Originally posted by centurion1211
In fact, evolution has everything to do with procreation. They are like two sides of the same coin. It's exactly how and the only way evolutionary changes get passed down to succeeding generations. Otherwise the change dies with the creature it exists in.

Really? I missed where downs syndrom has been irradicated from the gene pool. As they don't procreate, how could the genes be passed on? How about blue eyes? Nope, no one has those anymore. How about 6 fingers (dominant gene). We all have that right?

The ignorance around here astounds me.

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain said in reply to a reporter's query."

So, this means that single parents aren't going to be successful either? Then I suppose we can blame John and George, and the rest of them for a generation of "losers" that we're supposedly going to bring up as a result of all the soldiers dying in the war and leaving a family behind. He's right, none of those widowed mothers/fathers will raise their kids right. Nobody has extended family members, friends, community to rally around them and be role models/examples for their kids.

As a mother of five, I know what it takes to raise a family, and that is love. It can come from anywhere and should come from everywhere. I am fortunate to have my husband, but if anything happened to him, I take insult at the idea that somehow my family would fail as a result. I am an intelligent person, capable of seeking out others who can provide the examples and experiences that my boys would need to "learn how to be a man".

I think his statement was obviously appealing to his audience of the moment and if he really took a minute to think about what he was saying, he'd realize that having a successful family does not always hinge on a mother-father household. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to politicizing something that shouldn't be.

McCain can't even tell his shoe apart from his sandals let alone make such claims and judgment.

Who is he to say gay people basically count as one?

In my opinion, if someone wants to be gay then let them. Just because they don't follow your morals and ethics doesn't make them "less" human.

This just in. McCain goes to see 'Breakback Hill' for three times in a row for sensitivity training.

Homosexuality, I believe is a built- in population cap. Higher the pop. density, the higher the proportion of homosexuals.

It makes sense, you have community members capable of mechanically reproducing, but you have non-reproductive couples raise them.

Think of the long-term results...

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
However I do understand your meaning, it is an interesting theory, and nothing is impossible when looking at this issue since we still can not determine if it is nature or nurture.

I understand what you're saying also. But, to me, it's definately nature as oppossed to nurture.

I am gay. My sister is bi. My brother is straight. We all grew up the same.

BTW, my brother's father is not mine and my sister's, but my father adopted my brother when he was 1.

[edit on 7/17/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
I understand what you're saying also. But, to me, it's definately nature as oppossed to nurture.
I am gay. My sister is bi. My brother is straight. We all grew up the same.

oh, you proved the nurture thing alright, you and ur sister are GAY! man that totally means something is weird with ur family. ur brother was the lucky one.

Originally posted by DuneKnight
oh, you proved the nurture thing alright, you and ur sister are GAY! man that totally means something is weird with ur family. ur brother was the lucky one.

Actually my brother and my sister are the lucky ones. My sister is married and my brother-in-law knows and enjoys it. But, basically she lives a "straight" life to those who don't know.

So, yes. They are lucky. Lucky to not have to endure the biggotry of people like you.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by centurion1211
First thing to look for would be to see if kids with gay parents were more likely to be gay as adults than kids with straight parents.

Again, I'll state that 99% of gay people had straight parents. So, your reasoning is flawed. Yet again.

Again, look in the mirror for flawed reasoning. You simply reversed what I said, which is not the same thing at all. Don't let your obvious emotional attachment to this issue cloud your reasoning abilities.

Plus, as I said previously, this issue hasn't been around long enough to do a true study of the long-term effects on the children. I also offered the possibility that the only effect of having 2 gay "parents" might be an increased level of tolerance towards other gays. Was that so bad?

Originally posted by DuneKnight
easy there, i was just joking. i was merely trying to prove a point. i think nurture is responsible. that or the fact that ur parents are very accepting. they probably say: "we will always love u no matter what",

No, actually it's the other way around. I remember when I first found out what "gay" was. I was watching a movie with my family about AIDS and it was about a gay man living with AIDS and his mother taking him in etc.

The point to this is that I knew that is what I was even back then...probably around 7-10. My mother said to my father in front of me "I don't know what we'd do if one of our children was gay". No wonder it took me until my 30's to come out to them.

So, no, it wasn't "be gay all you want, we don't care".

Also, they are wonderful now but I was afraid for a long time.

i wonder what gay parents would say to that: "YAY, U ARE GAY LIKE US!"

Yeah, I'm sure they'd be ecstatic knowing their child will be ostrasized by society.

Originally posted by Griff

Yeah, I'm sure they'd be ecstatic knowing their child will be ostrasized by society.

Which, I believe, was one of the main points against gay parents adopting children made by many on this thread. Looks like you've started to come around to looking at this from the perspective of what it would do to the child.