• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are gay parents more likely to raise gay children?

Are gay parents more likely to raise gay children?

  • Total voters
    33
CriticalThought said:
I went and did some more research on this issue. I'm questioning Dr. Schumm's objectivity. He was a witness for the plaintiffs in the recent Appeals court case in Florida on their gay adoption ban, which was overturned. He argued that gay parents should be determined by the courts on a case by case basis. His research methods also sound suspect.



The fact that he keeps standing up for Paul Cameron is also troubling. Paul Cameron is one of the most virulently anti gay people in the country by any measure, and only the Westboro Baptist Church takes any of his unpublished research seriously.

I will have to wait until Schumm's research has been published and is subject to peer review, but I'm skeptical of his statistical methods and agenda.
Click to expand...

I agree. Anyone that supports Cameron... someone who was tossed out of the APA for both misrepresenting and misinterpreting research, and for refusing to cooperate with an investigation, has a credibility problem. Cameron's "research" on this issue has been disregarded as bunk, so referring to it makes your own research look faulty.
 
RightinNYC said:
Anyone who comes out one particular way on an unsettled scientific question is bigoted? If you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't be calling names.
Click to expand...

It is implying what I said and only adds power to haters. Don't you understand That?
 
digsbe said:
It's not bigoted. I believe that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture. We don't know of any gay gene, but we do know hormones can influence behavior. We know there are psychological links within homosexuality too. Science doesn't completely understand everything about it. People who believe it is purely "rubbed off" aren't bigoted, they just have a different view of unproven and disputed science.
Click to expand...

The hell it is not! Just because you are raised up in a gay household does not mean you are gonna be gay-that is MY point. All stupid crap like this does is give haters another reason to hate gay folks. Do you see what I mean?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree. Anyone that supports Cameron... someone who was tossed out of the APA for both misrepresenting and misinterpreting research, and for refusing to cooperate with an investigation, has a credibility problem. Cameron's "research" on this issue has been disregarded as bunk, so referring to it makes your own research look faulty.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Cameron uses newspapers and obituaries for his "random samples". Cameron is a huge flake.
 
Kali said:
The hell it is not! Just because you are raised up in a gay household does not mean you are gonna be gay-that is MY point. All stupid crap like this does is give haters another reason to hate gay folks. Do you see what I mean?
Click to expand...

It does need to be viewed objectively. At this point, all we have is an abstract. I don't believe Schumm has published his study, and he might not.

I honestly don't know whether children can or cannot be socialized to have same sex attractions. I don't even know if it is measurable with our given technology.
 
The latest studies show that homosexuality is a type of malfunction in the brain, the individual has no choice in the matter. Due to society's old hatred and fear of the "out of the ordinary", a man may be , on the surface, successful in a cover up...
In a family, his children will be what they are...They may be unhappy and confused.
 
earthworm said:
The latest studies show that homosexuality is a type of malfunction in the brain, the individual has no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

CT is correct. The latest studies show no such thing... but if you have read some that do, please post them.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No. I've posted a ton of research on this in the past. Gay parents are not more likely to raise gay children.

One thing to consider, though, something that is often missed when discussing this issue. Since we know that homosexuality is not a disorder and homosexuality in and of itself is not harmful in any way, what difference does it make? It's like wondering if left-handed parents beget more left-handed children. If they do or if they don't, who cares?
Click to expand...

I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate for a second (because in truth, I strongly support the rights of gays to marry and have children)...

The CDC recently released a study that indicated 1 out of every 5 gay men are HIV positive. I've also heard claims that many gay men in the city participate in large gay bathhouse orgies, where certain members of the orgy are known carriers of the HIV virus...and they call the virus, "The Gift." I can't determine the accuracy of these claims, but I heard it's like playing Russian roulette.

Though they may only be claims, I have seen and read about gay bars, gay clubs, and online sites where gay men are there strictly to locate sex. The issue of irresponsible sexual habits and lesbians is a completely different story, so it may be just a natural characteristic of the male sex drive. Regardless, I don't think it should be that controversial to claim gay men are culturally more irresponsible in their sexual decisions versus lesbians or heterosexuals.

