A person's sexuality is their own business. What adults do with other informed and consenting adults is their business. Some sexual practices involve greater health risks than others. This is not a thread about any of the above.
This thread is here to discuss the roots of homosexual behaviour, not take a moral or ethical standpoint on the behaviour.
The roots of an individual's behaviour are generally considered to be a balance between 'nature' (genetic and/or prenatal disposition) and 'nurture' (learned/cultural disposition). So an individual's sexuality could be hard coded and/or learned and anywhere between those two extremes of 100% nature to 100% nurture. Given the complexity of the human genome I would consider it practically impossible that a person with homosexual preferences could not come about through natural variations/mutations. I am also reasonably sure that social and cultural influences can be so strong that a persons sexual preferences could be influenced by there surroundings, upbringing and peer pressure during their sexually formative years.
Please note I will report any and all derogatory comments made towards any sexual orientation. This thread is in the Science forum and it will be a polite discussion.
It's often said that evolution ought to breed out homosexuality if it's entirely inherited. Even if it's only partly heritable, evolution ought to reduce it in the population. Maybe it does, how would we know?
Quote from: OldGit on June 29, 2011, 02:59:33 PM
It's often said that evolution ought to breed out homosexuality if it's entirely inherited. Even if it's only partly heritable, evolution ought to reduce it in the population. Maybe it does, how would we know?
On the basis of simplistic natural selection (NS) the existence of homosexuality is counter-intuitive, either generated through nature or nurture. Yet all homosexual creatures (there are over 200 examples of species other than humans exhibiting homosexual behaviour) are the offspring of parents that, at least temporarily, exhibited heterosexual behaviour. So there must be a natural mechanism(s) that leads to homosexual behaviour. The fact that non-humans can exhibit homosexual behaviour also raises the question of how cultural/social drives, that do not exist in animals, can cause homosexual behaviour in animals. The inference it that cultural/social drives are not necessary for homosexual behaviours to occur, which indicates a genetic root in the behaviours.
List of animals displaying homosexual behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)
Homosexual behavior in animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html)
Homosexual behaviour in animals: an evolutionary perspective (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KXM3F59y1jkC&lpg=PR7&ots=WGTP_lbqVY&dq=homosexual%20animals&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
A few years ago I recall watching a documentary on the Etoro tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro_tribe) who live in Papua New Guinea. This tribes supernatural world view dictates their behaviour.
QuoteThe Etoro, or Edolo, are a tribe and ethnic group of Papua New Guinea. Their territory comprises the southern slopes of Mt. Sisa, along the southern edge of the central mountain range of New Guinea, near the Papuan Plateau. They are well known among anthropologists because of ritual homosexual acts practised between young boys and men of the tribe. The Etoro believe that young boys must ingest the semen of their elders to achieve adult male status and to properly mature and grow strong.
To me this illustrates perfectly how cultural imperatives, based on belief systems and institutionalised superstitions, can lead to behaviours that would be considered abhorrent in other cultures. Although in this case it is debatable whether the terms heterosexual and homosexual could/should be applied to this tribe as they have a unique world view and superstition.
Women in the maternal line of gay males have above average fertility. No such correlation exists with lesbians, however, so I don't know that we can explain them from an evolutionary standpoint, yet. It's just a matter of time, though.
Quote from: OldGit on June 29, 2011, 02:59:33 PM
It's often said that evolution ought to breed out homosexuality if it's entirely inherited. Even if it's only partly heritable, evolution ought to reduce it in the population.
Very few people fall at opposite sides of the spectrum...ie, very few people are totally gay or totally straight. So any genetic factor for homosexuality could be passed along by those who fall somewhere in the middle. Like if we found out there are two genes that make someone totally gay but just either one of those two being present made someone bi; it would be more frequent that people would be bi than fully gay and it would easily get passed along through the breeding bi population.
Not to mention that in social/herd species, such as humans, genes which benefit the group but do not necessarily benefit the individual get passed along. For example, while a gay person may not reproduce they still would care about helping out family members who did reproduce. So by helping out they increase the survival of their siblings offspring; and their genes indirectly get passed on since they are shared (perhaps recessive) in the siblings and their offspring. I suck at explaining this stuff...I think this is explained in the Selfish Gene.
Anyway, much of what I have read tends to point to the hormone bath in the womb as being the most likely reason for variations in sexuality from the accepted norm; but it wouldn't' surprise me if there is a whole other set of genetic combinations that could be a cause too separate from hormone exposure int he womb.
Honestly, I think if our society were not so against homosexuality that more people would be open to considering themselves bi. My reason for thinking this is roman culture...they encouraged homosexuality among men to preserve the virginity of their females so it was the norm (as long as they didn't practice it for life, eventually they were expected to take their female mate). But our society considers homosexuality unmanly so young men are discouraged from exploring it. Yet our society considers female homosexuality attractive so they are encouraged...and they do (girls gone wild etc).
I don't think that homosexuality is 100% genetic. No, I don't think it's a "lifestyle choice" or "unnatural" or any of that B.S. I believe that having a sexual identity is very real, but I would argue that any kind of sexuality, on any scale, is partly a social construct.
Our modern definition of homosexuality is pretty recent, actually. Several hundred years ago, there was no real concept of homosexuality as an actual orientation - yes, there were men who enjoyed sex with other men and women who enjoyed sex with other women, but it wasn't perceived of as an identity the way it is now. It was more of an action that people could perform or a slightly unorthodox "preference".
I think the most recent proponents of queer theory have actually backed off a little on arguing for biological pre-determinism in how we conceptualize sexuality. I think it's a good thing, but I'm a big fan of a sociological perspective on a lot of things, so maybe I'm a little biased :)
Here are two links I posted on Phatmass (the Catholic website)
Is there a homosexuality gene? http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html (http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html)
Could homosexual genes be naturally selected? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/could-homosexual-genes-be-naturally-selected (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/could-homosexual-genes-be-naturally-selected)
I think it's more difficult to distinguish what is culture/nurture and what is nature/genetic, even though no one "gay gene" has been found (the simplifying is just awful).
As homosexuality isn't a unique feature to the human species but the animal kingdom and is well documented (another example article in addition to those Tank posted 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx)) homosexuality may be a natural component of life.
From an evolutionary perspective at one point life branched out from hermaphrodite species that contain both sexual organs such as gastropods, slugs, earthworms, and certain species of fish that had no sexual preference. This could mean that as life evolved into species with distinct genders there may have been an element of the "survival of the fittest" at play, the species that preferred to procreate with both sexes or the opposite sex had a better chance of survival than those that did not. There is the a question of when did sexual preference come into play, I am guessing this came into effect with the evolution of sexual attraction, there may have also been the case that none selective, forced, and tribal reproduction may also have played a role.
There is also the social benefits of homosexuality such as creating stronger bonds between people in the same community as seen in Ancient Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece) or Ancient Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan) so it may have been viewed as a social benefit regardless of reproduction.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 29, 2011, 11:11:12 PM
I don't think that homosexuality is 100% genetic. No, I don't think it's a "lifestyle choice" or "unnatural" or any of that B.S. I believe that having a sexual identity is very real, but I would argue that any kind of sexuality, on any scale, is partly a social construct.
Our modern definition of homosexuality is pretty recent, actually. Several hundred years ago, there was no real concept of homosexuality as an actual orientation - yes, there were men who enjoyed sex with other men and women who enjoyed sex with other women, but it wasn't perceived of as an identity the way it is now. It was more of an action that people could perform or a slightly unorthodox "preference".
I think the most recent proponents of queer theory have actually backed off a little on arguing for biological pre-determinism in how we conceptualize sexuality. I think it's a good thing, but I'm a big fan of a sociological perspective on a lot of things, so maybe I'm a little biased :)
I think that for
some individuals their homosexuality is 100% genetic. I also think that for
some individuals their homosexuality is 100% choice. The proportion of people that exist in these two categories is debatable. But given the genetic evidence in animals and the social evidence in the Etoro these two categories do appear to exist. Thus in any individual the balance of these two factors leads to a spread of behaviours across a spectrum of heterosexual/bi-sexual/homosexual.
Thus sexual orientation is determined at the level of the personal/individual. Classification of an individual into a group is a singularly human activity driven by our evolved pattern seeking/matching brain.
I think it can have both genetic and environmental causes - possibly even toxicological... Or a combination thereof.
Not all gay people are equally gay and there are many different stories and fates and circumstances out there. From personal experience, I have a friend who told me he knew he was gay from prepubescent age - even before he knew what sexuality, love or being gay for that matter was all about. And then there was another guy I knew... He started experimenting with boys as a part of being a responsibly stereotypical emo-kid... He stuck with it, but he doesn't really know what the hell he is in terms of sexuality even now.
