You are on a dangerous slippery slope when speaking of “ideal” upbringing. What does that mean? How do you define it? What evidence do you have to support this idea? For instance, is being a certain income level relevant? Being a certain race? Does an interracial marriage provide an “ideal” upbringing?
I’ll start by asking a question: Do you believe that people should be sterilized against their will? Or do you think they have a right to have children if they wish? Does the government have the right to force someone to have an abortion?
-Living in poverty: Nah its cool, have children. Get welfare.
-Realistically interracial marriage wouldnt be an ideal upbringing.
Cause children need something to identify with something and have an actually have a sense of belonging to their parents and community.
That would get even worse with further mixing. Quarter mixes children dont have much a problem, but should stick with what they identify with the most.
The ideal would be an environment that encourages who you are and enables strong, dependable people.
-No, people shouldnt be sterilized against their will. But that doesnt mean people should go about as they please.
-If they can provide a stable, functional place to raise children. Then I see no problem with it.
-Does the government have the right to force someone to have an abortion?
No, same question as the sterilized argument just worded different though.
You act like christians control everything, and they dont. christians havent been in control of america since the days of the pilgrims. Bitch made americans complain about the smallest crap. You act like you are a victim. I dare any american to live in a 3rd world country for 2 years. Then you will really have something to complain about.
Its not all just christians, there are plenty of atheist who are against gays also.
I was talking specifics. What income level provides an “ideal” upbringing? Is it 50k/year? Wouldn’t people in a wealthier home, technically, have a better upbringing than those in the middle class? If so, then where do we stop? Where do we reach “ideal”?
You’re against people in interracial relationships having children? Good to know.
As far as an environment that encourages who you are and enables strong, dependable people, how do you measure that? How do you know that gay couples cannot raise these types of people?
Actually, no. I asked the two questions because they deal with the consequences of stating people not in an “ideal” situation should not have children. This is why I’m saying people have a right to have kids if they want in our society. Since the government can’t sterilize them before they get pregnant, and can’t force them to have an abortion after they get pregnant, the government really has no say on who decides to have children. They can monitor the child’s lives afterwards in the interest of the child, but the government cannot and should not remove the choice from the parent.
What do you propose we have, in order to enforce your “ideal” parents idea? If it is not a right, to have children, how do you decide who gets to have them and who doesn’t?
I read those 2 scientific articles posted by Rhio2k. I’m not going to read anymore unless people show they have actually read the articles. Complete waste of time.
http://www.charismanews.com/us/48331-kids-of-gay-parents-more-likely-to-suffer-mental-problems-study-shows - Did people actually read the study itself? Aside from the usual “sample size is too small” defense people like to spew (in this case, ideal would have been 800 but they only had 512 same sex couples. Imagine throwing a party and only 64% of the people you actually wanted to be there showed up. Would you say that’s a success?), the a large limitation is the huge amount of adopted children they had to use in the study. They even admit that “being adopted approximately doubled the odds of having contact with a mental health professional and of having a disruptive behavior disorder.” Furthermore, same-sex couples are 10 times more likely to adopt a child than are opposite couples. Gee, I wonder what’s a big factor. Granted, the study used less adopted children than I expected. But their tables still show 23.6% of same sex children are adopted compared to a whopping 1.8% of opposite-sex parents. Don’t you think that greatly skews the numbers?
The ideal is not living in poverty and able to provide the necessary basic human needs.
Thats it. So whats affordable to you is what you can have.
There’s lots of other reasons to be against interracial marriages as well. DNA can only hold so much information. 46 chromosomes.
With mixed you run the risk of the offspring inheriting both sides of the recessive genes.
And I’ve stated that bone marrow, organs and blood need similar racial backgrounds.
If your mixed and need those, your fucked cause there isnt much mixed people donating that or if any.
I ask you, do you know any mixed people?
Cause they have similar feelings to what I said. That they dont have much of a sense of self or belonging cause of there racial background.
EDIT: Next your probably gonna say, huurrr. So you’ll kill all mixed people to protect the native culture?
No, The child shouldnt pay for the mistakes of the past.
But they should learn from it and keep to what they identify with the most.
Strong dependable people are measure at how will they can adjust to society and not have any serious mental health problems were they cant function normally.
I cant ultimately decide who could have children or not. Only place procedures to ensure the child could live in a functional environment.
But I could say, voice my concerns against people who would get children just for the welfare check or people that have no sense of responsibilities and have sex just for having sex. As if there is a religion is there to help regulate people to have some sense disciple and duty.
Nah thats dumb, outdated and unprogressive cause it goes against what I want to do or have fun.
You worship yourselves and have no sense of morality cause of it.
Cause if you didnt, you’d ask yourself if what your doing is right or wrong, not act in which gives you the most feels.
