Homosexuals Raising Families?

hy does it matter if gay is genetic or if gay is a result of being raised under certain circumstances?

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I'd argue that for a population, homosexuality is undesirable in terms of genetic diversity and (given the shrinkage of Western populations) population growth as well. Though this really only becomes an issue if the correlation is very strong and adoption numbers among homosexuals are above national averages.

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I'd argue that for a population, homosexuality is undesirable in terms of genetic diversity and (given the shrinkage of Western populations) population growth as well. Though this really only becomes an issue if the correlation is very strong and adoption numbers among homosexuals are above national averages.

Genetic diversity isn't a problem right now, as long as you're not inbreeding with your direct siblings. And homosexuals adopting kids doesn't cause the population to decline.

Originally Posted by Twilight King

Genetic diversity isn't a problem right now, as long as you're not inbreeding with your direct siblings. And homosexuals adopting kids doesn't cause the population to decline.

It would if gay couples raised gay children.

Originally Posted by Raistlin

It would if gay couples raised gay children.

That is a pretty big IF right there and I'm willing to argue that it's not that plausible that same-sex parents will by default result in gay children.

Heterosexual parents does not by default equal straight children after all.

Originally Posted by Phindus

That is a pretty big IF right there and I'm willing to argue that it's not that plausible that same-sex parents will by default result in gay children.

Heterosexual parents does not by default equal straight children after all.

I don't think it's a plausible scenario.

I'm just responding to a hypothetical parameter that Andy established.

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I don't think it's a plausible scenario.

I'm just responding to a hypothetical parameter that Andy established.

I see. My bad.

Originally Posted by Bravo

I know this isn't how you meant this, so don't think I'm picking faults with you because I'm not, I'm just making an observation on the impression somebody might get from a statement like that, but...

What does it matter if their sexual orientation has a bearing on his upbringing? Why is it so important that gay people should only be allowed to raise kids if we can be sure that it won't make the kids gay? As if gayness is something to be avoided.

AGAIN: I know that's not what you meant; I'm just pointing out that the way you phrase it might make people draw the wrong conclusions about what you're saying.

I understand.

But I think it's a fear some people have that being raised by homosexuals will turn you into something...different? Not normal? Start a decline in human population?

I have no idea.

But it's a fear I guess some people have.


(Please no one debate the above with me, for it certainly isn't MY stance on anything. >.>)

Wait, how do homosexual couples adopting DECLINE the population? Do they kill these newly adopted children or what?

Originally Posted by Crash Man

Wait, how do homosexual couples adopting DECLINE the population?

Let's speak hypothetically here.

Starting with the assumption "gay people raise gay children", then when a gay couple adopts they are 1) Not having children of their own and they are 2) adopting children.

If doing 2) results in gay children, result 3) Is that we have these gay children who might do 1) or 2).

Therefore, we have established a cycle of gay people not having children, then adopting children, then these adopted children who are not going to be heterosexual as they might have been not having children either (because "gay parents raise gay children"). And if these gay children adopt, then the grandchildren will also be gay and so on.

So you have a large portion of the population not having biological children because they're gay, and this segment of the population is going to grow if current Western trends persist because many Western nations are only "breaking even" (birth rate and death rate are roughly the same).

So because we're only breaking even, and "gay people have gay children" and so do some straight people, then every child adopted by a gay is going to come from a straight family who might have raised a straight child (who would now be gay).

Thus if "gay people have gay children", the birth rate will decline and the death rate will remain the same. Hence, population decline.

Of course, we're not given that gay people raise gay children. It's more likely that gay people are gay because of prenatal development, genetics, or different chemical balances in the brain, as opposed to simply upbringing.

I don't think andy was saying that people turn out gay because their parents are gay though, and I doubt they would, even if their sexuality is determined by their life experiences.

Originally Posted by Twilight King

I don't think andy was saying that people turn out gay because their parents are gay though, and I doubt they would, even if their sexuality is determined by their life experiences.

What he was actually saying is that is doesn't matter if "gay people have gay children".

I pointed out that if that were true, then if we did have gay adoption on a mass scale then: "I'd argue that for a population, homosexuality is undesirable in terms of genetic diversity and (given the shrinkage of Western populations) population growth as well. Though this really only becomes an issue if the correlation is very strong and adoption numbers among homosexuals are above national averages."

I'd argue that for a population, homosexuality is undesirable in terms of genetic diversity

homosexuality should not be "undesirable" and it certainly does not hurt genetic diversity or population growth. Gay people are everywhere, they are quite common, and have been throughout history. There is literally no issues with population. Before we go trying to "fix" the gays and prevent their children from being gay, maybe we should try and think about ♥♥♥♥ like plague, war, genocide, epidemics and rape, stuff that actually does present issues to "genetic diversity" and "population growth."

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I don't think it's a plausible scenario.

I'm just responding to a hypothetical parameter that Andy established.

Nobody has ever mobilized "genetic diversity" or "population growth" ever when finding a point of cultural malleability. It's always associated with homophobia and never has anything to do with a fear of extinction resulting from rampant homosexuality.

homosexuality should not be "undesirable" and it certainly does not hurt genetic diversity or population growth. Gay people are everywhere, they are quite common, and have been throughout history. There is literally no issues with population. Before we go trying to "fix" the gays and prevent their children from being gay, maybe we should try and think about ♥♥♥♥ like plague, war, genocide, epidemics and rape, stuff that actually does present issues to "genetic diversity" and "population growth."