Don't know too many lesbians, unfortunately... ( :P )
Quote from: Tank on June 30, 2011, 07:43:33 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 29, 2011, 11:11:12 PM
I don't think that homosexuality is 100% genetic. No, I don't think it's a "lifestyle choice" or "unnatural" or any of that B.S. I believe that having a sexual identity is very real, but I would argue that any kind of sexuality, on any scale, is partly a social construct.
Our modern definition of homosexuality is pretty recent, actually. Several hundred years ago, there was no real concept of homosexuality as an actual orientation - yes, there were men who enjoyed sex with other men and women who enjoyed sex with other women, but it wasn't perceived of as an identity the way it is now. It was more of an action that people could perform or a slightly unorthodox "preference".
I think the most recent proponents of queer theory have actually backed off a little on arguing for biological pre-determinism in how we conceptualize sexuality. I think it's a good thing, but I'm a big fan of a sociological perspective on a lot of things, so maybe I'm a little biased :)
I think that for some individuals their homosexuality is 100% genetic. I also think that for some individuals their homosexuality is 100% choice. The proportion of people that exist in these two categories is debatable. But given the genetic evidence in animals and the social evidence in the Etoro these two categories do appear to exist. Thus in any individual the balance of these two factors leads to a spread of behaviours across a spectrum of heterosexual/bi-sexual/homosexual.
Thus sexual orientation is determined at the level of the personal/individual. Classification of an individual into a group is a singularly human activity driven by our evolved pattern seeking/matching brain.
Yeah, I think I mostly agree, I just find it hard to think that a social label could ever really be applicable 100%. I mean, how do you measure "gayness"? Even if someone identifies as completely gay, does that mean they're "really gay"? Is that all being gay is? Identifying that way? What if someone has all of the genetic components, but doesn't identify that way; say a "reformed gay" who is a member of a religious group and he or she never commits a homosexual act in their life? Are they gay or not? What if I don't have the genetic components, but am drawn to something about the homosexual community and I decide I "want to be gay"? Am I gay if I'm accepted by other gay people? If I'm happy that way, who says I'm not "really gay"?
If someone is born on an island and never meets another human being in their life, can they be gay if they have some of the genetic components that might give them a tendency towards it? I would argue that they can't, personally. I'd argue that they couldn't be heterosexual, either. I think a sexuality NEEDS a certain amount of socialization to exist as a orientation that we would recognize. I agree that the genetics might either exist or not, but I would disagree that the genetics necessarily dictate the social manifestation in a person. I really think there are just too many variables.
I mean, I do agree that there are different "shades" of sexual orientation and genetic influence. I think I just don't like the idea that, if the genes were right, someone would be 100% pre-determined to be 100% homosexual. I just don't think people work that way.
Edit: I should also add that I think the only reason it's so easy for people to identify as "100% heterosexual" is because we live in an extremely hetero-normative culture. From birth, most of us are told that we are definitely, totally, completely straight and there are no other options. Heterosexuality is the default and you fall into that category unless you try to differentiate yourself. I think that's, largely, just as much a social construct as anything else I've argued here.
I am listening to an evolutionary biology class by professor Stephen C Stearns available on open culture. http://www.openculture.com/ He discussed environmentally activated adaptive change, also known as reaction norms. A lot of this goes into statistical analysis, which I'm not too clear on but the overall idea is that individual genes don't produce specific phenotypic expressions but rather genotypes can evolve a plasticity into phenotypic expression that is molded by environmental and developmental influences. To reduce this to its most basic form nature and nature are not mutually exclusive. In many aspects of evolutionary biology phenotypic expression is based on environment and development, not a hardwired expression of the genes. Professor Stearns uses the Cerebral cortex as an example as follows:
"If you were to look into the plasticity of my cerebral cortex, you would discover that it is incredibly plastic. In that when I am a little baby and I'm just born I have billions more connections in my nerve cells then I do when I'm seven years old. A great deal of my mental development between birth and the age of seven has essentially been the remodeling of my cortex by plastic interactions with the environment."
Another interesting excerpt.
"Can we think of macro evolution as having constructed a vase within which the reaction norms sit, and the answer is no. The answer is no because some of the genes that are controlling the shape and the position of the eye spots (referencing butterfly wings) are also involved in determining the slopes and the shapes of the reaction norms. These two things are genetically entangled. And their entanglement is a case of the same gene having two different functions at different times in development. And natural selection will operate on it throughout the life-cycle. So it is not as though there are some things that are constraints that are not being changed and there are other things that are sort of tweaking the constraints a little bit. In fact the same genes are involved in producing both things."
So again this brings up the fact that selection happens at various stages of development, and thus phenotypic expression is a result of both genes and reactions to environment. So just off the top of my head I can imagine that humans have evolved the necessary chemistry in which long lasing pair bonds are forged, but many of our preferences and the things that stimulate those chemicals could be influenced by our development and our environment. This would lead to a tremendous plasticity to our tastes in sexual partners. The phenotypic expression of what we find attractive in a mate could be entangled with what culture tells us is beautiful and or acceptable, our natural drive to reproduce, and the chemistry that forms bonds in our brains.
The discussion seems to be leading to a continuum that can be crudely depicted thus :-
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F266%2Forientationy.jpg&hash=373a7e996de6836918173e3086d6ac1a71772bda)
While there are 4 crude categories it should be noted this matrix is really a juxtaposition of two continuously variable values.
Very interested thread. Following it avidly, even though others have already expressed my opinions so I see no need to repeat them.
I like the chart :)
Slightly off topic, but St Matthew-In-The-City does it again.
I'm starting to like this outfit, they've got balls!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10735885 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10735885)
Quote from: Whitney on June 29, 2011, 06:52:11 PM
But our society considers homosexuality unmanly so young men are discouraged from exploring it. Yet our society considers female homosexuality attractive so they are encouraged...and they do (girls gone wild etc).
I argue that society does not encourage female homosexuality.
I have yet to meet a lesbian who thinks their sexuality as socially encouraged. Most porn depictions of lesbian sex have nothing to do with what lesbians really do or look like, and men faced with an actual sexual encounter between women, in my experience, just feel excluded and threatened.
Female homosexuality is socially unacceptable because it threatens to usurp the gender hierarchy.
Quote from: Willow on July 03, 2011, 11:00:58 PM
Female homosexuality is socially unacceptable because it threatens to usurp the gender hierarchy.
This^
Quote from: Willow on July 03, 2011, 11:00:58 PM
Most porn depictions of lesbian sex have nothing to do with what lesbians really do or look like,
I think heterosexual and homosexual women are portrayed vastly different in porn, yet they are equally as wrong in their depictions as well. I seriously doubt there are model worthy buxom blondes willing to do some of the things they do on film. Not that I've ever seen any...
I am curious though, if lesbian sex isn't as depicted on screen, what is it? Forgive my ignorance, but how different could it be besides they obvious differences found in
all pornography?
Quote from: Willow on July 03, 2011, 11:00:58 PM
Quote from: Whitney on June 29, 2011, 06:52:11 PM
But our society considers homosexuality unmanly so young men are discouraged from exploring it. Yet our society considers female homosexuality attractive so they are encouraged...and they do (girls gone wild etc).
I argue that society does not encourage female homosexuality.
I have yet to meet a lesbian who thinks their sexuality as socially encouraged. Most porn depictions of lesbian sex have nothing to do with what lesbians really do or look like, and men faced with an actual sexual encounter between women, in my experience, just feel excluded and threatened.
Female homosexuality is socially unacceptable because it threatens to usurp the gender hierarchy.
I agree with Willow. As someone who is a lesbian, it's extremely offensive to say pornography and girls gone wild promotes female homosexuality. It does the opposite; it hurts our credibility. A lot of people don't take lesbians seriously, and even rudely say it is a phase. Sadly, a lot of girls will do "lesbian" things such as do a threesome with their boyfriend and a female to "turn on" their boyfriend. I am only sexually attractive to females and the thought of sex with a man really disturbs me. I actually envy the fact that people take gay men very seriously, but gay women kind of get pushed aside or laughed at....
It can be extremely hurtful. I've actually had a guy say to me that he can make a lesbian "straight again" if they slept with him. I've had people not take me seriously, even though I have been happily with my girlfriend for three years.
So anyone who supports any fake lesbian media like GGW pisses me off.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 04, 2011, 04:32:56 AM
It can be extremely hurtful. I've actually had a guy say to me that he can make a lesbian "straight again" if they slept with him.
Sounds like Banky from
Chasing Amy.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 04, 2011, 04:32:56 AMI've had people not take me seriously, even though I have been happily with my girlfriend for three years.
I enjoy strong progressive female politicians putting conservative idiots in their place.
This is Penny Wong, she is very cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHeDD9tnFw4
I hope things are getting better, I don't think an openly gay female would have been elected twenty years ago, though dark age throwbacks haven't gone away.
Quote from: hismikeness on July 04, 2011, 05:21:10 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 04, 2011, 04:32:56 AM
It can be extremely hurtful. I've actually had a guy say to me that he can make a lesbian "straight again" if they slept with him.
