Homosexual Marriage: Is Society Ready for Legitimacy?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
As soon as you show me an unbiased STUDY, I don't care about professional opinions.

Last time I checked, medical science, and psychology were based on imperical unbiased research and evidence.

Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the unitied states of america was founded on the premise that everyone has the right to freedom of choice- thier's is lifestyle choice, and regardless of weather they conflict with your moral views, by default they are allowed to practice those views because that's the american way. In the same vien you don't have the right to deny them the same rights ans you simply because of a moral conflict. That's not what the US was founded on, God Bless the US of A

Again and again and again you are saying things that have nothing to do with what is being said.


NOBODY IS TRYING TO SAY HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT BE HOMOSEXUAL!

You will keep using this argument because you will not accept what we say, what I mean by this is you think we think this certain way and you are attacking that certain way you think we are seeing. This will probably even be misquoted as simply "you will not accept what we say". I suppose it is pointless to even keep posting because you quote something I say and use the same response no matter what I actually say.

This was what you quoted, perhaps you didn't look at it:

"You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals]."

Now, tell me where in there I say homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be homosexual?

You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

They sure do Zero and this does not pertain to anyone of us, try again, it was a great contribution, a PM to Zantra would have been infinitely more appropriate.

 

[Zero]

No, Kyle...you just claim that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
No, Kyle...you just claim that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else.

Everyone doesn't have the right to adopt.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Everyone doesn't have the right to adopt.

Yes, they do, unless you can provide a convincing argument otherwise. Since you haven't bothered to do so...what would you like us to think about the reasons behind your attitude?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Zero
You forgot that some people think that the most important part of freedom is teh freedom to hate as many groups as possible that are different from them, and do everything they can to discriminate against them.

Not trying to say that people should be denied the right to hate other people, as long as that hate doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

There's a big difference between hating someone and beating them up, or denying them the same freedoms as everyone else.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
Not trying to say that people should be denied the right to hate other people, as long as that hate doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

There's a big difference between hating someone and beating them up, or denying them the same freedoms as everyone else.

Yeah, I don't care about anyone's internal attitude. The problem is, some people want to legislate the restrictions that they set on their personal lives to affect everyone else.

 

[Hurkyl]

And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

Well, where is the explanation? I understand that anti-homosexual legislation is discriminatory, and SHOULD be removed. Where is the case for it, that isn't based on some religious or 'moral' grounds?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Again and again and again you are saying things that have nothing to do with what is being said.


NOBODY IS TRYING TO SAY HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT BE HOMOSEXUAL!

You will keep using this argument because you will not accept what we say, what I mean by this is you think we think this certain way and you are attacking that certain way you think we are seeing. This will probably even be misquoted as simply "you will not accept what we say". I suppose it is pointless to even keep posting because you quote something I say and use the same response no matter what I actually say.

This was what you quoted, perhaps you didn't look at it:

"You mean there are only 4 white male heterosexuals in the world? Although you seem to think your previos paragraph reflected fairly my view on PEOPLE in general, not homosexuals. In fact I would hire a woman, a black, a Jew, a homosexual, or anybody if they could do the job well. I would simply like not to be forced to give benefits to people when those benefits directly conflict with certain moral choices of mine which could be based on ones religion [note: these benefits being a result of marriage between two homosexuals]."

Now, tell me where in there I say homosexuals shouldn't have the right to be homosexual?



They sure do Zero and this does not pertain to anyone of us, try again, it was a great contribution, a PM to Zantra would have been infinitely more appropriate.

Ok I think you're missing my point here. As Zero pointed out, it's not that you're saying they don't have the right to be who they are, it's that you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else, such as adoption. You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to pick on you kyle. Yours is a common view. In fact, being raised in the midwest, I'm quite used to this point of view. I'm simply pointing on the common lack of ability of many people to regard someone with a blind eye their sexual preference. Do you believe a homosexual would be less capable of performing tasks at work? Less capable of functioning in society in the same manner a heterosexual person does? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself what gives you cause to believe they can't function as normal parents? Do you see all homosexuals as radicals bent on forcing their views and beliefs on anyone they can? If not, then what leads you to believe they would force their views on their children. Should people with odd fetishes such as bondage not be parents because they might unduly influence their children with respect to that fetish? These are just questions that you have to answer for yourself.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok I think you're missing my point here. As Zero pointed out, it's not that you're saying they don't have the right to be who they are, it's that you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else, such as adoption. You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim

