[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Veni Vidi Fugi)
Do people realise that the concept of homosexuality is quite a new one? In Renaissance Florence it was quite usual for men to have relationships with other men until they got married. It annoyed the Church, but it was an accepted part of daily life. Likewise with the Ancient World. I don't think there's been much biological change since then, which rather leads one to the conclusion that most people are kind of bi.

I think you've worded that a bit funny. The concept of putting a label on your sexuality and people feeling like they have to be one or the other is new (I'm assume this is what you meant).

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Theafricanlegend)
oh yeah? imagine going back 400 years ago or so how many people would've told you I'm ''pansexual'' or ''bi'' or whatever.
its not the actual words I'm talkin about.
pretty sure i can. and i have better things to do than discuss a pointless subject.

Then don't bother getting involved in the first place . And you didn't use any logic so as far as I've seen no you aren't capable of it. And looking back 400 years there are lots of words used that we don't use today that has no bearing on anything being discussed. You aren't bringing up anything relevant.

[Veni Vidi Fugi]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I think you've worded that a bit funny. The concept of putting a label on your sexuality and people feeling like they have to be one or the other is new (I'm assume this is what you meant).

Yeah, sorry, it's late. I meant that the concept of it being a mutually exclusive definition.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Veni Vidi Fugi)
Yeah, sorry, it's late. I meant that the concept of it being a mutually exclusive definition.

It's fine, I just didn't want people jumping at you thinking you were suddenly arguing that it's 'new' to be gay, so being straight is traditional and therefore better or whatever.
I understood what you meant, the less intelligent and more bigoted among us might not have.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Countries ban homosexual acts not homosexuality itself



Nope that is a categoric lie, no country makes it illegal to be a homosexual, they make it illegal to engage in homosexual acts

I will accept what you say but know that it is a petty distinction. To ban homosexual acts and ban the discussion of homosexuality is in essence to ban homosexuality itself.

[Veni Vidi Fugi]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
It's fine, I just didn't want people jumping at you thinking you were suddenly arguing that it's 'new' to be gay, so being straight is traditional and therefore better or whatever.
I understood what you meant, the less intelligent and more bigoted among us might not have.

I love the edit function!

[Profesh]

(Original post by Veni Vidi Fugi)
Do people realise that the concept of homosexuality as a distinct identity is quite a new one? In Renaissance Florence it was quite usual for men to have relationships with other men until they got married. It annoyed the Church, but it was an accepted part of daily life. Likewise with the Ancient World. I don't think there's been much biological change since then, which rather leads one to the conclusion that most people are kind of bi.

Apposite. Also, this:

[Schmokie Dragon]

Hilarious thread is hilarious.

A few points:

1) "Children with same sex parents will be bullied." So will skinny kids, fat kids, blonde kids, mixed race kids, ginger kids, intelligent kids, bookish kids, shy kids, thick kids, disabled kids, tall kids, short kids... Have I made my point yet? Bullies will always find someone to pick on and will bully other people unless someone deals with it. Pandering to prejudice is not the solution.

2) "Same sex couples/parents are against nature and thus bad." OK, two things going on here. One, you've used an 'argument from nature'. These are considered on par with a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a clear definition of what is 'natural' and also demonstrate that what is natural is good, you're not going to make that argument work. Are beaver dams natural? Books? Telephones? Trees? Aeroplanes? New Rock boots? Butterflies? Orgasms? Education? Drinking slushies? Everything on this planet happens as a result of physical, chemical and biological occurrences. Where do you draw the line? And why is 'natural' good? Earthquakes, cannibalism, rape, infanticide, forest fires and AIDS are all 'natural' by some/most definitions and are highly destructive. Are these all good things simply because they occur in nature? Did you know that homosexual behaviour and same-sex parenting is exhibited in a wide variety of species from the great apes down to insects?

The second problem with the "it's not natural so it's bad" is related to the first. That statement smacks of an 'is-ought' fallacy, where it is assumed that the existing conditions are the best conditions. It happens in this way so this is the best way for it to happen. This is what we've always done so we should keep doing it. Can you think of an instances where this is a really stupid claim to make? Things are good or bad for a variety of reasons. Simply being the existing, dominating state of affairs is NOT one of them.