Sounds like Banky from Chasing Amy.
What is that? A t.v show? o_o
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 04, 2011, 08:34:08 AM
Quote from: hismikeness on July 04, 2011, 05:21:10 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 04, 2011, 04:32:56 AM
It can be extremely hurtful. I've actually had a guy say to me that he can make a lesbian "straight again" if they slept with him.
Sounds like Banky from Chasing Amy.
What is that? A t.v show? o_o
It's a movie.
Well, i've never heard of it, and believe it or not, some guys think a lesbian is just a girl who hasn't slept with the "right" guy.
My uncle thinks that way as well.
It's ridiculous.
And guys have hit on me, asking for my numver, even afrer I say "i'm not into men..." Or "i have a girlfriend."
Seriously, this is like , me trying to refill metro card at the metro/subway. ~__~
So, i'm actually not sure sure why you brought up some movie. Do ypu think i'm making this b.s up? This is my life. I don't lie about my crappy encounters in life.
Banky as I saw him, was the character used to represent the common misrepresentations as a way for the other characters to show how wrong those common misconceptions are using witty pop culture infused dialog. So I don't think hismikeness was intending to discredit you especially not through a movie reference, but to make reference to a character that represents the nexus of bad information and strongly held opinion.
At least that's how I took his reference to Banky from Chasing Amy.
When I was younger I had a friend who was a lesbian, I know the encounters you've talked about do happen and can vary from humorous to frustrating. I always find people not getting something very clearly put to them as frustrating especially when the assumption is that they know me better than I know myself (after just meeting me).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu
This is an interesting article kind of short. It's about a tipping point in sexual success based on feminized female traits in men. I find many flaws in this reasoning. The article states that more sensitive and attractive men will have more partners and be better fathers. However, I know plenty of women who don't prefer feminine looking men. I also know of at least a few pretty good looking men, that are terrible fathers. It's an interesting read just in that it reminds us of how far science has to go to explain complex evolutionary phenotypic expressions like sexual preference. It's also interesting that it is an article in Psychology today showing the growing trend for all scientific disciplines to converge on natural selection and evolution as a means of gaining deeper insight into the most complex of human behaviors.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.full.pdf
This is another interesting yet a bit older study on homosexuality and family. The odd thing to me is that there is no empirical way as of yet to determine if someone is gay. Can people be intellectually gay but not biologically gay, an entanglement of the two or neither? I think that without being able to securely determine the participants sexual preference with testable evidence the study loses some credibility. I am interested in the notion that homosexuality could be a genetic fail-safe for population control and some of the findings in this report speak to that. Things like increased likelihood of homosexuality with each successive son in maternal lines of pedigree. But I'm still not convinced. What is convincing though are all the links being made to the heredity and possible chromosomal transmission of homosexuality. There may not be a "gay" gene, but evidence is clearly supporting the notion that homosexuality is not implicitly a choice.
I don't think it actually matters, whether it is nature or nurture.
From a scientific standpoint it could be interesting to know.
But from a viewpoint of acceptance it doesn't matter. People don't need my permission with regards to whom they fall in love with or whom they have sex with.
Quote from: Davin on July 05, 2011, 07:30:22 AM
I don't think hismikeness was intending to discredit you especially not through a movie reference, but to make reference to a character that represents the nexus of bad information and strongly held opinion.
Davin- nailed it. That is exactly why I referenced Banky.
Sweetdeath, please believe that I was in no way trying to insult you, call you a liar, or accusing you af anything. If it came off that way I apologize. In hindsight, it may have not been the right kind of thread to reference that character as he was indeed very anti-lesbian (Banky, I mean). The movie is about a guy who falls for a girl, discovers she's gay, and decides to try and win her over and "turn" her straight. I assumed it to be popular enough that perhaps you'd seen it, or at least heard of it. If you like any Kevin Smith movies (Mallrats, Dogma, anything with Jay and Silent Bob) you'd know most of his characters are over the top stereotypes, and Banky is no exception.
Anyway, he says a line about gay women that is analogous to what you wrote before I mentioned the character.
I wasn't meaning to be a prick, if I came off that way.
Also, what is o_o and ~_~? are these emoticons?
Quote from: Twentythree on July 05, 2011, 06:06:44 PM
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu
This is an interesting article kind of short. It's about a tipping point in sexual success based on feminized female traits in men. I find many flaws in this reasoning. The article states that more sensitive and attractive men will have more partners and be better fathers. However, I know plenty of women who don't prefer feminine looking men. I also know of at least a few pretty good looking men, that are terrible fathers. It's an interesting read just in that it reminds us of how far science has to go to explain complex evolutionary phenotypic expressions like sexual preference. It's also interesting that it is an article in Psychology today showing the growing trend for all scientific disciplines to converge on natural selection and evolution as a means of gaining deeper insight into the most complex of human behaviors.
I'm speculating here but I think that's exactly it. Sensitive and empathic men are seen as more likely to be good fathers and mates, though I think it falls within the broader spectrum of traits which might be seen as what makes either good fathers, good mates or good protectors (I think a preference for less empathetic and even violent men falls here).
Quote from: Crow on June 30, 2011, 01:41:29 AM
As homosexuality isn't a unique feature to the human species but the animal kingdom and is well documented (another example article in addition to those Tank posted 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx)) homosexuality may be a natural component of life.
From an evolutionary perspective at one point life branched out from hermaphrodite species that contain both sexual organs such as gastropods, slugs, earthworms, and certain species of fish that had no sexual preference. This could mean that as life evolved into species with distinct genders there may have been an element of the "survival of the fittest" at play, the species that preferred to procreate with both sexes or the opposite sex had a better chance of survival than those that did not. There is the a question of when did sexual preference come into play, I am guessing this came into effect with the evolution of sexual attraction, there may have also been the case that none selective, forced, and tribal reproduction may also have played a role.
There is also the social benefits of homosexuality such as creating stronger bonds between people in the same community as seen in Ancient Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece) or Ancient Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan) so it may have been viewed as a social benefit regardless of reproduction.
I think you are exactly right. When men and women realize that we are all "bisexual" creatures, then we can truly live in harmony with eachother. It is just another hole that humanity has dug itself into in dealing with societal ideology. Men have nipples and women have very small penises. One might say that another million years of evolution could turn us asexual.
Quote from: hismikeness on July 05, 2011, 11:35:58 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 05, 2011, 07:30:22 AM
I don't think hismikeness was intending to discredit you especially not through a movie reference, but to make reference to a character that represents the nexus of bad information and strongly held opinion.
Davin- nailed it. That is exactly why I referenced Banky.
Sweetdeath, please believe that I was in no way trying to insult you, call you a liar, or accusing you af anything. If it came off that way I apologize. In hindsight, it may have not been the right kind of thread to reference that character as he was indeed very anti-lesbian (Banky, I mean). The movie is about a guy who falls for a girl, discovers she's gay, and decides to try and win her over and "turn" her straight. I assumed it to be popular enough that perhaps you'd seen it, or at least heard of it. If you like any Kevin Smith movies (Mallrats, Dogma, anything with Jay and Silent Bob) you'd know most of his characters are over the top stereotypes, and Banky is no exception.
Anyway, he says a line about gay women that is analogous to what you wrote before I mentioned the character.
I wasn't meaning to be a prick, if I came off that way.
Also, what is o_o and ~_~? are these emoticons?
Oooh, okay :D that is no problem. I didn't think you were calling me a liar in any way, I was just confused as to what you were referring to.
I don't watch a lot of movies. I'm more of a book and video game person. But I do appreciate the clarity.
Yes, I emote a lot as well. X3 <3
@leedan:
Seriously... If we were just all stop judging people by their sexual organs, it would be nice.
Another thought has been bubbling up while reading this thread. Does having homosexual sexual activity make one homosexual? I would contend that it does not, simply because in extremis (e.g. sailors on long voyages) some men will resort to each other for relief. However would it only be the sailors with homosexual tendencies that would resort to mutual relief? Don't know, still a formative thought.
I would also be wary of a statement that 'all people are bisexual', because in a very large variable population (in the statistical sense) there would likely by members at the extremes. I would contend there will be people who are 100% heterosexual who have no sexual desires towards members of their own gender.
Is there such a thing as emotional sexual alignment that is not expressed along side a corresponding physical sexual alignment? This is the 'When Harry met Sally' question, although in that film the relationship is heterosexual. Can a person romantically 'love' another person without wishing to express that feeling physically?
These are questions that have been suppressed by theism. But as theism is the codification of a society's institutionalised superstition are the homophobic attitudes in the Abrahamic religions just a reflection of ancient societies attitudes brought about by their ignorance and tribalism?
Aw, Tank, I love that you are here. :D
I suppose homosexuality to me is defined by a strong sexual attraction to the same sex. You are aroused by them, want to be with them, etc.
