[quote]ZEB wrote:
Furthermore, how in the world does that “make them more deserving of the rite in God’s eyes?”
[/quote]
If you truly don’t understand, then indeed we worship different gods.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Second of all, because things are not good for some children why would you think that placing them in an environment which may influence them negatively, and lead to other psychological problems be a good thing?
[/quote]
Because having two devoted parents is better than the alternative, which is to leave children in foster homes and orphanages.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The argument draws a small example from perhaps from your personal life with cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion often while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion.
…
If the above studies that I cited are proven to be wrong by larger more numerous(unbiased) studies, yet to be done, then we can take another look at the situation. Currently all the data that I have seen seem to show that allowing Gay marriage would indeed be a very huge mistake relative to the long term success of our society
Actually the studies show no such thing, they only show that the pattern is different, and that stable relationships can be more open among gays without ill effect. Like I said, it’s not just the plumbing that’s different.[/quote]
All studies done on marriage state that when a relationship is monogamous it is more stable than when it is not. If you are claiming that homosexuals do not have to be monogamous in order to have a stable relationship I strongly disagree.
Yes, I have already stated more studies are needed. However do not discount the study of 156 homosexual relationships so fast. It does have some merit.
I think that data is readily available to any who would like to see it.
Help? As the studies indicate two Gay men (living the lifestyle which the authors study concludes) will not be reliable parents for any child.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As I stated previously yet another reason to not allow Gay marriage until we know exactly how someone becomes Gay!
In point of fact, we don’t know how anybody becomes hetero either.[/quote]
But we do know that a child raised in a healthy hetersexual environment will turn out well.
We don’t know how a child brought up by two homosexuals will turn out. And that my friend is the entire point!
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Those who are “deserving” of marriage would seem to me those who are truly committed to a monogomous relationship and to the dedication of the family unit which would most probably include children.
This certainly describes some gays. So I guess you are coming out in favor of gay marriage after all?[/quote]
I’m sorry that you draw such a wild conclusion from facts (and opinon) that would surely be seen as the opposite by most.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Furthermore, how in the world does that “make them more deserving of the rite in God’s eyes?”
If you truly don’t understand, then indeed we worship different gods.[/quote]
You made a claim that they (Gays) had more partners prior to settling down with one (your claim not fact). Then you stated that that makes them more deserving of marriage in God’s eyes.
My question: How does it make them “more deserving.” Do you have an answer?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Second of all, because things are not good for some children why would you think that placing them in an environment which may influence them negatively, and lead to other psychological problems be a good thing?
Because having two devoted parents is better than the alternative, which is to leave children in foster homes and orphanages.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.[/quote]
That is a blanket statement which sounds good on it’s face yet carries no real weight.
How do you know that these same children would not be adopted by a loving hetersexual married couple? In fact (without looking directly at statistics) I believe that there is a long waiting list for married couples to adopt.
Would you advocate taking babies away from heterosexual married couples and giving them to two homosexuals?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
All studies done on marriage state that when a relationship is monogamous it is more stable than when it is not. If you are claiming that homosexuals do not have to be monogamous in order to have a stable relationship I strongly disagree.
Yes, let’s do more studies. Let’s have some based on decent sized statistical samples. The studies you site cannot prove there are not stable gay relationships. In fact, such relationships do exist. When the argument becomes existential, a single case is no longer anecdotal.
Yes, I have already stated more studies are needed. However do not discount the study of 156 homosexual relationships so fast. It does have some merit.
[/quote]
I think we should discount it because it was done prior to the AIDS epidemic, which changed a lot of folks behavior both heterosexual and homosexual. Also the sample size is much too small to make any broad conclusions.
If even two gay people are ready to settle down into a monogamous relationship, those two people should have the benefit of marriage.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I believe that there is a long waiting list for married couples to adopt.
[/quote]
Alas, only to adopt certain children, primarily infants of certain races.
There is a long waiting line of children hoping to be adopted.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
My question: How does it make them “more deserving.” Do you have an answer?
You made a claim that they (Gays) had more partners prior to settling down with one (your claim not fact). Then you stated that that makes them more deserving of marriage in God’s eyes.