I would add that I am equally concerned with the sourse of teh study as I am with the sourse of the degrees of the people who do the studies. If you got a degree from a religious diploma mill, and did the 'study' for a religious group, then I will reject it out of hand. I'll buy research from certain religious schools, like Notre Dame, of course.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Zero
I would add that I am equally concerned with the sourse of teh study as I am with the sourse of the degrees of the people who do the studies. If you got a degree from a religious diploma mill, and did the 'study' for a religious group, then I will reject it out of hand. I'll buy research from certain religious schools, like Notre Dame, of course.

right and that's why I say unbiased. Religously influenced schools all have the influence and belief of those religions present in their studies. They are deemed as very conservative, and will not consider alternatives, scientific in nature though they may be, as valid.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And some people want to remove any piece of legislation they don't understand.

What is it that you feel isn't being understood about these types of legislation? I thought I understood them fairly well, but what am I missing?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
right and that's why I say unbiased. Religously influenced schools all have the influence and belief of those religions present in their studies. They are deemed as very conservative, and will not consider alternatives, scientific in nature though they may be, as valid.

Of course, they start out backwards from real scientific study, in that they pick the idea they want to prove, and then pick and choose from the information, in order to support their beliefs.

 

[Hurkyl]

What is it that you feel isn't being understood about these types of legislation? I thought I understood them fairly well, but what am I missing?

That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.

Which can't be said for you...or can it? Have I missed you posting a fact or a link?

 

[kyle_soule]

Of course, they start out backwards from real scientific study, in that they pick the idea they want to prove, and then pick and choose from the information, in order to support their beliefs.

Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...

You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct.

I didn't say I didn't want to work with gays, in fact, I said I would hire them.

You said "Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god." Zero over here is denying religious groups are capable of scientific research, so why would I want to provide the studies when they will not be accepted? You also label religious research as biased.

I will sort through some pages and tomorrow present scientific studies to support my views.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...

Strong statement...what do you base it on? I have a BASIS for rejecting the work of anti-gay groups, do you claim that the AAP is an actively pro-gay group, and if so, what is your evidence?

 

[Andy]

Strong statement...what do you base it on? I have a BASIS for rejecting the work of anti-gay groups, do you claim that the AAP is an actively pro-gay group, and if so, what is your evidence?

The AAP can't be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That comment wasn't directed at you; you actually present a case in your posts.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Andy
The AAP can't be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

By the same token they can't be seen as pro-gay, which would offend a great deal of people. the only neutral stance is a objective unbiased one. If they were going to taint results, they'd swing in favor of the anti-gay stance as it is still the prevelant one in american society. Take our president for exaple. Though he's made some token gestures to the gay community in order to retain their votes, the white house still stands by "family values" which is another politically correct way of saying he's anti-gay without actually saying it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
The AAP can't be seen as being anti-gay can it, its very hard to be completely unbiased so there are pro-gay, i am not saying there is anything wrong with this, unless they are doing studies into homosexuals in which case there is a problem with this.

That is nonsense, and you should know it. Anyone who isn't supporting you position must be actively biased towards the opposite? Come on! I don't think the AMA, APA, or AAP are powerless organizations. They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations. If they say something is so, you can bet your money that they are simply following the evidence.

 

[Hurkyl]

They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations.

...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
...