I agree just having sex with the same sex doesn't make you gay. Ie: pirates on long voyages had sex. Also, monks if tibet are allowed to have sex with each other. Not to mention, my favorites of the Sengoku period of Japan, big time General Nobunaga Oda had a famous page named Ranmaru Mori, whom he engaged in sexual intercourse with, despite having a wife and son.
So yes, it has to be the want and sexual desire of same gender. At least that is how I see it. <3 ^___^
Maybe people are more inclined to bisexual tendencies than they like to admit. We can all distinguish who is attractive male or female, even though we may not find them to be sexually desirable. This also works on the side that people are more inclined towards, for instance I can think of many occasions where I would say the female is attractive but sexually they do nothing for me.
I read this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/08/relationships.healthandwellbeing) article a few years ago about asexuality and thought it was quite apt to the discussion.
I know a guy who came out as gay and then realized that he's sexually attracted to men but romantically attracted to women.
As in, he wants to have sex with men, but when he imagines getting married/buying a house/settling down, he wants to do that with a woman.
so I'm not really sure where that would fall on the "spectrum"
@DeterminedJuliet:
That is an interesting tale. Though it sounds as if it may be more social pressure than sexuality for this person.
I dislike the term "settling down." It makes someome seem as if they have given up on life. :<
I'm 31 and I am "settling down". I am not "giving up on life", but I am realizing that I don't want to live like a 19-25 year old anymore. When I look at myself at a younger age I realize what an asshole I was. I was overly opinionated, pompous, and rude. I didn't take care of myself well. My relationships were shallow and circumstantial. Now that I'm entering my 30's I realize that I have so much more that I want to accomplish like being a father, a professional, I seek knowledge with more of an acute passion and have a stronger sense of my responsibility to humanity and the planet in general. I think settling down for me means allowing myself to live and thrive with a broader sense of purpose and a greater importance on long term goals. I have lost the need and the desire for the instant gratification and escapism that punctuated my early adulthood. I don't know, that is just how I define it. But of course I am defining it through my eyes as they see now I would have had a much different take on this 10 years ago. I am defiantly not giving up on life, just redefining my priorities. Just my 2 pennies, sorry for going a bit off topic here.
Please note the quotation in this posts has been added for continuity as post with the title Re: Can culture/ideology turn a good person bad or visa versa? have been moved from a different thread.
Quote from: fester30 on July 26, 2011, 11:50:08 AM
I think there's an argument that as much influence as nature and nurture have on an individual, sometimes shit happens despite nature and nurture. Sociopaths and psychopaths happen in good societies. Are these bad people? They don't necessarily think so. Their view of good/bad is skewed to their own emotional deficiencies. These sorts of things happen in the animal kingdom as well. My experience that taught me that homosexuality was both normal and morally acceptable was watching the animal channel. There was a program on elephants. There was one young bull elephant that seemed to have a psychological disorder. He displayed odd behavior that was at times even dangerous to the herd, and did not display the ability to learn from the discipline of the herd. He was kicked out of the herd. As an adult, he tried mounting females AND males from herds he happened upon, and killed a couple elephants in what the show's narrator called cold blood. This taught me that animals have many of the same mental illnesses humans have.
Now before anybody gets mad, I'm not saying homosexuality is a mental illness... it isn't. The American Psychological Association is VERY clear on this. My degree is in social psychology, and I definitely agree with the APA. What I'm saying is that when I saw animals have mental illnesses, it made me wonder what else animals and humans have in common that would surprise me. Suicide, homosexuality, and recreational sex also surprised me. When I saw that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, and that the other animals don't rebel against and kill the homosexual animals, I realized that the human species is really the only one that considers homosexuality abnormal.
Anyway, tangents aside, I don't think there's any rule about nature vs. nurture that you also can't find many exceptions to.
Yeah but is homosexuality as common in animals as it is with people? I don't think it is.
Quote from: Abletony on July 26, 2011, 11:53:35 AM
Yeah but is homosexuality as common in animals as it is with people? I don't think it is.
It's not. In fact it's rare in most species. However, any species sufficiently advanced enough on the evolutionary ladder to have recreational sex has much higher levels of homosexuality than others. Bonobos, chimps, and dolphins all have recreational sex, including same sex intercourse. I think of it this way. If sex isn't any fun then you're probably only going to do it when you're trying to reproduce. If it is fun, you're probably going to try to stick your member in any number of things, or stick any number of things in your member. To me, homosexuality is just as natural as masturbation. Homophobic guys seem to think the act is gross but then will have anal sex with their girlfriends. BONKERS!
I hardly think there's anything wrong with a straight man considering a man putting his dick in another man's ass disgusting. It's all about personal taste. I say let them do what they like, but I personally find the thought rather yuk.
Quote from: Tank on July 26, 2011, 06:08:21 PM
Do you think we could cut the homosexuality discussion on this thread please, it's a derail and not what this thread is about.
Thanks
Chris
Agreed. And let's stop borderline bashing, abletony. Keep your opinions on homosexuals to yourself please, as it seems you may have issues with them. This is suppose to be a civl board. :(
((Aw, I like dolphins and their silly horny selves. xD))
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 26, 2011, 06:57:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 26, 2011, 06:08:21 PM
Do you think we could cut the homosexuality discussion on this thread please, it's a derail and not what this thread is about.
Thanks
Chris
Agreed. And let's stop borderline bashing, abletony. Keep your opinions on homosexuals to yourself please, as it seems you may have issues with them. This is suppose to be a civl board. :(
((Aw, I like dolphins and their silly horny selves. xD))
:-\
Did you know Dolphins like to school the males together and go and have rape raids on the female dolphins?
No, I did not. What a buncha jerks. X__x but straying away from that depressing topic, i'm gonna stop posting because i'm also too off topic.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 26, 2011, 06:57:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 26, 2011, 06:08:21 PM
Do you think we could cut the homosexuality discussion on this thread please, it's a derail and not what this thread is about.
Thanks
Chris
Agreed. And let's stop borderline bashing, abletony. Keep your opinions on homosexuals to yourself please, as it seems you may have issues with them. This is suppose to be a civl board. :(
((Aw, I like dolphins and their silly horny selves. xD))
Sweetdeath, my brother is gay, at college I had a friend who was gay and everyone took the piss and I defended him and when he went to a gay pub for the first time I went with him to keep him company, and I think gay folk can be the nicest people you can know, so don't you start judging me based on a comment which you have so obviously misconstrued. Yes I find gay sex pretty disgusting but I'm not gay and that's not my style. But that's my personal opinion, based on taste and aesthetics. I don't have to like gay sex to like gay people. I don't judge people on what they do but that doesn't mean I have to want to join in. So get off your high horse and quit being so superficial. What gay people do in bed has nothing to do with their character, which is why I can have an opinion on one which has no bearing on the other. It's called being an adult.
Bump for noobs
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 29, 2011, 11:11:12 PM
I don't think that homosexuality is 100% genetic. No, I don't think it's a "lifestyle choice" or "unnatural" or any of that B.S. I believe that having a sexual identity is very real, but I would argue that any kind of sexuality, on any scale, is partly a social construct.
This is sort of how I see it. There may be genetic traits that make it more likely that a person will develop a homosexual orientation, but environmental factors may nudge it one way or the other.
But if a person has a genetic trait with regards to eating toast rather than bread, does it actually make any difference if they decide to eat bread in conflict of their genetic traits? Does that make it immoral of them to eat bread?
Quote from: Tank on June 29, 2011, 12:29:23 PM
The roots of an individual's behaviour are generally considered to be a balance between 'nature' (genetic and/or prenatal disposition) and 'nurture' (learned/cultural disposition). So an individual's sexuality could be hard coded and/or learned and anywhere between those two extremes of 100% nature to 100% nurture. Given the complexity of the human genome I would consider it practically impossible that a person with homosexual preferences could not come about through natural variations/mutations. I am also reasonably sure that social and cultural influences can be so strong that a persons sexual preferences could be influenced by there surroundings, upbringing and peer pressure during their sexually formative years.
I would definitely agree that sexuality is created by a mixture of nature and nurture. Since I've got one aunt, one first cousin and two 2nd cousins that are gay (and that's that I know of), so it's easy for me to see sexuality having a genetic component. The inclination, or disinclination, to act on otherwise taboo desires would be the nuture side of it -- the influence of society in general, and of your own formative experiences growing up.
I've never been really sure that natural selection would get a chance to play that big a role in eliminating any gay gene(s) that may exist. Most of the animals (and I'm including humans) who engage in homosexual behavior also engage in heterosexual behavior; I don't have any research but I'd be willing to bet that any type of exclusive sexuality is very rare.
Up until very recently most people married for either social or financial reasons and had kids at least for the sake of someone to take care of them in their old age (I'm sure there were other reasons too, but that was a big one) and what gender they preferred to have sex with was never a consideration, unless they took a lover. Plenty of oppurtunities for a gay gene to be passed along in humans.