My question: How does it make them “more deserving.” Do you have an answer?
[/quote]
Especially given their situation in comparison with heterosexuals, regarding sexual history, those gays who want to commit to a long term relationship have a greater need for this symbol.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
We don’t know how a child brought up by two homosexuals will turn out. And that my friend is the entire point!
[/quote]
Sorry, there is a lot of data on this. A fair number of children have been raised to adulthood by homosexual couples. Enough so that many states now allow gay couples who meet certain criteria to adopt children.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Would you advocate taking babies away from heterosexual married couples and giving them to two homosexuals?
[/quote]
That depends entirely on the specific case, the history of the two couples. I imagine it may have happened already. Often enough the state is forced to remove children from incompetent or criminal natural parents.
There’s no shortage of children to be adopted, so the situation you describe doesn’t otherwise seem to pertain here.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
All studies done on marriage state that when a relationship is monogamous it is more stable than when it is not. If you are claiming that homosexuals do not have to be monogamous in order to have a stable relationship I strongly disagree.
[/quote]
I’m saying that a study done on heterosexual marriages does not clearly apply to homosexual marriages.
For that matter, common sense about what works best in heterosexual marriages does not clearly apply to homosexual marriages.
Fortunately for heterosexual marriages, actual monogamy is not necessarily required for stability, even though it may be helpful.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why would we march head strong into expanding the definition of marriage not knowing for sure that it would not harm society?
[/quote]
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Marriage has changed a lot even in our own culture. Nobody ever knew for sure what was going to happen as a result of any of these changes.
In each case the old ways didn’t really work well anymore. So things got changed.
Every now and again a change isn’t so good. Like prohibition, for example. Well, if things don’t work they get changed again.
Does that dispel any of your concern?
Just a few facts and sources. I thought it was time to add some current scientific views to the discussion, as I am a bit unhappy with some of the “truths” that have been stated in the threads on homosexuality.
Most links will lead to secondary sources, with quite a list of primary sources to follow up (especially in the latter part of the post). My annotations shall be in italics
Sorry to the Mod - I tried to cut as much as possible.
Homosexuality in Animals
Types of homosexual behavioral patterns
What the American Psychological Association has to say:
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
…
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children’s.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice
Now on to a really comprehensive resource on human sexuality from Humboldt-University Berlin:
Developmental Biological Insights
Several studies in the past decade have attempted to identify biological determinants for adult homoeroticism from a heterosexist theoretical base, in which heterosexual behavior is viewed as the basic, natural human behavior, and anything else is deviant. There is usually little recognition of definitional complexity or the possibility of precursors rather than determinants. Subjects are typically placed in the dichotomous classification so prevalent in the culture - that one is either gay or straight, homosexual or heterosexual - with no recognition of the Kinsey continuum, and especially no recognition of Klein?s model.
Researchers have purported to examine twins, siblings, adopted children, and brains of people who are homosexual and those who are not.
…
Although the question of a biological basis for homoeroticism has, in recent years, seen increased interest and attention, such research consistently does not consider the complexities of orientation, such as emotional attraction, behavior, and other criteria that constitute sexual orientation in Klein?s model. Most of the classification methods for identifying orientation of subjects in these studies are overly simplified. Although there may be biological precursors to orientation, no well-designed, appropriately controlled study has been done to support that conclusion.
…
Ignoring the basic fact that there is no definition of what ?a homosexual? or ?a bisexual? person is, until the mid-1990s the most-often cited figure for incidence of homosexuality came from the research of Kinsey and associates carried out in the 1940s. These data have been used to estimate the number of homoerotic people in the population without any indication of the simplistic nature of the definition. The commonly cited figure that 10 percent of American men are homosexual is a combination of Kinsey?s finding that 4 percent of his sample were exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6) and 6 percent were predominantly homosexual (Kinsey 5) (Kinsey et al. 1948). His data on homosexual activity in women indicated approximately 9 percent were either exclusively or predominantly homosexual (Kinsey 5 or 6) (Kinsey et al. 1953).
