indicate this is true? I was under the impression that, because of the relative novelty of homosexual adoption, there were not enough children raised by homosexuals who have reached adolescent age to make any conclusions yet.
And my response was “Assuming for a second … the population would be shrinking and thus eventually be in danger of death by underpopulation (or famine or disease caused by reduced genetic diversity).” with the implication that “traditional” gender roles cause reproduction and “non-traditional” gender roles do not. I apologize for being unclear.
This is more of a meta-argument, but I still find it irking: “I’m in favor of/support/believe in X (where X = any topic being discussed), but…”
If you have to add a “but…”, then you aren’t in favor of/don’t support/don’t believe in X, whatever X may be.
You may believe in or support a part of X. If that’s the case, say so. You know, something like, “I don’t agree with X, but there are parts of X that make sense.”
No, you may not. You are the one making the claim that a certain percentage of children raised by homosexuals will also be homosexual, and that this percentage is high enough that the human race will eventually be driven to extinction. Prove it.
So presumably you are also against women having access to contraception, a secular education, and control over some wealth, as these all reduce the number of children they have? And have done so vastly quicker than this creeping homosexuality you fear, which would presumably take many generations.
In fact if homosexual couples adopted on average two children, at least half of which turn out hetero, then even by your own theory the incidence of homosexuality would not grow. If they average one child per couple they need 100% to turn out homosexual.
In any case your argument seems to be against gay couples adopting, irrelevant of whether they are married or not. By no means the same thing.
And there is some evidence (no, I’m not going looking for it tonight) that “non-traditional” gender roles serve purposes that help perpetuate the species.
Factorial, research into homosexual adoption is limited both in quantity and quality (it’s not unknown for non-random samples to be used, for example), but what little of it exists has been discussed on this thread:
It is, as you might imagine, hardly conclusive. Never has that academic mantra “more research need to be done…” been more true.
That’s cool. Then: I don’t agree with opponents of gay marriage or gay adoption. But there are certain arguments they make that force me to not discount them all as idiots.
You’re completely mischaracterizing my argument, and I think you know you are. If that’s true, this is probably why you’re sick of this argument. You’re not being conducive to a rational debate. Nonetheless I will restate my position in the format you insist upon:
a) letting gay people raise kids could make more of those kids gay than letting heterosexual people raise them would
b) this could, given time, reduce the total fertility rate to below population-replacement levels, and keep it there, which would result in the extinction of the human race
c) there’s no evidence to prove this true but there’s no evidence to prove this untrue either so it’s not a “stupid” view to hold (note: point c is subject to my post above. I remain under the impression that, because of the relative novelty of homosexual adoption, there were not enough children raised by homosexuals who have reached adolescent age to make any conclusions yet.)
No, I am claiming it’s POSSIBLE, not that IT IS. These are two very different things.
First, your math isn’t right. The overall math is much too complex and I don’t know all the different constants and variables involved so I can’t do it; I probably couldn’t even if I had all the raw data; but you’re over simplifying it. Second, I don’t “fear creeping homosexuality,” as you so scarily put it. Third, those in power do NOT have the ability to stop “contraception, a secular education, [or] control over wealth,” while they do have the ability to stop or postpone adoption by homosexuals. Finally, I would completely agree with your last point. The argument I have been making is only relevant to adoption, not marriage. Good thing I’m opposed to neither!
bodswood: Thanks, I will check it out. From what you have said, it sounds like my belief that the evidence is inconclusive is correct.
Trusting George W. Bush about anything is just stupid, but – unfortunately for the nation as a whole – this was a lesson we only learned in hindsight. Hopefully we won’t make the same mistake again.
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
—George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Yeah, like no-bid contracts for Halliburton. :rolleyes:
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. YOU CANNOT “CATCH GAY!” Homosexuality is not learned, it is not taught, and it cannot be chosen.
No evidence unless you consider the twin studies and other research, all of which indicates that homosexuality is innate, not learned, not communicable, not teachable and not chosen.
Unless the kids were going to be gay anyway, gay parents can’t make kids gay. Stop spouting the ignorant bigotry of the evil Christian fanatic gay bashers.
I’m not bringing up the WMD issue for the sake of the WMD issue. I’m bringing up the specific “Sure Bush was wrong but so were all these democrats” argument, which I’ve seen multiple times, and pisses me off to no end, because it’s so idiotic. The WMD argument itself has been done to death, and I am over it, in the sense that it’s not something I’m currently and actively outraged about.
Again, I’m not specifically pitting the term “Moore-ons”. I’m pitting the "oh, we Repubilcans are always called names just as bad as ‘moore-on’ " argument, which is Just Not True. As I mentioned, if “repug” were constantly being bandied about, then “Moore-on” or “demoncat” or something would be a reasonable (if still immature) response.
(This argument is one that Brutus, at least, has made on more than one occasion, but always in the middle of a bigger argument, so I didn’t respond at that precise moment, thus, this thread.)
I said “by implication” because I didn’t know if you had ever specifically addressed me, personally, as a “Moore-on”, and I didn’t want to falsely claim that you had. It might have been clearer if I’d said “by association” or “by inclusion”.
Nonetheless, you have failed to address the important point raised here, which is the question of whether you actually care about fighting ignorance, etc., or whether you just enjoy being mean to liberals.
I hate to undermine facts, especially when they’re about me, on this board of all boards, but without any cites I don’t think any self-respecting dope is going to buy that.
Why is it that many of the fanatic Christians who refuse to believe sources for things like “you can’t catch gay, people are born that way” have no problem believing the Bible?
In another thread, “proof” was offered as to the origin of a quote. The “proof” was the translation (from a foreign language to English) of a meeting’s minutes in a foreign newspaper. This “proof” was called 3rd hand hearsay yet the Bible which was originally told by word of mouth before being translated over and over again is taken as the absolute truth?
Actually, Daisy Mae, there was one part of the Bible that I did have trouble believing for a while. It was when Jesus told some people that they would not believe even if they were to see a person being raised from the dead.
Well, I don’t think you can catch it. On the other hand, what you’re saying sounds like you believe homosexuality is the result of genetics, or as I have heard some voices espouse, chemistry within the womb before birth.
This does, then, suggest there is a genetic factor in homosexuality. But it also suggests there is an environmental factor in homosexuality! From a different source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_homosexuality):
The measured incidence of homosexuality concordance between adoptive brothers, 11%, was higher than the measured incidence of homosexuality across the general population (5.9%, 5.9%, and 4.9% respectively.)
Maybe not everyone who is against homosexual couples adopting children is ignorant, bigoted, evil, Christian, fanatic, or gay bashers. That’s the only point I’m trying to get across. We haven’t even mentioned that some people are against it on the grounds that it’s harmful to children simply because they might be made fun of by their peers and would prefer to hedge against this possibility. I think we should skip that argument in the context of this thread though as it’s not an argument matt_mcl mentioned. And as this is probably tending towards a hijack of the thread, if the original poster wants me to butt out of this thread, I will.
0.9999…<1.
Ontological argument.
Vegetarianism is stupid because we evolved to eat meat.
Vegetarianism is stupid because the logical extreme is fruitarianism.