A funny clip from a documentary on homosexuality. Looks at the science behind homosexuality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrk1boI93SI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Can People Stop Being Gay? (http://news.yahoo.com/people-stop-being-gay-135019403.html)
QuoteIt is currently unknown whether some combination of Pavlovian conditioning, learning processes and even hormone therapies could enable truly motivated individuals with a same-sex predisposition to adapt to heterosexual lifestyles, whether for religious, cultural or personal reasons. But considering that very few scientists view homosexuality as a problem needing fixing, will these clinical reorientation therapies ever be developed? As Beckstead noted, "Our best efforts may not be in trying to change possibly immutable aspects of sexuality but in trying to reduce the misunderstanding, discrimination, and hostility that exist within non-heterosexuals and their social situations."
I think we'll be closer to equality as a society with respect to homosexuality when we stop arguing about whether someone is born that way or if it's a choice. Calling it a choice is currently an excuse to call it sinful and bash homosexual lifestyle as willfully against god's will. I'm not an expert on anything, but it does seem to me that at times homosexuality is a choice. There was a study recently that showed a high rate of sexual fluidity among women. Perhaps they were born both ways. Maybe every time they engage in sex they make a choice... will it be a girl or a guy tonight... or both perhaps? Some of the women in the study changed their sexual orientation more than once in the ten years.
I think the debate of nature vs. nurture concerning homosexuality is a fine one from a scientific or psychological point of view. However, I hope someday it won't matter whether it's a choice or not. If it's not a choice, great, go enjoy loving and being loved. If you CHOOSE to be gay... great... go enjoy loving and being loved. What the hell does it matter? When we as a society get to that point we'll have taken the huge step that I think is necessary for equal rights to happen.
Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):5-14.
Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: results from a 10-year longitudinal study.
Diamond LM.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194000 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194000)
I really think it won't be much of an issue in another generation. Young people today just don't think that much about it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
I really think it won't be much of an issue in another generation. Young people today just don't think that much about it.
Old age is a poor excuse for intolerance, bigotry and a whole mess of other personal crap issues.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
I really think it won't be much of an issue in another generation. Young people today just don't think that much about it.
Old age is a poor excuse for intolerance, bigotry and a whole mess of other personal crap issues.
I wasn't offering it as an excuse. I was simply observing that this issue is not as big a deal among the younger generation.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
I really think it won't be much of an issue in another generation. Young people today just don't think that much about it.
Old age is a poor excuse for intolerance, bigotry and a whole mess of other personal crap issues.
I wasn't offering it as an excuse. I was simply observing that this issue is not as big a deal among the younger generation.
My three kids 27, 25 & 25 have no issues whatsoever with gender alignment; for the majority of people at or below that age in the UK it's a non-event.
Quote from: Tank on June 21, 2012, 07:44:44 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
I really think it won't be much of an issue in another generation. Young people today just don't think that much about it.
Old age is a poor excuse for intolerance, bigotry and a whole mess of other personal crap issues.
I wasn't offering it as an excuse. I was simply observing that this issue is not as big a deal among the younger generation.
My three kids 27, 25 & 25 have no issues whatsoever with gender alignment; for the majority of people at or below that age in the UK it's a non-event.
Agreed. I don't know anyone here in the US around my age (31) or younger that gives a flying flip about someone else's sexual orientation. Even the Christian young adults that I know are like "If it's a sin, that's between them and god and none of my concern." Which is an acceptable position IMO. Once the old bigots are gone, I doubt there will be many people left to teach kids that homosexuality is a Big Deal. I think that in a couple of generations, people will probbably look back on the old laws against gay marriage and be horrified, like we currently feel when we look back on the old laws against white and black people getting married. That makes me happy.
Quote from: Tank on June 21, 2012, 07:44:44 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 21, 2012, 06:45:21 PM
I really think it won't be much of an issue in another generation. Young people today just don't think that much about it.
Old age is a poor excuse for intolerance, bigotry and a whole mess of other personal crap issues.
I wasn't offering it as an excuse. I was simply observing that this issue is not as big a deal among the younger generation.
My three kids 27, 25 & 25 have no issues whatsoever with gender alignment; for the majority of people at or below that age in the UK it's a non-event.
It is a good argument for the whole life and death cycle. Out with the old ideas, in with the new.
When we get to a certain age we seem to get stuck in a way of thinking.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbobcargill.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2F535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg&hash=3d93a64b3df94ddb9a578ad4c60184da13f2bd15)
Not so long ago, the whole debate over whether black people could marry white people was raging, and people were vehemently opposed to it. The protesters against gay marriage and gay people in general really do look just that silly, at least to me.
Once the current generation (early 30s and under) starts to get older, I think the next big issue coming up will be either plural marriage (more than 2 people in the marriage) or possibly transgender issues - although prettymuch anyone I know close to my age (late 20s) has no issue with gay marriage, the jury's still out for a lot of people my age on trans issues. The issues aren't understood very well, as not too many people know anyone who is trans.
But anyhow, I'm perfectly happy that within a generation or so, gay relationships/marriage etc won't probably be an issue. It shouldn't be. As for whether it's a choice or a predisposition... again, shouldn't be an issue. Many of us are somewhere on a fluid, sliding scale, not being absolutely gay or absolutely straight. I'm not 100% one way or the other, although I lean further to one side for sure. It's just a matter of diversity, I think. I also think such categories are really too narrowly defined.
It would be nice when that line is gone, and biggots stop viewing heterosexuals as the only normal.
Quote from: Amicale on June 21, 2012, 10:35:11 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbobcargill.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2F535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg&hash=3d93a64b3df94ddb9a578ad4c60184da13f2bd15)
Not so long ago, the whole debate over whether black people could marry white people was raging, and people were vehemently opposed to it. The protesters against gay marriage and gay people in general really do look just that silly, at least to me.
Once the current generation (early 30s and under) starts to get older, I think the next big issue coming up will be either plural marriage (more than 2 people in the marriage) or possibly transgender issues - although prettymuch anyone I know close to my age (late 20s) has no issue with gay marriage, the jury's still out for a lot of people my age on trans issues. The issues aren't understood very well, as not too many people know anyone who is trans.
But anyhow, I'm perfectly happy that within a generation or so, gay relationships/marriage etc won't probably be an issue. It shouldn't be. As for whether it's a choice or a predisposition... again, shouldn't be an issue. Many of us are somewhere on a fluid, sliding scale, not being absolutely gay or absolutely straight. I'm not 100% one way or the other, although I lean further to one side for sure. It's just a matter of diversity, I think. I also think such categories are really too narrowly defined.
I am also happy people my age (26)could care less about sexual orientation.
I'm really glad to see that homophobia is on the decline. It also confuses me to no end. How can the US simultaneously become more religious, with more evangelical influence in the political sphere, and yet such a large increase in acceptable of homosexuality? It doesn't seem to add up.
Quote from: Firebird on June 22, 2012, 04:25:26 AM
I'm really glad to see that homophobia is on the decline. It also confuses me to no end. How can the US simultaneously become more religious, with more evangelical influence in the political sphere, and yet such a large increase in acceptable of homosexuality? It doesn't seem to add up.
We have more rural areas in states like Utah and Ohio that care about politics and religion, so they keep voting in the arseholes? ;_;. i dunno... I'm hoping shit will change soon.
I did meet a woman from Estonia today. It felt amazing to meet someone from the least religious country in the world. *___*
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 21, 2012, 10:41:32 PM
I am also happy people my age (26)could care less about sexual orientation.
I think you may have forgotten the 'nt behind could. What you DID say is that 26 year olds could, in fact, care less about sexual orientation and that you are happy about it :P
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 10:17:02 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 21, 2012, 10:41:32 PM
I am also happy people my age (26)could care less about sexual orientation.
I think you may have forgotten the 'nt behind could. What you DID say is that 26 year olds could, in fact, care less about sexual orientation and that you are happy about it :P
Seems my grammatical errors extend to my laptop. Curses!!
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 23, 2012, 05:37:18 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 10:17:02 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 21, 2012, 10:41:32 PM
I am also happy people my age (26)could care less about sexual orientation.
I think you may have forgotten the 'nt behind could. What you DID say is that 26 year olds could, in fact, care less about sexual orientation and that you are happy about it :P
Seems my grammatical errors extend to my laptop. Curses!!
Not really, that's a very common saying here, even if it technically means the opposite of what the person means. Just one of those things that's permeated the language.
Quote from: Firebird on June 22, 2012, 04:25:26 AM
I'm really glad to see that homophobia is on the decline. It also confuses me to no end. How can the US simultaneously become more religious, with more evangelical influence in the political sphere, and yet such a large increase in acceptable of homosexuality? It doesn't seem to add up.