Incidence
Laumann et al. (1994) found that almost 3 percent of their subjects were homosexual. Although these two sets of figures may, at first, seem at odds, the 1994 figure had a 1 percent error rate, and the Kinsey figure for exclusive homosexuality was 4 percent, so the two major studies do not differ greatly. There were some other problems with the 1994 study, such as the use of females as interviewers and the tendency of males in this culture to deny homosexual activity, even in anonymous questionnaires, but especially in face-to-face contact with anyone else; however, even with those design problems, the numbers are similar (Schmalz 1993).
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/usa.html#6
Anal Sex
Contrary to popular belief, anal sex is not an activity exclusive to the male homosexual, nor is it the activity most often practiced by him. Although statistics on this subject are suspect, some investigators report that 47 percent of predominantly heterosexual men and 61 percent of the women have tried anal intercourse. Thirteen percent of married couples reported having anal intercourse at least once a month. Approximately 37 percent of both men and women have practiced oral-anal contact. A study of homosexual men revealed that only 20 percent had experience as inserter and 18 percent as insertee.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH05.HTM#b8-ANAL%20SEX
Interesting twist of the common perception.
Contemporary Extramarital Sex
Random samples by different pollsters indicate 40 percent to 47 percent of men and 26 percent to 32 percent of women have experienced EMS at least once. Since 79.3 percent of the population considers EMS to always be wrong, there is reason to suspect that random surveys may underestimate the incidence of EMS. Research showing that initial admissions of EMS by 30 percent of a sample doubled to 60 percent during psychotherapy support for this possibility. Conversely, higher survey results like Cosmopolitan’s 69 percent EMS rate for women over age 35 reported by Wolfe, and Playboy’s EMS rates for those over age 50 and 70 percent for men and 65 percent for women reported by Peterson, et al., may be biased by readers’ self-selection.
…
Cuber and Harroff reported that many people in intrinsic-vital marriages engaged in extramarital sex with their spouses’ knowledge or approval. Among the 40 percent of women with EMS experience who were positive their husbands knew, 42 percent stated it caused no problems. Similarly, Hunt found that nearly half of the divorced people with EMS experience did not believe EMS played a role in their divorces. However, Hunt discounted their opinion and the statements of the “many” still married couples who reported no adverse effects from EMS, stressing instead the 50 percent who were affected and pervasive “unseen emotional decay.”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH09.HTM#b32-Contemporary%20Extramarital%20Sex
Now this one I found fascinating, as it points to interesting dynamics within “stable” heterosexual relationships, as opposed to “unstable” homosexual ones.
The Sexual Aspects of Homosexuality
It used to be a popular stereotype that homosexuals were doomed (a favorite word) to a life of empty one-night stands in a search for that unattainable goal, a long-lasting homosexual partnership. The problem is that if the discussion of homosexuality is allowed to be controlled by the terms “promiscuity” and “monogamy,” one will overlook important aspects of the nature of couplehood and relationships in these groups of people.
For example, sexual scientists have often conducted surveys in which homosexual men are asked about the number of sexual partners they have had in their lives. Most of these surveys show that gay men, on average, have more partners, both on a lifetime basis and in the recent past, than demographically comparable heterosexual men. But the distributions that produce these averages are rarely given. In one study, the majority of the sexual partners of a group of gay men were partners of two men in the sample who were male prostitutes. In another study, the majority of the heterosexual encounters in a sample of homosexual and bisexual men were performed by two men.
Defining Homophobia
In 1967, Churchill used the term “homoerotophobia” to describe a cultural fear of same-sex eroticism and sexuality. Churchill’s contention was that negative attitudes about homosexual behavior and people are a reflection of a sex-negative culture, whereby the sex drive is believed to pose a threat to social organization. Weinberg’s later explanation of homophobia emerged from Churchill’s theory. Homophobia, according to Weinberg,
"appears as an antagonism directed toward a particular group of people. Inevitably it leads to disdain of these people, and to the mistreatment of them. This phobia in operation is prejudice, which means we can widen our understanding of it by considering the phobia from the point of view of its being a prejudice and uncovering its chief motives."