It was grossly simplified. I operate on simplicity.
But you could look at how IQ dropped in the general population. And continues to drop.
And you could look at the vast gap between the IQ of Black and White people with their mixed children always being somewhere in the middle of them.
Even with the same upbringing. http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1992-34580-001
And how do you justify this belief? How do you justify the fact that this is “ideal”? Ideal means the highest standard. You seem like, in my opinion, you are providing me with the basic (lowest) standard.
Even accepting this, if basic human needs is all that is needed, then again, how come we are discussing whether gay couples can do that? Some, most assuredly, make enough money to be able to do that. Don’t you agree? This is the reason why we’re discussing it. We are talking about in regards to homosexual couples, are we not?
I’m not even touching the interracial relationship thing. I meant what I said in that it’s good to know you’re against interracial marriage. I don’t wish to discuss this issue with you (which was why my post was not directed towards you in the first place) because I don’t see the point. If you’re against interracial couples too then good for you. I don’t care.
Again, where is the evidence that homosexual couples will not produce this? Do you have any?
Which was my main point. Thank you for agreeing. You have no right to decide who has children and who doesn’t, therefore, other people have a right to have kids when they see fit. This was the whole point I was making; the government is not and should not be in the business of regulating who can have kids for the exact same reasons that you don’t put yourself in that position either. The standards you would have to adopt are nearly impossible to define and are objectively difficult to prove. Therefore, if you want to take the right to have children away, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your case. You have failed to do so.
That’s not just oversimplifying, that’s just flat out wrong.
Recessive genes doesn’t mean bad genes. Dominant genes doesn’t mean good genes. Huntington’s, neurofibromatosis, polycystic kidney disease…there’s a HUGE list of diseases that are autosomal dominant.
If you keep gene pools to themselves, you’re actually increasing the probably of disorders to arise. That’s why people shouldn’t have kids with their siblings. Let’s put in a real life example. 1 in 25 people of European descent is a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis (an autosomal recessive mutation). Compare that to Asians, which has a 1 in 90 is a carrier. So if 2 people of European descent were to have children, they’d have a far greater chance of having a child with CF than if it’s a European with Asian.
I responded to the articles and…no response from you. I’m starting to notice a pattern of you just spewing out random things and truck along even if people say something about that. Like for example, my questioning what your background in genetics is. Rather than answer, you quickly direct the topic to other things.
It’s just interesting how all of the people here who have been seriously defending homosexual marriage/parenting are the posters who have been the most vocal anti-theists of this website. it’s been obvious that the support for this is really not out of anything intelligent but just for the sake of anti-theistic egos.
I believe in God, and have been championing gay rights for a lot longer than most people here. Why are you still posting? How, even? Like, with your logic, I’m shocked you aren’t terrified of electricity like the heathen you are.
Regarding people speaeking on science:
The assumption behind alot of predictive models is that gay men are feminized men, but many of them are actually hyper-masculinized. I dont think people realize how bold a claim it is to invoke genetic/epigenetic determinism when describing sexual orientation. The fact is that linking something as complex as sexual orientation absolutely to genetic/epigenetic factors is very tenuous. How could it not be when even simple physical characteristics such as fingerprints are shown to be influenced by the environment. The science is far from conclusive, the current evidence only shows that it influences orientation at least in part (but everyone probably already assumed that).
The interesting thing here is that the argument of biological determinism has been co-opted by the pro-gay movement as a trump card to win the argument of gaydom not being a choice and thus gays are to be protected under the 14 amendment, etc. As a braindead knee-jerk response, the anti-gays have taken the opposite position and claim that being gay is not determined by genetics and thus it is not a choice. And of course both sides dig in. Lost in this classic punditry is that whether or not nurture (experience/environment) causes homosexuality would have nothing to do with whether or not it is a choice. Regardless, when someone claims that science proves (or even the root cause of…) sexual orientation is absolutely determined by genetics/epigenetics you should know that they have some skin in the game (just using the 2-word phrase ‘science proves…’ should alone raise a red flag).
Also, I think you may be wrong about the gay men exhibiting the finger ratio thing.
Why would you people support something that your religion has always been against? I think that you guys just want your religion to be accepted positively by your friends/e-friends which is why you suddenly support it.
You called yourself sexual deviant or something like that before, right? I don’t think you even count on the “i believe in God but support same sex sexuality…”.
Do you even turn on news aside from Fox? There are tons of religious gays. I remember there being straight priests who were petitioning for gay rights to marry because they were okay with it, but they didn’t know how the church would feel about it.
There has been overwhelming support for gay marriage coming out of all avenues. It’s not restricted to some “anti god” movement. You would know that if you ever got out of your comfort zone and take a chance on listening to something outside your comfort zone.