The US is not becoming more religious. Some of the religious are becoming more vocal, as the society is becoming more polarized. There is actually a decline in faith/religion.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 23, 2012, 11:17:22 PM
Quote from: Firebird on June 22, 2012, 04:25:26 AM
I'm really glad to see that homophobia is on the decline. It also confuses me to no end. How can the US simultaneously become more religious, with more evangelical influence in the political sphere, and yet such a large increase in acceptable of homosexuality? It doesn't seem to add up.
The US is not becoming more religious. Some of the religious are becoming more vocal, as the society is becoming more polarized. There is actually a decline in faith/religion.
statistics?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Ffriendlyatheist%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F03%2Fnoreligion.jpg&hash=0c69252fe6997307ee51bb03923d3bb0a41b70e5)
Non-religious population up in every US state according to the 2008 "Aris study".
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 23, 2012, 11:17:22 PM
Quote from: Firebird on June 22, 2012, 04:25:26 AM
I'm really glad to see that homophobia is on the decline. It also confuses me to no end. How can the US simultaneously become more religious, with more evangelical influence in the political sphere, and yet such a large increase in acceptable of homosexuality? It doesn't seem to add up.
The US is not becoming more religious. Some of the religious are becoming more vocal, as the society is becoming more polarized. There is actually a decline in faith/religion.
Very interesting. This was my hypothesis back in 2006 when I joined RDF that as Religions are marginalised they become more 'concentrated' in terms of unflinching believers.
Quote from: Guardian85 on June 24, 2012, 07:44:07 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Ffriendlyatheist%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F03%2Fnoreligion.jpg&hash=0c69252fe6997307ee51bb03923d3bb0a41b70e5)
Non-religious population up in every US state according to the 2008 "Aris study".
Interesting. I stand happily corrected in that case.
Quote from: Firebird on June 24, 2012, 09:37:17 PM
Interesting. I stand happily corrected in that case.
I'm not that happy. My state, hedonistic Sodom that is CA, is still on the low end of the scale. Liberal state, my ass.
Is it just me, or is Delaware sporting the "South" color? Or is number three from the left some other place?
Correct me if my geography is even more rusty than I thought, but is it not somewhere North-like, around Pensylvannia?
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
Is it just me, or is Delaware sporting the "South" color? Or is number three from the left some other place?
Correct me if my geography is even more rusty than I thought, but is it not somewhere North-like, around Pensylvannia?
You are correct, it is south of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, east of Maryland. I would not have classified it as a southern state either, and am surprised they did.
Seeing Wyoming so high on the list was surprising too.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Ffriendlyatheist%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F03%2Fnoreligion.jpg&hash=0c69252fe6997307ee51bb03923d3bb0a41b70e5)
The graphic is showing the
amount of change in the period under consideration, so some states that may have already been higher in respondents who claimed "No Religion" in 1990 wouldn't necessarily show up in the higher numbers. Even with not as much change, those states would still be less religious overall.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Ffriendlyatheist%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F01%2Fmap.jpg&hash=a76e773298676e55f5bd5335d31047e71f203be8)
As can be seen from the above representation of recent Gallup poll data, some of the states with low numbers in the "change" graphic were apparently less religious to start with.
Quote from: Firebird on June 25, 2012, 03:51:02 AM
Seeing Wyoming so high on the list was surprising too.
Don't forget that's a graph in change of percentage of the "no religion" category. Therefore it still may be very low down in terms of total percentage but has changed a lot from the prior survey. For example in total it might be 20% but the change from point A to point B was 14%. Whereas California might have a total of 60% (just an example not a real figure) but only went up from 56% on the last survey.
[edit] FFS I need to read the posts between the person I am replying to.
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2012, 04:29:37 AM
The graphic is showing the amount of change in the period under consideration, so some states that may have already been higher in respondents who claimed "No Religion" in 1990 wouldn't necessarily show up in the higher numbers. Even with not as much change, those states would still be less religious overall.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Ffriendlyatheist%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F01%2Fmap.jpg&hash=a76e773298676e55f5bd5335d31047e71f203be8)
As can be seen from the above representation of recent Gallup poll data, some of the states with low numbers in the "change" graphic were apparently less religious to start with.
I would love to see a map of concentrations of NASCAR fans and see how well it matches up with this map.
Alaska is not religious?? Isn't that where that loon Sarah Palin is from?
Also, surprised California is still religious, but i am guessing that is from all the mexicans migrating up there. ::)
I'm doing my cocked head raised eyebrows smiling politely face right now. Only, the smile isn't all that polite.
It's weird that in a thread where we all acknowledge that it's not cool to be all judgy and mean towards one minority group, it's still cool to denigrate another minority group.
Quote from: Ali on June 25, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
I'm doing my cocked head raised eyebrows smiling politely face right now. Only, the smile isn't all that polite.
It's weird that in a thread where we all acknowledge that it's not cool to be all judgy and mean towards one minority group, it's still cool to denigrate another minority group.
I am reliably informed that the vast majority of Mexicans are cannibals.
LOL (insert "bite me" joke here.)
Quote from: En_Route on June 25, 2012, 07:05:20 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 25, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
I'm doing my cocked head raised eyebrows smiling politely face right now. Only, the smile isn't all that polite.
It's weird that in a thread where we all acknowledge that it's not cool to be all judgy and mean towards one minority group, it's still cool to denigrate another minority group.
I am reliably informed that the vast majority of Mexicans are cannibals.
I was wondering what was in that taco. But seriously, California (at least many parts of it) has been conservative and religious for a long time and that has more to do with the number of Baptists than the number of Mexicans.
California was religious enough to vote against gay marriage.
Quote from: Ali on June 25, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
I'm doing my cocked head raised eyebrows smiling politely face right now. Only, the smile isn't all that polite.
It's weird that in a thread where we all acknowledge that it's not cool to be all judgy and mean towards one minority group, it's still cool to denigrate another minority group.
( x2 )
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 25, 2012, 04:58:48 PM
but i am guessing that is from all the mexicans migrating up there. ::)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F091%2F284%2Feso_es_racista.gif&hash=19c7438d108749ca9cbd1d8ea3d6cb694558efa5)
^^That made me laugh. I'm thinking about growing a mustache like that.
Quote from: fester30 on June 25, 2012, 08:00:43 PM
California was religious enough to vote against gay marriage.
the law went through, but was vetoed or something, correct?
Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010, but it is still being fought in the courts. I think that the most recent decision was by a 3 judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the 2010 ruling. The latest I've heard is that it's likely to make it to the Supreme Court of the US (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/california-prop-8-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/).
In a very interesting development, one of the main witnesses in favor of Prop. 8 in the trial has reversed his position and has now come out in favor of same sex marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=2).
For some reason, I think homosexuality can be naturally repressed.. and I know that sounds crazy but here's my story.
I'm bi with heavy leanings towards women. I was pretty much straight up until I turned 15 (I'm 23 now) and found out that, yes, two girls can be together. It's not that I was against it.. I have a Christian family, sadly.. but it was never brought up so I literally didn't know that existed- in my mind. I don't know how to explain my brain but when I found out about lesbians.. it was like a door opening. It was like, "Oh, wow. Something to wrap my head around." and it turns out, later on, I really liked it. I mean.. I was probably aware that it was there. I was drug to church on Sundays so that's probably something they had issues with a lot..
BUT, I believe there were things repressing this. I had something happen to me when I was little and it never affected me until later in life- when I hit puberty. Guys were ok up until a few years, after puberty and learning about everything plus dating, when my brain decided to remind me of past events. Now it's all I can think about and I somewhat fear guys. It doesn't help that my mother is bat-shi* paranoid and thinks that looking at someone funny will get you killed.
So.. if any of that makes sense.. I think your brain can repress homosexuality naturally. Either that.. or my brain turns my fear of men towards me liking women more.
Quote from: Ali on June 25, 2012, 10:16:46 PM
^^That made me laugh. I'm thinking about growing a mustache like that.
Don't forget your sombrero, tequilla, tacos and chilli. Wait a minute... I like tequila, tacos and chilli :o
Edit, Re: Java. I don't know that I'd call what you're describing as "natural", but I do think that there are a whole host of social and personal pressures and influences that can very strongly effect how a person experiences their sexuality. :)
Comedian Ron White says that straight men are gay, too. His "proof" is that when straights watch porn, they don't want to see a guy with a small penis having sex with a woman - they want to see a guy with big one. He said it a little more graphically, of course, while sipping his Scotch and smoking his cigarette.
Maybe that's more wishful thinking than attraction?
This is relevant: apparently Kraft released a "gay oreo" ad publicly supporting gay rights and it created a shit-storm on facebook.
Here's a couple of related links.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/26/pride-oreo/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/26/pride-oreo/)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie][url]http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie (http://[url)[/url]
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 26, 2012, 07:40:44 PM
This is relevant: apparently Kraft released a "gay oreo" ad publicly supporting gay rights and it created a shit-storm on facebook.