In this way, Weinberg’s use of “homophobia” combines the concepts of both prejudice and discrimination. Defining the term so inclusively, however, has been the basis of some objections to its use. Critics argue that the broad use of “homophobia” to include most negative reactions to homosexuality limits the term’s utility. Others object to the suffix “-phobia” because most victims of phobias realize that their fear is disruptive and recognize that their response is irrational. Yet the homophobic person does not ordinarily feel this discomfort. In fact, as Herek has argued, not being homophobic is commonly seen as dysfunctional. He says that to be considered manly in today’s society, one must be homophobic, and those who are not are often the ones labeled with suspicion.
Within this context, those who are identified as homophobic frequently do not label this condition as dysfunctional or experience it as irrational given their environment.
There seems to be agreement that for some people a phobic response (as traditionally defined) to homosexuality is present but that this fails to account for or accurately describe the complex ways homophobia is experienced by the majority of people. Nonetheless, homophobia is still the commonly accepted term to describe the range of feelings and attitudes that often result in behaviors such as avoidance, joking and derision, violence and homicide, self-hate, and suicide.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH12.HTM#b15-Defining%20Homophobia
I understand that “homophobia” is not a nice term to use, but perhaps this quote explains its usage - and it just is a standard term, though regarded as not unproblematic.
What Causes Variability in Sexual Orientation?
Some people criticize attempts to uncover the antecedents, if any, of the various sexual orientations, because they believe that such questions reflect an underlying anti-homosexual bias and will inevitably be misused to prevent homosexuality. These critics claim that it is only because our society stigmatizes homosexuality that people care about such questions. After all, why worry about the causes of differences in height, unless they are the pathological extremes of height, or the causes of different tastes in food?
Although this point of view has some validity, scientists are nevertheless interested in more than just abnormal variations. For example, personality psychologists have long been interested in traits like introversion and extroversion, neither of which is typically considered pathological. It is the job of scientists to wonder about the causes of all aspects of human behavior, including personality and sexual behavior.
An important era in research on this question ended with the publication of the Kinsey Institute studies of homosexuality in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These researchers conducted an extensive study of black and white homosexual men and women, examining all the commonly proposed theories of sexual orientation popular at the time with psychologists, sociologists, and other social scientists. In a sophisticated path analysis, the only variable that was consistently shown to be both statistically significant and substantively important with respect to sexual orientation was childhood gender nonconformity.
Here, the correlations were so high that the Kinsey workers concluded that childhood gender nonconformity was essentially the same thing as homosexuality?or, more probably, constituted one type of homosexuality seen at an earlier stage of development. The fact that they considered this to be only one type of homosexuality was reflected in the title they chose for their work, Homosexualities. Accordingly, these social scientists suggested that biological factors probably play a much larger role in the genesis of the different sexual orientations than they had believed at the time they designed their study. Of course, with one exception (noted below), these researchers had not designed biological variables into their study, so their acceptance of biology was without direct evidence. The exception was that they had asked respondents about their brothers and sisters and, in particular, to report whether those siblings were homosexual or heterosexual. They did not publish these data in their books, but in later unpublished tabulations they did find that their homosexual respondents reported more homosexual brothers and sisters than their heterosexual respondents did.
Of course, this does not distinguish between genetic-biological transmission and environmental fostering of the trait, but it is an interesting first step.
The first carefully controlled study of whether sexual orientation tends to run in families was conducted by Pillard and Weinrich, who reported that 22 percent of the homosexual men in their sample reported homosexual brothers, whereas heterosexual men reported only 4 percent homosexual brothers. A corresponding statement held true for homosexual women (unpublished data). This study was the first to confirm the reports of the original subjects by actual inquiries to the brothers and sisters themselves. This finding was confirmed and extended in a recent study by Bailey and Pillard. These workers chose not an ordinary sample of gay men but a sample of homosexual male twins, finding that about half of the co-twins of monozygous (“identical” or single-egg) homosexual twins were also homosexual, whereas only 22 percent of the co-twins of dizygous (“fraternal” or two-egg) homosexual twins were likewise.
Further analyses strongly suggested a genetic component to sexual orientation, even in the light of many different parameter values used in their models and no significant evidence that the environments of monozygotic twins were more alike than the environments of dizygotic twins (which otherwise might explain their results). Essentially the same results were obtained in a more recent study of female twins conducted by the same authors.