Let's speak hypothetically here.

Starting with the assumption "gay people raise gay children", then when a gay couple adopts they are 1) Not having children of their own and they are 2) adopting children.

If doing 2) results in gay children, result 3) Is that we have these gay children who might do 1) or 2).

Therefore, we have established a cycle of gay people not having children, then adopting children, then these adopted children who are not going to be heterosexual as they might have been not having children either (because "gay parents raise gay children"). And if these gay children adopt, then the grandchildren will also be gay and so on.

So you have a large portion of the population not having biological children because they're gay, and this segment of the population is going to grow if current Western trends persist because many Western nations are only "breaking even" (birth rate and death rate are roughly the same).

So because we're only breaking even, and "gay people have gay children" and so do some straight people, then every child adopted by a gay is going to come from a straight family who might have raised a straight child (who would now be gay).

Thus if "gay people have gay children", the birth rate will decline and the death rate will remain the same. Hence, population decline.

Of course, we're not given that gay people raise gay children. It's more likely that gay people are gay because of prenatal development, genetics, or different chemical balances in the brain, as opposed to simply upbringing.

Further, most of these issues you cite primarily concern the third world, where despite those factors the population is having explosive growth. I'm talking first world population changes, where we are predicted to decline.

Nobody has ever mobilized "genetic diversity" or "population growth" ever when finding a point of cultural malleability. It's always associated with homophobia and never has anything to do with a fear of extinction resulting from rampant homosexuality.

I just did.

Do you think homosexual couples are capable of raising families?

Capability to raise a family depends on funds and all that stuff. Of course homosexual couples can raise an adopted family, assuming they have funds and can keep the family out of harms way.

Do you think homosexual couples should raise families?

Do I think they should? No, I don't. Why? I just can't see a man and another man, or a woman and another woman raise a family. The situation is...different in my eyes. In theory, a homosexual couple and even something like a polygamous family could raise a family. In practice, while it's been proven to work, I do not know if that would be the best situation for any child in said family. Just too awkward for my personal tastes.

Do you think any government has the right to decide if homosexual couples can't raise families?

Absolutely. You live in a land which is ruled by a people, therefore you listen to their rules or get out of the land.

Originally Posted by VanitasXII

Do I think they should? No, I don't. Why? I just can't see a man and another man, or a woman and another woman raise a family. The situation is...different in my eyes. In theory, a homosexual couple and even something like a polygamous family could raise a family. In practice, while it's been proven to work, I do not know if that would be the best situation for any child in said family. Just too awkward for my personal tastes.

this makes no sense. You admit that "in practice" homosexuals can raise families just as well as anybody else. Yet, you think that, based on your personal taste, they shouldn't? Why should people conform to your personal taste? Which is, apparently, not based in logic, reasoning, or data, but rather just feelings of awkwardness?

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by VanitasXII

Absolutely. You live in a land which is ruled by a people, therefore you listen to their rules or get out of the land.

what if the government made a law saying you're not allowed to get out of their land?

Government derives legitimacy from the people. This is commonly understood as "will of the majority".

However, we also recognize the possibility of a tyranny of the majority. Majority rule is understood not to be a carte blanche to act in opposition to the basic and fundamental principles of justice. this is why laws protecting minorities exist.

Do you think homosexual couples are capable of raising families?
Yes

Do you think homosexual couples should raise families?
Yes. No one can give an answer to why they shouldn't without reciting a religious reason, and this isn't a theocracy. The 'it's unnatural' theory can easily be debunked. Well, they might say it's awkward or something to them, but that's just because they most likely grew up in an area where there were few gay people living in it so they haven't quite adjusted/are closed minded about it.

Do you think any government has the right to decide if homosexual couples can't raise families?
No. There's no valid reason why they could say they shouldn't without resorting to using holy texts. Once again, this isn't a theocracy even if one of the parties in the US is basically entirely based off of what the Bible says socially (Yet nearly the complete opposite when it comes to economics. How ironic)

It's not like they're any different than a straight couple with the exception that they're of the same gender.

Originally Posted by VanitasXII

Do I think they should? No, I don't. Why? I just can't see a man and another man, or a woman and another woman raise a family. The situation is...different in my eyes. In theory, a homosexual couple and even something like a polygamous family could raise a family. In practice, while it's been proven to work, I do not know if that would be the best situation for any child in said family. Just too awkward for my personal tastes.

There's a video in the OP you should watch, as well as a ZU user named Astarael you should talk to. Supporting the idea that there SHOULD be a man AND a woman to raise a child is merely another way of supporting the idea that men SHOULD act "this" way and that women SHOULD act "that" way, which is basically looking down on every person who acts in a manner commonly associated with the opposite sex.

Or perhaps you're worried about how other people might react negatively when they find out that "Jimmy has two dads" or "Anne has two mums" or something. Even in that situation, the problem is intolerance and not the homosexual raising of children.

I think they shouldn't be able to raise families. I think it's wrong.
A child should have a mother and a father, it's how humans learn the basic skills needed to socialize, otherwise that child WILL grow up thinking not only is it normal to be homosexual (as a starting point, as other people may change your view point), but will have a much harder time socializing with others as well.

I could go on for pages about how even studies that have be done with monkeys prove homosexuals shouldn't raise families but I'm a bit busy, you can google it yourself.

Almost all people tend to say there's nothing wrong when something is, Every small thing about your childhood and how you were raised WILL effect you, and not everything is what it may seem to be.

Should source some of that kid.