Here's a couple of related links.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/26/pride-oreo/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/26/pride-oreo/)
[url]http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie]http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie][url]http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie (http://[url=http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie)[/url]
Ugh, i just saw this an hour ago on my fb.
How fucking ridiulous can people be? Why butt your opinion into other people's lives if it isnt harmful? ::)
Quote from: OldGit on June 26, 2012, 04:25:46 PM
Maybe that's more wishful thinking than attraction?
That's what I think.
Quote from: Recusant on June 26, 2012, 06:51:12 AM
In a very interesting development, one of the main witnesses in favor of Prop. 8 in the trial has reversed his position and has now come out in favor of same sex marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=2).
He has certainly got some weird ideas, very traditional ideas about marriage.
I've never understood the argument against gay marriage from the parenthood perspective, whether the gay lovers are single or married how does this impact the children?
Of course, once gays are legally allowed to marry, the next fight is giving them the legal right to adopt children.
But again, people (most likely Christians and Muslims) might say that children require the "balance" of a family headed by a woman and a man, but many kids have been brought up by solo parents, would we rather kids being in temporary foster care rather than find a permanent family? Is there any evidence to suggest having two dads or two mums is detrimental to the children?
In many jurisdictions in the US, a gay couple, while they can't get married, can adopt children. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_dunno.gif&hash=5fe3d5c8980caeb1f1f80492377fb1f77c3e2dcc)
As for evidence that growing up in a household with gay parents is detrimental, I did hear of a recent study by some "pro-family" researcher that purported to show this. On the other hand, there are at least a few studies which show the opposite, so I'm inclined to discount the clearly biased study. Sorry I don't have links to any of this; if you're really interested I can scrape around and find some for you.
Quote from: Recusant on June 26, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
In many jurisdictions in the US, a gay couple, while they can't get married, can adopt children. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_dunno.gif&hash=5fe3d5c8980caeb1f1f80492377fb1f77c3e2dcc)
As for evidence that growing up in a household with gay parents is detrimental, I did hear of a recent study by some "pro-family" researcher that purported to show this. On the other hand, there are at least a few studies which show the opposite, so I'm inclined to discount the clearly biased study. Sorry I don't have links to any of this; if you're really interested I can scrape around and find some for you.
As long as a child grows up.in a loving home, with good food and education, what does it matter if he/she has two moms, two dads, or a solo parent?
Those "studies" are most likely biased and manipulated. I do not believe in gender roles, or the need for two different sex parents.
we as humans cant place love and warmth in a person's heart because of their gender or orientation.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 26, 2012, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 26, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
In many jurisdictions in the US, a gay couple, while they can't get married, can adopt children. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_dunno.gif&hash=5fe3d5c8980caeb1f1f80492377fb1f77c3e2dcc)
As for evidence that growing up in a household with gay parents is detrimental, I did hear of a recent study by some "pro-family" researcher that purported to show this. On the other hand, there are at least a few studies which show the opposite, so I'm inclined to discount the clearly biased study. Sorry I don't have links to any of this; if you're really interested I can scrape around and find some for you.
As long as a child grows up.in a loving home, with good food and education, what does it matter if he/she has two moms, two dads, or a solo parent?
Those "studies" are most likely biased and manipulated. I do not believe in gender roles, or the need for two different sex parents.
we as humans cant place love and warmth in a person's heart because of their gender or orientation.
SD would you ever believe a study that determined that generally children do grow up to be more (insert positive measure) in a family with a Mum and Dad rather than a homosexual couple or a single parent?
I ask this because you appear to be dismissing the research based on your personal bias "I do not believe in gender roles, or the need for two different sex parents." The key word here is 'believe'. Could that belief be changed based on hard evidence?
This isn't an attack on your sexual orientation but a serious question about how you evaluate reality. Are your 'gut feelings' more important than facts? Could facts ever change your 'gut feeling'?
I wouldn't be surprised if children of homosexual couples did experience some disadvantage, if only because their families don't receive the same level of community or social support as straight couples. Or, at least they haven't until recently. I wouldn't say that it's a valid argument against gay folk having children, though.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 27, 2012, 02:05:40 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if children of homosexual couples did experience some disadvantage, if only because their families don't receive the same level of community or social support as straight couples. Or, at least they haven't until recently. I wouldn't say that it's a valid argument against gay folk having children, though.
Agreed but this is a social issue not a parenting capability issue.
Quote from: Tank on June 27, 2012, 08:10:06 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 26, 2012, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 26, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
In many jurisdictions in the US, a gay couple, while they can't get married, can adopt children. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_dunno.gif&hash=5fe3d5c8980caeb1f1f80492377fb1f77c3e2dcc)
As for evidence that growing up in a household with gay parents is detrimental, I did hear of a recent study by some "pro-family" researcher that purported to show this. On the other hand, there are at least a few studies which show the opposite, so I'm inclined to discount the clearly biased study. Sorry I don't have links to any of this; if you're really interested I can scrape around and find some for you.
As long as a child grows up.in a loving home, with good food and education, what does it matter if he/she has two moms, two dads, or a solo parent?
Those "studies" are most likely biased and manipulated. I do not believe in gender roles, or the need for two different sex parents.
we as humans cant place love and warmth in a person's heart because of their gender or orientation.
SD would you ever believe a study that determined that generally children do grow up to be more (insert positive measure) in a family with a Mum and Dad rather than a homosexual couple or a single parent?
I ask this because you appear to be dismissing the research based on your personal bias "I do not believe in gender roles, or the need for two different sex parents." The key word here is 'believe'. Could that belief be changed based on hard evidence?
This isn't an attack on your sexual orientation but a serious question about how you evaluate reality. Are your 'gut feelings' more important than facts? Could facts ever change your 'gut feeling'?
I suppose it is more personal experience than anything. I pretty much raised myself. My mum and dad separated when i was about 7, and then my mum started heavily drinking when i was 12 , so at 13 and on, i raised myself. I suppose you could call it 'single parent.' My dad was never around, and when he did come, it was to bring gifts to make up for the time he wasn't around. (haha)
My gf's parents are still together. Married for over 30 years and whatnot. But the father is a slimeball who is cheating on her and mentally/physically abuses her.
Her mom takes it out on my gf.
SO, parents together or single--- doesn't fucking matter. It only matters if the person or persons raising you are stable. I've seen so many heterosexual parents fuck the shit out of a child's childhood. Like mine, my gf-- and many other close friends.
So, quite honestly-- Yes, sexual orientation doesn't fucking matter in raising a child half as much as actual stability in a relationship.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 27, 2012, 05:06:17 PM
So, quite honestly-- Yes, sexual orientation doesn't fucking matter in raising a child half as much as actual stability in a relationship.
I tend to agree with this. Here is an article that I recently read on Slate that talks about how that recent study doesn't say so much about the homosexual vs hetrosexual question, as it does about stability (and is actually a good argument for society to embrace gay marriage.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/new_family_structures_study_is_gay_parenthood_bad_or_is_gay_marriage_good_.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/new_family_structures_study_is_gay_parenthood_bad_or_is_gay_marriage_good_.html)
It was remiss of me not to provide any links; I admit I was being lazy. ;) OK, let's start with a link to the text of Regnerus's paper about the study itself: ScienceDirect | "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610)
Now, on to the predictable reportage on this study by one of the loudest voices of the American right wing — Fox News: "Study finds host of challenges for kids of gay parents" (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/12/study-finds-host-challenges-for-kids-gay-parents/)
I mentioned that the researcher who authored the study is "pro-family," which is of course code for "Christian conservative," but he denies having a political affiliation, particularly a right-wing affiliation. The reason he's known in some circles for being oriented and perhaps biased toward a conservative view is because of a previous study he authored which purports to show that getting married early in life is better than waiting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042402122.html). Apparently some "family values" organizations also find support for their position in a book which he co-authored on pre-marital sex in the US (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.html).
Be that as it may, this new study is (not surprisingly) being examined in a very critical light by social scientists, liberals, and gay rights advocates. You can find plenty of this, but here are two examples: Los Angeles Times | "Dad and dad vs. mom and dad" (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/13/opinion/la-oe-frank-same-sex-regnerus-family-20120613) and LiveScience | "Study Questioning Same-Sex Parenting Draws Fire" (http://www.livescience.com/20882-sex-parenting-study-controversy.html)
As for previous studies which purport to show that children of same-sex parents do just as well as any other children, one can start with "Lesbian and Gay Parenting" (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf) (PDF file) from the American Psychological Association.
Quote from: Ali on June 27, 2012, 05:26:18 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 27, 2012, 05:06:17 PM
So, quite honestly-- Yes, sexual orientation doesn't fucking matter in raising a child half as much as actual stability in a relationship.