Note that even in these so-called “biological” studies, substantial amounts of environmental variability were detected. For example, in the Bailey and Pillard twin study, 48 percent of the co-twins of monozygotic homosexual male twins were heterosexual?not a small percentage. Remarkably, very few proponents of the environmental view have shown any interest in examining the environmental contribution to sexual orientation, although it must exist.
Accordingly, any comprehensive theory of the development of the various sexual orientations must take into account genetic, hormonal, early childhood, and later experiences. One such theory is the periodic-table model of the gender transpositions, which assumes that there are not one but at least two underlying dimensions to sexual orientation (as well as other gender transpositions such as transvestism and transsexualism). However, even this theory does not propose a specific mechanism by which sexual orientations are differentiated.
So far the best set of explanations I read lately, opening the floor for a non-monocausal approach; and putting some strain on the pure “choice” argument.
Makkun
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As I stated previously yet another reason to not allow Gay marriage until we know exactly how someone becomes Gay!
In point of fact, we don’t know how anybody becomes hetero either.
But we do know that a child raised in a healthy hetersexual environment will turn out well.
We don’t know how a child brought up by two homosexuals will turn out. And that my friend is the entire point!
[/quote]
This is already a lopsided statement by the fact that you said that the heterosexual environment was “healthy”. No such condition was stipulated for the homosexual couple.
How can you tell that the heterosexual environment will be healthy? Likewise, how can you tell that the homosexual environment will be any less so? I personally know a few homosexual couples that I would trust more than most heterosexual couples to raise children.
I would guess that there are plenty of homosexual couples that are not capable of raising children in a healthy envirnonment, however, I’d bet (with absolutely nothing to back me up) that a higher percentage of them would acknowledge their unfitness when compared with unfit heterosexual couples.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
All studies done on marriage state that when a relationship is monogamous it is more stable than when it is not. If you are claiming that homosexuals do not have to be monogamous in order to have a stable relationship I strongly disagree.
Yes, let’s do more studies. Let’s have some based on decent sized statistical samples. The studies you site cannot prove there are not stable gay relationships. In fact, such relationships do exist. When the argument becomes existential, a single case is no longer anecdotal.
Yes, I have already stated more studies are needed. However do not discount the study of 156 homosexual relationships so fast. It does have some merit.
I think we should discount it because it was done prior to the AIDS epidemic, which changed a lot of folks behavior both heterosexual and homosexual. Also the sample size is much too small to make any broad conclusions.
If even two gay people are ready to settle down into a monogamous relationship, those two people should have the benefit of marriage.[/quote]
First of all, the study was done after, not before the AIDS epidemic!
Secondly, do you have any statistics that prove homosexuals are less promiscuious now than before?
Finally, those two people that you speak of may indeed live together without harassment. However, again in order to change the institution of marriage you must prove that homosexual marriage is actually good for society. Short of that not one couple should be married.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I believe that there is a long waiting list for married couples to adopt.
Alas, only to adopt certain children, primarily infants of certain races.
There is a long waiting line of children hoping to be adopted.[/quote]
I want to see the facts on this. I have seen the opposite!
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
My question: How does it make them “more deserving.” Do you have an answer?
You made a claim that they (Gays) had more partners prior to settling down with one (your claim not fact). Then you stated that that makes them more deserving of marriage in God’s eyes.
My question: How does it make them “more deserving.” Do you have an answer?
Especially given their situation in comparison with heterosexuals, regarding sexual history, those gays who want to commit to a long term relationship have a greater need for this symbol.[/quote]
Well, you have not actually stated why being promiscuous means you are “more” deserving of marriage.
And again it’s not about what “they” need, or what “they” think they need. It’s about the greater good to society. Again, what value does it add?
How come none of the advocates of Gay marriage can tell me why it would be a plus to have gays marry?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We don’t know how a child brought up by two homosexuals will turn out. And that my friend is the entire point!
Sorry, there is a lot of data on this. A fair number of children have been raised to adulthood by homosexual couples. Enough so that many states now allow gay couples who meet certain criteria to adopt children.[/quote]
Is this one of those “facts” that you are going to through out with no verification?
Please produce thise “unbiased” studies!