I should rephase: "questioning without serious evidence." Every organization, and its individual members, can make mistakes, of course. The difference is, we can be pretty sure that none of the real medical groups can be accused of being actively, aggressively pro-anything. The same cannot be said of religious organizations, which by their own definition CANNOT and WILL NOT do unbiased proper science.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zantra
You're saying that they won't make good parents, I'm saying they will, and as it was pointed our, there are professional, scientific studies to back up my claim. Yet despite this you keep saying the same thing over and over again as well-you're just presenting it in different ways, but it's the same arguement. However if you have evidence done by an unbiased organization or group that children of Gay couples are significantly more at risk for social and psychological damages as a result, then I'm perfeclty willing to consider it as a valid position. Otherwise it's just your viewpoint, not fact. You not wanting to work with gays, or extend them the same rights and priveledges based on their sexual orientation is not fundamentally correct. The rights are those of americans, not of heterosexual americans. That's my whole point, and you keep arguing it, but it's the same argument without objective evidence to support your claim.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to pick on you kyle. Yours is a common view. In fact, being raised in the midwest, I'm quite used to this point of view. I'm simply pointing on the common lack of ability of many people to regard someone with a blind eye their sexual preference. Do you believe a homosexual would be less capable of performing tasks at work? Less capable of functioning in society in the same manner a heterosexual person does? If your answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask yourself what gives you cause to believe they can't function as normal parents? Do you see all homosexuals as radicals bent on forcing their views and beliefs on anyone they can? If not, then what leads you to believe they would force their views on their children. Should people with odd fetishes such as bondage not be parents because they might unduly influence their children with respect to that fetish? These are just questions that you have to answer for yourself.

I can't speak for Kyle, but I think your points are really off the mark for why I have reservations about homosexual parenting.

Before explaining them let me say that in my opinion you are not being realistic about the studies done supporting gay parenting. I believe in general the science community is very liberal about such things, and would wish to find ways to help get prejudice out of society if they could. It is noble, but is it correct?

Those studies are virtually impossible to do properly with a small sampling and in a few years. It is psychological testing to begin with, and already that makes it exremely difficult to isolate all influences at work. How are you going to test the effects of everything else that has gone on in the child's life? And how can you tell what happens over a lifetime?

To say no differences have been observed doesn't mean there aren't differences. The science community has told us bovine growth hormone has no negative consequences . . . is it just the igorance of the general population that resists that stuff? Or do they sense in those hormones some potential long-term affect on them undetected as of yet in the laboratory?

Let's not be naive about the difficulty of discovering what we need to about this.

Getting back to exactly what my concern is, and it is not the effects of homosexuality on kids, or the possibility that homosexuality is a physcological problem which kids might be subjected to . . . as some have pointed out, nobody, whatever their sexual preference, is perfect.

My concern is sanctioning, no, actually equating same gender parents with the natural situation. You seem so determined to exhibit love and equality to all humanity that you are unable to analyze this problem objectively.

I am saying that a child has a complex physiology which includes various proportions of hormones, certain leanings in brain development, and particular susceptibilities to outside influences. The early life exposure to both mixes of those factors found in healthy males and females might be the optimum way to develop them in a balanced manner. I suspect this for two reasons. The first is my observation of children raised in homes where both the male and the female are strong (and healthy) influences.

Second, logically it makes sense to me too that the many billions of years of evolution it took to establish two-gender parenting is a lot more trustable than the latest social trend in creative parenting, especially when it might be for no other reason than to pump up the self esteem of some oppressed element of the population.

So I say again, let's not be too quick to mess with mother nature.

 

[Zero]

Liberal: Any person, study, fact, or point of view that does not agree with the farthest right-wing view.

Also, Sleeth, you have already used that 'it is unnatural' argument once, and it is just as wrong as is was yesterday as it is today. There is NO SINGLE STANDARD for parenting in the natural world.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Which appeared to be what the AAP did to support the legalization of homosexual marriage...



I didn't say I didn't want to work with gays, in fact, I said I would hire them.

You said "Now I'm having to justify scientific research- this is becoming reminiscent of the argument for god." Zero over here is denying religious groups are capable of scientific research, so why would I want to provide the studies when they will not be accepted? You also label religious research as biased.

I will sort through some pages and tomorrow present scientific studies to support my views.

Boy oh boy I'm looking forward to the 'scientific evidence'...woohoo!

 

[Andy]

That is nonsense, and you should know it. Anyone who isn't supporting you position must be actively biased towards the opposite? Come on! I don't think the AMA, APA, or AAP are powerless organizations. They are, in fact, nearly immune to questions of bias, because they are professional scientific organizations. If they say something is so, you can bet your money that they are simply following the evidence.

Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? don't know the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
Being seen as pro-gay without openly saying that you are pro-gay is now fashionable, i have seen an Eddie Murphy live on stage video from 198? don't know the exact year but the jokes he was saying in that about homosexuals would be completely shunned upon now whereas back then it seems that it was fashionable to laugh openly about homosexuals, whereas now you are called homophobic for such things. What i am trying to say is that people would much rather be seen as pro-gay than anti-gay.