I tend to agree with this. Here is an article that I recently read on Slate that talks about how that recent study doesn't say so much about the homosexual vs hetrosexual question, as it does about stability (and is actually a good argument for society to embrace gay marriage.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/new_family_structures_study_is_gay_parenthood_bad_or_is_gay_marriage_good_.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/new_family_structures_study_is_gay_parenthood_bad_or_is_gay_marriage_good_.html)
Thanks, Ali. You sound like a pretty awesome mom yourself. :)
Yeah, i think being a parent isn't about who you prefer to sleep with, but how well you have a good bond with them. A great bond with your significant other probably means a great bond with your kid. That's all that matters to me.
I've said it before and will say it again, but I understand why people continue to believe and put forth the argument that it's best if children are raised with a mom and dad at home - clearly, they're thinking of a male/female balance in the household for a child to observe and to some degree emulate. In an ideal circumstance where both parents are available, caring, loving people who get along well each other, this is a good thing. If a kid sees their mom and dad getting along with one another as well as raising them with love and affection, they soak it up and in many cases, thrive.
The problem is that increasingly, society's just not like this. Many parents have to be 'mom AND dad' to their kids, and I do believe that many, even most, single parents do the very best they can with the tools they have -- nobody parents perfectly, and everyone makes mistakes, but I've seen many situations where a child has thrived in a loving, well-meaning single parent household. Situations where having the other 'parent' around would or does make a child's life worse, even.
I don't think being gay or straight has anything to do with your actual parenting skills, all social pressures/stigmas aside. If you love your kids, you love them whether you're married or single. If you happen to be a single parent, gay or straight, nobody parents in a bubble either -- there will always be other men and women in your circle of friends and family who will see your child and be a valuable part of their lives.
Speaking personally, I think my daughter's lucky in that even though she has two single parents raising her, she has several men and women in her life who spend time with her, dote on her, and love her. I'm sure by the end of her childhood she'll be somewhat worse for wear because all parents make mistakes, but hey, I think she'll know we didn't MEAN to send her to therapy... ;)
Amicale, great post, I agree!
Quote from: Amicale on June 27, 2012, 07:08:28 PM
I've said it before and will say it again, but I understand why people continue to believe and put forth the argument that it's best if children are raised with a mom and dad at home - clearly, they're thinking of a male/female balance in the household for a child to observe and to some degree emulate. In an ideal circumstance where both parents are available, caring, loving people who get along well each other, this is a good thing. If a kid sees their mom and dad getting along with one another as well as raising them with love and affection, they soak it up and in many cases, thrive.
The problem is that increasingly, society's just not like this. Many parents have to be 'mom AND dad' to their kids, and I do believe that many, even most, single parents do the very best they can with the tools they have -- nobody parents perfectly, and everyone makes mistakes, but I've seen many situations where a child has thrived in a loving, well-meaning single parent household. Situations where having the other 'parent' around would or does make a child's life worse, even.
I don't think being gay or straight has anything to do with your actual parenting skills, all social pressures/stigmas aside. If you love your kids, you love them whether you're married or single. If you happen to be a single parent, gay or straight, nobody parents in a bubble either -- there will always be other men and women in your circle of friends and family who will see your child and be a valuable part of their lives.
Speaking personally, I think my daughter's lucky in that even though she has two single parents raising her, she has several men and women in her life who spend time with her, dote on her, and love her. I'm sure by the end of her childhood she'll be somewhat worse for wear because all parents make mistakes, but hey, I think she'll know we didn't MEAN to send her to therapy... ;)
A+ <3
The world isn't a simple text book. We should accept all forms of diversity in parenting, and other things. :)
Lovely post, Amicale. As long as a kid is secure and surrounded by loving people, it's not going to go very far wrong. Needs a bit of discipline, too, mind.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 27, 2012, 05:06:17 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 27, 2012, 08:10:06 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 26, 2012, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 26, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
In many jurisdictions in the US, a gay couple, while they can't get married, can adopt children. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_dunno.gif&hash=5fe3d5c8980caeb1f1f80492377fb1f77c3e2dcc)
As for evidence that growing up in a household with gay parents is detrimental, I did hear of a recent study by some "pro-family" researcher that purported to show this. On the other hand, there are at least a few studies which show the opposite, so I'm inclined to discount the clearly biased study. Sorry I don't have links to any of this; if you're really interested I can scrape around and find some for you.
As long as a child grows up.in a loving home, with good food and education, what does it matter if he/she has two moms, two dads, or a solo parent?
Those "studies" are most likely biased and manipulated. I do not believe in gender roles, or the need for two different sex parents.
we as humans cant place love and warmth in a person's heart because of their gender or orientation.
SD would you ever believe a study that determined that generally children do grow up to be more (insert positive measure) in a family with a Mum and Dad rather than a homosexual couple or a single parent?
I ask this because you appear to be dismissing the research based on your personal bias "I do not believe in gender roles, or the need for two different sex parents." The key word here is 'believe'. Could that belief be changed based on hard evidence?
This isn't an attack on your sexual orientation but a serious question about how you evaluate reality. Are your 'gut feelings' more important than facts? Could facts ever change your 'gut feeling'?
I suppose it is more personal experience than anything. I pretty much raised myself. My mum and dad separated when i was about 7, and then my mum started heavily drinking when i was 12 , so at 13 and on, i raised myself. I suppose you could call it 'single parent.' My dad was never around, and when he did come, it was to bring gifts to make up for the time he wasn't around. (haha)
My gf's parents are still together. Married for over 30 years and whatnot. But the father is a slimeball who is cheating on her and mentally/physically abuses her.
Her mom takes it out on my gf.
SO, parents together or single--- doesn't fucking matter. It only matters if the person or persons raising you are stable. I've seen so many heterosexual parents fuck the shit out of a child's childhood. Like mine, my gf-- and many other close friends.
So, quite honestly-- Yes, sexual orientation doesn't fucking matter in raising a child half as much as actual stability in a relationship.
I would agree on a subjective/personal level that the emotional content of the relationship between parent(s) and child is by far more important than the relative gender of the parent(s). But my question/point wasn't really about that. My question was about your attitude to scientific research. You dismissed the research based on your own experience but your experience is only one data point and thus scientifically invalid.
Theists often deny scientific research on the basis of their personal experiences. Which you would consider illogical? Yet you are using the same logic of personal experience to overrule scientific research. Now I agree with you that in this case the research looks biased. What I want to understand is if there were good quality unbiased research that contradicted your personal views would you change your view?
Oh, i'm not trying to dismiss it, Tank. I suppose i do feel it's a bit bias.
Doesn't parenting pressure for same sex couples have more to do with society and its biggotry than anything else? :<
I don't think there's one positive thing said about Regnerus's work on this study in the LiveScience article (http://www.livescience.com/20882-sex-parenting-study-controversy.html) I linked to earlier. Some telling points:
QuoteThe study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time. That led to a "hodgepodge" group of people who Regnerus then compared with kids in stable, married homes, said Judith Stacey, a sociologist at New York University who was not involved in the research.
"These are kids whose parents, maybe they divorced, maybe they separated, maybe they had a scandalous affair, we just don't know."
In contrast, a fair comparison would have matched up children of same-sex parents with children of heterosexual parents who looked otherwise similar — no extra divorces, no extra separations, no extra time in foster care for the kids, said Gary Gates, a researcher at the Williams Institute, a sexual orientation policy think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Instead, Regnerus categorized all people who said their parents were once in a same-sex relationship in the same group, even if those people had also experienced major childhood upheavals. About half of the people whose parents had ever been in gay or lesbian relationships also said their parents had once been in a heterosexual marriage, suggesting that a great many of these children were the products of a heterosexual relationship in which one parent later came out as gay or bisexual. Fifty-eight percent of those raised by moms who'd indicated a lesbian experience said their mother once left the household during their youth, and 14 percent said they'd spent time in foster care.
"All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.
"What I find most frustrating is that from what I could tell, he could have used his data to test the way I'm suggesting the test, and he chose not to," Gates added. "He intentionally chose a methodology that is absolutely primed to find bad outcomes in those kids."
(Emphasis mine — R)
QuoteThe study was funded by two conservative-leaning foundations, Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, though the funders had no control over the study design, interpretation or conclusions, Regnerus wrote.
Only two of the 1.7 percent of respondents who reported a parental same-sex relationship reported living with that couple as parents for their entire childhood, meaning that the study has little to say about gay couples who deliberately chose to parent children through donor insemination, surrogacy or other means.
Researchers are increasingly studying these parents, Stacey said, and research both in the U.S. and abroad consistently shows that the kids are just fine.
Fox News and others of their ilk may think this study supports their position, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Interesting info, Recusant. Thanks :)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 28, 2012, 03:28:00 AM
Oh, i'm not trying to dismiss it, Tank. I suppose i do feel it's a bit bias.
Doesn't parenting pressure for same sex couples have more to do with society and its biggotry than anything else? :<
I know you've had some shit times in your life and that's bound to influence one's personal view of what is good/bad or right/wrong.