3) "Children need parents of both gender." Where are you going with this one? You do realise that there are no uniquely male or female traits? Men are not all lads who'll teach kids about football, beer and camping. Women are not all nurturing, empathetic and girly. What specific things do you think a child will miss out on if it lacks a certain gender as a parent? Should we regulate couples of the opposite sex for how well they fit gender stereotypes, and tell them they shouldn't have kids of the men are not 'manly' and the women not 'girly'?

Even if it could be shown that children developed significantly differently with same sex parents, what makes different = bad/worse?

4) "I wouldn't want same sex parents." And? Are you implying that your dislike (and the inferred dislike of others) is reason enough for same sex people not to raise children? I wouldn't want parents who were really into football or who spent family holidays trawling around churches. I wouldn't want to have been brought up in poverty or with a disabled parent. None of that means I wouldn't have had a happy childhood and become a grounded, successful adult. Our preferences and prejudices as teenagers and adults mean we're not unbiased enough to work out if we could have thrived in a situation we have learned to mistrust.

5) "Children do best with both a male and female parent." Where is the evidence for this? Numerous studies have been done which found that same sex and single parents do not disadvantage children. One of the arguments used in favour of opposite sex parenting is that 'this is how children have always been raised.' That's getting back to the 'is-ought' fallacy. Why is the existing state of affairs the best one? How do you know that a different state of affairs would not yield as good if not better results?



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[jaadau121]

(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)

5) "Children do best with both a male and female parent." Where is the evidence for this? Numerous studies have been done which found that same sex and single parents do not disadvantage children. One of the arguments used in favour of opposite sex parenting is that 'this is how children have always been raised.' That's getting back to the 'is-ought' fallacy. Why is the existing state of affairs the best one? How do you know that a different state of affairs would not yield as good if not better results?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I have already delat with all the other points so i am not going to repeat myself.

However I was shocked and disgusted to see a certain statement in your post.

You have no right to experiment with the life of a child to see if a gay adoption is experimentally better, you are sick, go seek psychological help.

I do not think a child should be subjected to a homosexual environment a young age when it cannot have a say, it morally wrong.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by jaadau121)
You have no right to experiment with the life of a child to see if a gay adoption is experimentally better, you are sick, go seek psychological help.

Gay people already had biological children which allowed psychologists (and social services) to see the effects on children, and guess what - no negative ones.
It's not experimenting, we already know it works.

[jaadau121]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Gay people already had biological children which allowed psychologists (and social services) to see the effects on children, and guess what - no negative ones.
It's not experimenting, we already know it works.

Prove it.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Prove it.

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...09/2/341.short

Research has identified few associations between parental sexual orientation and young children's well-being (Patterson, 2000), but it has suggested that processes within the family such as parents' division of labor (Chan, Raboy, et al., 1998; Patterson, 1995) may be associated with child adjustment. Research has focused on children who were born to or adopted by lesbian mothers (e.g., Brewaeys, Ponjaert, Van Hall, & Golombok, 1997; Chan, Brooks, Raboy, & Patterson, 1998; Chan, Raboy, et al., 1998; Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & Joseph, 1995; Golombok, Tasker, & Murray, 1997; Patterson, 1994) or who were born in the context of a heterosexual relationship (e.g., Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, 1983; Green, 1978; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, & Smith, 1986; Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Roy, 1981). Results of these studies suggest that children's development is similar in many respects, whether they are raised by lesbian or by heterosexual parents.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...4.00823.x/full

[jaadau121]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...09/2/341.short


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...4.00823.x/full

Most of these are 10 years out of date.

[chefdave]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
This is backed up by psychological studies that come to the conclusion that sexual orientation isn't a choice.
Nothing can be proven 100%, but if in years of research there is no dis-confirming evidence, it is a very strong conclusion.