Wow...your proof is Eddie Murphy?!?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Liberal: Any person, study, fact, or point of view that does not agree with the farthest right-wing view.

It's funny you think you have me pegged. Just like my friends who believe I am a screaming liberal. And do you know why? It's because I don't agree with maintaining any single stance . . . liberal, conservative or even moderate (boring). I like to poke holes in all of it when I can because I think maintaining a perspective distorts judgement no matter how brilliant or noble it might be.

What I do believe in is reality and what works best in reality . . . no matter what that turns out to be. If it includes God, so be it; if it doesn't, that's it. Why argue and resist the way reality is and works? Are homosexual parents as suited as heterosexual couples to raise children? What the hell do I care what turns out to be the best . . .let's just do what is best. But are you sure that's what YOU want? Or are you on some cause to prove homosexuality is every bit as "normal" (and abnormal) as straight?

I seldom meet anyone free from the desire to define/describe reality in ways that accommodates their tastes, insecurities, ego, causes . . . the list goes on. They always have it all neatly built into their philosophies, along the facts and evidence lined up to support it.

Originally posted by Zero
Also, Sleeth, you have already used that 'it is unnatural' argument once, and it is just as wrong as is was yesterday as it is today. There is NO SINGLE STANDARD for parenting in the natural world.

Now there is a brilliant argument: "You are wrong . . .there is no single standard . . ." Should I counter with, "I am right, and there IS a single standard"? C'mon Zero, at least say something, and stop treating me like I am a nitwit bigot because I have concerns.

It is no light matter to me that heterosexual couples are the standard, and a standard well established by biology.

We all know, for example, the primary differences in gender (particularly behavior) is the particular balance of hormones male and females have. To me, evolved biology appears set up (whether by natural selection or God or both) to work with distinct genders, and that includes how offspring are raised.

I firmly believe hormonal balance can be affected by one's psyche (in fact, it is certain for some hormones). I also believe the primary and powerful influence parents have, especially in the early childhood, are important to devoloping both a balanced psyche and the homones that accompany it.

That, and that alone, is what I see as a problem. I have no hidden fear, I just want what is best for child raising. No fear except, that is, for something I think I am witnessing in this thread.

And that fear is seeing sentimentality for an oppressed group by liberal minded people (which I myself am), and the oppressed group themselves wanting full social acceptance, unconsciously collaborating to skew, spin, ignore, and preach in order to push ahead with something they want because it seems "fair" and props up their self esteem.

Speaking for myself, I won't be bullied or shamed into accepting something I have genuine concerns about. Children are too impressionable, and do have needs hardwired into them. I want to be careful there. And you know, we aren't talking about that couple here and there who might do it, we are talking about socially sanctioning it so all can do it. Making it a norm. In no way do I feel okay about doing that yet.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It's funny you think you have me pegged. Just like my friends who believe I am a screaming liberal. And do you know why? It's because I don't agree with maintaining any single stance . . . liberal, conservative or even moderate (boring). I like to poke holes in all of it when I can because I think maintaining a perspective distorts judgement no matter how brilliant or noble it might be.

What I do believe in is reality and what works best in reality . . . no matter what that turns out to be. If it includes God, so be it; if it doesn't, that's it. Why argue and resist the way reality is and works? Are homosexual parents as suited as heterosexual couples to raise children? What the hell do I care what turns out to be the best . . .let's just do what is best. But are you sure that's what YOU want? Or are you on some cause to prove homosexuality is every bit as "normal" (and abnormal) as straight?

I seldom meet anyone free from the desire to define/describe reality in ways that accommodates their tastes, insecurities, ego, causes . . . the list goes on. They always have it all neatly built into their philosophies, along the facts and evidence lined up to support it.



Now there is a brilliant argument: "You are wrong . . .there is no single standard . . ." Should I counter with, "I am right, and there IS a single standard"? C'mon Zero, at least say something, and stop treating me like I am a nitwit bigot because I have concerns.

It is no light matter to me that heterosexual couples are the standard, and a standard well established by biology.

We all know, for example, the primary differences in gender (particularly behavior) is the particular balance of hormones male and females have. To me, evolved biology appears set up (whether by natural selection or God or both) to work with distinct genders, and that includes how offspring are raised.