Here's a question for the open gay members of DP:

Are you offended (like that one gay dean of that one particular university) when the blood bank arrives and disqualifies you from giving blood simply because you are gay? I personally think such prohibitions are necessary, but I would like to debate the topic with gay partisans. What are your thoughts?
 
ElijahGalt said:
I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate for a second (because in truth, I strongly support the rights of gays to marry and have children)...

The CDC recently released a study that indicated 1 out of every 5 gay men are HIV positive. I've also heard claims that many gay men in the city participate in large gay bathhouse orgies, where certain members of the orgy are known carriers of the HIV virus...and they call the virus, "The Gift." I can't determine the accuracy of these claims, but I heard it's like playing Russian roulette.

Though they may only be claims, I have seen and read about gay bars, gay clubs, and online sites where gay men are there strictly to locate sex. The issue of irresponsible sexual habits and lesbians is a completely different story, so it may be just a natural characteristic of the male sex drive. Regardless, I don't think it should be that controversial to claim gay men are culturally more irresponsible in their sexual decisions versus lesbians or heterosexuals.

Here's a question for the open gay members of DP:

Are you offended (like that one gay dean of that one particular university) when the blood bank arrives and disqualifies you from giving blood simply because you are gay? I personally think such prohibitions are necessary, but I would like to debate the topic with gay partisans. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Are you aiming your questions at those at DP who are openly gay, or those who openly support gay rights?
 
ElijahGalt said:
The former. But I'm open to hear other people's opinions on the matter.
Click to expand...

OK. Since I am not gay, I'll wait until others post first. Thanks for the clarification.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Are you offended (like that one gay dean of that one particular university) when the blood bank arrives and disqualifies you from giving blood simply because you are gay? I personally think such prohibitions are necessary, but I would like to debate the topic with gay partisans. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's not that I'm offended, it's that I don't find the policy practical. I mean, the blood banks have been sued for distributing infected blood so now they are super cautious. I understand where the policy comes from and the type of thinking that was involved in making it, but let's look at the facts right now. All blood, regardless of source, is tested at least three times for any infectious agents between the time it is taken from the donor to when it arrives at a patient. We now have a rapid test for HIV which can give you a result within 99.9% accuracy within 10 minutes. This rapid test is cheaper than the conventional lab test; even in the absence of such a test, conventional testing can also be done, since it is done anyway for hepatitis, epstein-barr, etc.

I am not HIV+. I know this to be factually true. I am not infected with any other infectious agent. If I go to donate blood and indicate on the form that I have had sex with a man at ANY point in my entire life, I am automatically disqualified. I cannot donate organs either for this reason. I cannot donate sperm for similar absurd reasons.

The policy is discrimination, and frankly it's lazy. It's more to do with liability than it is sound medical science. No one likes being sued, and if by some miniscule chance someone gets infected with HIV via blood from a blood bank, they would likely sue and accuse them of allowing "high risk" groups to donate blood. And those people would win the court case, regardless of the fact that the blood is screened several times for infectious agents.
 
Orion said:
It's not that I'm offended, it's that I don't find the policy practical. I mean, the blood banks have been sued for distributing infected blood so now they are super cautious. I understand where the policy comes from and the type of thinking that was involved in making it, but let's look at the facts right now. All blood, regardless of source, is tested at least three times for any infectious agents between the time it is taken from the donor to when it arrives at a patient. We now have a rapid test for HIV which can give you a result within 99.9% accuracy within 10 minutes. This rapid test is cheaper than the conventional lab test; even in the absence of such a test, conventional testing can also be done, since it is done anyway for hepatitis, epstein-barr, etc.

I am not HIV+. I know this to be factually true. I am not infected with any other infectious agent. If I go to donate blood and indicate on the form that I have had sex with a man at ANY point in my entire life, I am automatically disqualified. I cannot donate organs either for this reason. I cannot donate sperm for similar absurd reasons.