Homosexuals may not have a psychological choice in the matter but this doesn't mean society has a duty to compensate them or give them preferential status when it comes to adoption. If homosexuals do want children they should rely on the private sector, not play foul and attempt milk the state or use illiberal discriminations law to get what they want. Biologically gay people cannot have kids, that isn't 'discrimination' its a fact of life.

[chefdave]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Gay people already had biological children which allowed psychologists (and social services) to see the effects on children, and guess what - no negative ones.
It's not experimenting, we already know it works.

How do you know that children don't underperform after going through the ordeal of seeing one of their parents enter into a same sex relationship?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by jaadau121)
Most of these are 10 years out of date.

2002, 2004, that's within the last 10 years, therefore acceptable - especially as the 2004 one backs up the 2002 one.

This is 2008:

On both self-reported and peer-reported measures of relations with peers, adolescents were functioning well, and the quality of their peer relations was not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported higher quality peer relations and more friends in school and were rated as more central in their friendship networks.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/44/1/117/


Also 2008:

Analyses revealed statistically significant effect size differences between groups for one of the six outcomes: parent–child relationship. Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents. The authors discuss findings with respect to the implications for practitioners in schools.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...04280802177615

Also, the statement from the American Psychological Association (APA) on the matter, which if there was any significant dis-confirming evidence would have had to change in accordance with their own guidelines.

Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents has increased, three major concerns about the influence of lesbian and gay parents on children have been often voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). One is that the children of lesbian and gay parents will experience more difficulties in the area of sexual identity than children of heterosexual parents. For instance, one such concern is that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior. A second category of concerns involves aspects of children's personal development other than sexual identity. For example, some observers have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents would be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, would exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, or would be less psychologically healthy than other children. A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships. For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers. Another common fear is that children living with gay or lesbian parents will be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent's friends or acquaintances.
Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999). Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers (Patterson, 2004b). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by chefdave)
Homosexuals may not have a psychological choice in the matter but this doesn't mean society has a duty to compensate them or give them preferential status when it comes to adoption. If homosexuals do want children they should rely on the private sector, not play foul and attempt milk the state or use illiberal discriminations law to get what they want. Biologically gay people cannot have kids, that isn't 'discrimination' its a fact of life.

I'm not in any way arguing for preferential treatment, I'm arguing for equal treatment.
And it is discrimination to deny a couple who have passed the necessary screening the opportunity to adopt based on a characteristic that will have no effect on their parenting ability. You may as well say that blondes aren't allowed to adopt because you don't like blondes. It won't affect their ability to raise a child, it would be unfair and they would contest it.
Yes, homosexuals cannot conceive without outside help, that just means they can't conceive - that's biology. It doesn't mean they can't raise children.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by chefdave)
How do you know that children don't underperform after going through the ordeal of seeing one of their parents enter into a same sex relationship?

I don't know what you mean? The studies show that children of same-sex parents don't turn out significantly differently to the children of opposite-sex parents.

[chefdave]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I don't know what you mean? The studies show that children of same-sex parents don't turn out significantly differently to the children of opposite-sex parents.

But how do you know that psychologically children don't suffer after one of their parents comes out of the closet? The children of homosexuals may perform averagely when it comes to their peers but if their parents had remained together this could have spurred them on to perform better than average. The answer is that we don't know, and we can never know because its impossible to isolate the key variable (homosexuality) and keep all the other variables constant.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by chefdave)
But how do you know that psychologically children don't suffer after one of their parents comes out of the closet? The children of homosexuals may perform averagely when it comes to their peers but if their parents had remained together this could have spurred them on to perform better than average. The answer is that we don't know, and we can never know because its impossible to isolate the key variable (homosexuality) and keep all the other variables constant.

We're talking about children who have homosexual parents from birth or from a very young age, not children who have parents they thought were heterosexual until they came out as homosexual. I don't know of any studies into this, but if it were a big deal then social services would step in. It also doesn't say anything about the ability of homosexuals to parent, it almost argues that we shouldn't allow heterosexual parents to adopt because their kids would be traumatised if it turned out they were gay (if indeed that were true as we have no evidence right now)!