I firmly believe hormonal balance can be affected by one's psyche (in fact, it is certain for some hormones). I also believe the primary and powerful influence parents have, especially in the early childhood, are important to devoloping both a balanced psyche and the homones that accompany it.

That, and that alone, is what I see as a problem. I have no hidden fear, I just want what is best for child raising. No fear except, that is, for something I think I am witnessing in this thread.

And that fear is seeing sentimentality for an oppressed group by liberal minded people (which I myself am), and the oppressed group themselves wanting full social acceptance, unconsciously collaborating to skew, spin, ignore, and preach in order to push ahead with something they want because it seems "fair" and props up their self esteem.

Speaking for myself, I won't be bullied or shamed into accepting something I have genuine concerns about. Children are too impressionable, and do have needs hardwired into them. I want to be careful there. And you know, we aren't talking about that couple here and there who might do it, we are talking about socially sanctioning it so all can do it. Making it a norm. In no way do I feel okay about doing that yet.

While your position is well thought-out, and obviously you really, really mean it, it is nevertheless a purely emotional response, with no empirical data to back it up.

 

[Zero]

I just thought I would add...there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding about gender roles. The fact is, people exist along a large spectrum, and there is nothing like a single way to 'be a man' or 'be a woman'. All the claims about a child needing a man and a woman raising them seem to have the assumption that a man acts a very specific way, and that a woman likewise can only be certain things. Why do people harp on that idea, when there is no way that a male/female union can be guaranteed to provide that?

Also, has anyone heard of aunts and uncles?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
While your position is well thought-out, and obviously you really, really mean it, it is nevertheless a purely emotional response, with no empirical data to back it up.

A bit of a contradiction there . . .well thought out and purely emotional aren't compatible in my opinion. Yes, it is well thought out because I care a lot about people systems. I gave you established facts (evolution, gender, hormonal balance), reason, but little empirical data because I don't think there is anything reliable yet to cite.

I remember a couple of years ago someone published that genetics might determine sexual preference. Here in Northern California where I live, every homosexual who got the chance was stating that as fact, not possibillity. Now tell, me what was behind that rush to call it truth if not emotion? No Zero, it is you who is responding emotionally. I am looking at this with objective eyes.

Originally posted by Zero
...there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding about gender roles. The fact is, people exist along a large spectrum, and there is nothing like a single way to 'be a man' or 'be a woman'. All the claims about a child needing a man and a woman raising them seem to have the assumption that a man acts a very specific way, and that a woman likewise can only be certain things. Why do people harp on that idea, when there is no way that a male/female union can be guaranteed to provide that?

I agree, to a point. There is a stereotype that has developed for each gender which is based on what society in the past deemed male and female. That sterotype reinforces certain traits and discorages others, usually because it was seen in the best interests of the society. Like emphasizing violence to a pit bull, we can emphasize machoness to men, for instance, and so get them to fight wars, or endure brutal conditions to build, explore, overcome, etc.

Today we are learning one doesn't have to exaggerate gender potentials to be a man or woman. But that doesn't mean there aren't genuine differences. They are just more subtle than we've understood in the past.

I don't think homosexuality is understood yet. Living in a town with a very large lesbian population, next to a town with a large gay population, and having a ton of friends, I get lots of exposure to same sex energy. In some it really looks like opposite gender hormones are at work. A recent study I saw also definitely found in a small percent of the population children born with opposite gender hormonal balances.

However, how does that explain macho gays and feminine lesbians? Also, talking to my gay/lesbian friends who look to be hormonally balanced normally, I hear a lot of talk about unresolved issues with a parent (particularly non-acceptance). I could easily see someone eroticizing that issue (humans can eroticize just about anything).

My point is that since we don't understand it, I don't think we can predict the effect of it on childrearing. And the reason I worry about this particular thing is because I see it as a gender issue possibly affecting the early formative input from parents to children. And the reason I give as much weight as I do to my concern is because of the very powerful way evolution has estblished the family unit.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
*snip* And the reason I give as much weight as I do to my concern is because of the very powerful way evolution has estblished the family unit.

LOL, here you go again with the nonexistant evolution/culture confusion.