The policy is discrimination, and frankly it's lazy. It's more to do with liability than it is sound medical science. No one likes being sued, and if by some miniscule chance someone gets infected with HIV via blood from a blood bank, they would likely sue and accuse them of allowing "high risk" groups to donate blood. And those people would win the court case, regardless of the fact that the blood is screened several times for infectious agents.
Click to expand...

I suspect that there is little anyone could add to this. Scientific, logical, and accurate. Good post.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Wasn't it Truman Capote who said we all have a little gay inside of us?
Click to expand...

Might have been. I could respond to that, but any response would, though be quite funny, be inappropriate for this part of DP. :2razz:
 
ElijahGalt said:
Are you offended (like that one gay dean of that one particular university) when the blood bank arrives and disqualifies you from giving blood simply because you are gay? I personally think such prohibitions are necessary, but I would like to debate the topic with gay partisans. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm not offended by the policy. There is rational behind it. It takes up to 6 months for HIV antibodies to show up on a test and so it only makes sense to exclude men who have sex with men from donating. The chance of coming in contact with an infected source is high.
 
CriticalThought said:
It takes up to 6 months for HIV antibodies to show up on a test and so it only makes sense to exclude men who have sex with men from donating. The chance of coming in contact with an infected source is high.
Click to expand...

That's true but a PCR test can detect viral RNA far sooner and that tends to be what they use on blood supplies in storage.
 
Orion said:
That's true but a PCR test can detect viral RNA far sooner and that tends to be what they use on blood supplies in storage.
Click to expand...

I did not know that.

It doesn't change my view though. The US blood supply does not suffer by excluding 5-8% of the population who carry up to half the HIV in the country.
 
CriticalThought said:
I did not know that.

It doesn't change my view though. The US blood supply does not suffer by excluding 5-8% of the population who carry up to half the HIV in the country.
Click to expand...

Yes it does suffer. The standard set by the Red Cross is that all hospitals should have a three day supply based on maximum patient capacity. Most hospitals struggle to meet this standard and that affects emergency preparedness across the board. The situation for plasma is worse.

We are constantly being told that there are growing blood shortages yet a perfectly viable segment of the population is being precluded for non-scientific reasons. A promiscuous heterosexual man is much higher risk than a monogamous gay man, yet the former is given a pass while the latter is automatically "deferred". People who have done IV drugs at all in their life get banned indefinitely, but people who knowingly were sexually involved with IV drug users only get deferred for 12 months based on the end date of their relationship.

The blood bank policies make zero sense. I will say it again, the SMS blood ban is not based on scientific grounds.
 
He didn't ask if it made sense, he asked if I was offended by it. I understand their rational. They want to reduce risk by isolating the segment of the population most likely to carry the virus. There are arguably better ways, but I can't say I blame them for the course of action they have chosen.
 
I think gay couples are more likely to have a home atmosphere that is more open and accepting if their child comes up to them and admits to feelings of attraction for the same gender. I dont think gay couples are more likely to have gay children, I think children of gay parents have more room to take an honest look at their own sexuality.

If you dont feel like you have to hide who you are, you're more likely to embrace it. Hell I'd have probably figured the poly thing out a lot sooner if my parents were poly.
 
I know this is off subject but I'd like to point out the trend on this forum has been increasingly more gay friendly over the years. I also see this trend reflected in the world outside as well. This debate, while not ending soon, appears to be one of attrition. The younger generation is not tolerant of homosexuality. Instead they accept it as a fact of life that doesn't need to be tolerated. In the same manner that you accept someone is male or female , or you accept someone is of whatever national decent.


ok.. now back to your regularly scheduled debate.
 
Just some general points.

All children are gay-ish at one point. It's the latency period where strong bonds are formed with your own gender and the other gender has 'cooties'. It's an important and necessary stage of human development. The sex drive hasn't yet formed pre-puberty, so that's why latency is gay-ish.

Homosexuality is not and never has been contagious, so children cannot be infected with it nor is there any need to be immunized against it.

My blood can kill you more efficiently than a transfusion from a gay man, due to the toxic mix of chemicals shot into me every week and that I take in pill form that are keeping me alive. So I think the ban against gay men donating is of no use whatsoever. The ban against those using biologic drugs is crucial, obviously.

Regards from Rosie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom