'Two Gays Only Count as One Parent, Therefore they shouldn't be able to adopt':McCain

Originally posted by centurion1211
It should. Start by looking in the mirror. Obviously, Downs Syndrome isn't caused or cured by evolution. From the Mayo Clinic:

Is it inherited?
Most cases of Down syndrome aren't inherited. They're caused by a mistake in cell division during the development of the egg, sperm or embryo.

You should do a little more research.

Is Down syndrome inherited?


The vast majority of cases of Down syndrome are not inherited. Only in cases of Translocation Down syndrome and then in only 1 of 3 cases of this type of Down syndrome is the condition inherited. These inherited cases occur because one of the parents is a carrier. A carrier will have 45 chromosomes instead of 46 but they will have all the genetic material of a person with 46 chromosomes. Remember that in Translocation Down syndrome the extra chromosome 21 material is located on a different chromosome. A carrier will have the extra material but will have only one chromosome 21. The carrier will not exhibit any of the symptoms of Down syndrome because they have the correct amount of genetic material.

A carrier will have an increased chance of having a child with Down syndrome. If the carrier is the mother, the chances are approximately one in five of having a child with Translocation Down syndrome. If the carrier is the father the odds are reduced to between one in twenty to fifty. In cases where the carrier has no unattached chromosome 21, all the carriers children will have Down syndrome. In all cases of Down syndrome but especially in cases of Translocation Down syndrome, it is important that the parents have genetic counseling to determine their risk.

www.downsyn.com...

So, yes, some of down syndrome cases ARE inherited.

I notice you avoided the blue eyes and 6 fingers though. I wonder why?

reply to post by djerwulfe


but slecection doesn't happen that way.

And you came to this reasoning how? What scientific evidence validates this conclusion? I'm not saying you are not correct, I am not educated in reproduction sufficiently, I simply have never found such statements in any of my text books or research. Can you refer me to a scientific web site or text book on the matter with such theorizing?

Originally posted by Griff
I notice you avoided the blue eyes and 6 fingers though. I wonder why?

I notice that you are also quite selective in what you respond to. I'll take those non-responses as evidence that I was correct in that assessment.

Anyway, I have agreed with you on other threads and look forward to the same on future threads where you might be better able to maintain your objectivity. This one seems "too close to the vest" for you to do so.

Thanks.

[edit on 7/18/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
This one seems "too close to the vest" for you to do so.

And I've already admitted my biasness on this matter.

BTW, what did I not respond to?

I believe you need a good female and male role model to survive in this crappy society (in other cultures maybe not) although this couple may falls into the stereotypical "bitch" and "butch" in which case its OK although I'm can assume the child would suffer from quite a bit of torment at school.

Originally posted by spitefulgod
I believe you need a good female and male role model to survive in this crappy society (in other cultures maybe not) although this couple may falls into the stereotypical "bitch" and "butch" in which case its OK although I'm can assume the child would suffer from quite a bit of torment at school.

I believe you need more than just a female and a male. I believe it takes a whole family to be honest. That's how single parents get by. That's how gay parents get by (sometimes, if they're not cast out of their families.....don't think it doesn't happen). That's how straight parents get by. It takes the love of an entire family including grandparents on down to cousins. Do people really think that two men raising a child wll never expose that child to women? Aunts, grandmothers, friends, etc? Or that two women would never expose their child to grandpa? I mean really?

Also, as has been pointed out, they go through no less or more aggravation than others on the relative scale of things. Unless someone would like to post an unbiased report that says differently?

[edit on 7/18/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by spitefulgod


I'm can assume

Why assume when studies say differently?

www.apa.org...

[edit on 18-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Wow!

VERY inflammatory headline. ( DD, I know you didn't write it)
However, I don't see that McCain actually said that 2 gays equal one parent.
Perhaps the writer of the article was trying to incite memories of the 3/5's rule when counting blacks for representation (1787)?.

Unless McCain actually said that, I've got a real problem with the article, as we've become a nation of headline skimmers.

From what I gather, McCain said that he thought a child would be better off raised "traditionally". I'm not sure how that point could ever be proven one way or another. Unless a set of twins were split up, one raised by Hetero parents, the other by homosexual parents. Even then, there would still be a nature versus nurture argument about the outcome. It would be nearly impossible to duplicate every other aspect of the child's environment.
Does he have a right to this opinion? Absolutely. At least he was honest.


The other issue I have with arguments like this, is the emotional lashing out, from both sides. For example, If you don't believe homosexuality is a good thing, you have "homophobia". That is a LABEL, and an unfair one at that.
It wreaks of stereotyping, and generalization. Phobia implies an irrational fear of something. Just because you think something is wrong, does NOT mean you fear it. Plus, both sides of the case can be rationalized into oblivion.


Personally, I think whoever steps up to the plate, and decides to help out a child through adoption is ok in my book. But it should NOT be a Federal decision.

and finally..I support neither McCain, nor Obama in this election cycle, just so you know where I'm coming from.

reply to post by spacedoubt


If you don't believe homosexuality is a good thing, you have "homophobia".

I am with you there. It is sad how definitions have been so blurred by our current society. Homophobe and bigot are thrown at most who disagree with this issue and the definition simply does not fit them or their opinion.

It makes me cringe, sort of like with the word “pedophile”. I meet plenty of educated people who throw the term around and label anyone who dates someone significantly younger than them with this term.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by spacedoubt

 

If you don't believe homosexuality is a good thing, you have "homophobia".

I am with you there. It is sad how definitions have been so blurred by our current society. Homophobe and bigot are thrown at most who disagree with this issue and the definition simply does not fit them or their opinion.

It makes me cringe, sort of like with the word “pedophile”. I meet plenty of educated people who throw the term around and label anyone who dates someone significantly younger than them with this term.

I've quoted you because this is a serious matter. The debate ranges from homophobia, to a perfect married couple. But consider this: In my country, not enough people want to adopt. And what makes your post so pertinent is that the resulting council care is a homing beacon for paedophiles. And these children have less rights to even contest compared with the terrible 'gay' situation. Our children are getting raped because they do not have access to a loving family, gay or straight. Of course we want one of each, parents or children, that is natural, but gay is infinitely better than council care in my country.

reply to post by redled


I agree redled, a valid point to make. I find it amusing that in the US a single man was able to adopt a foreign child and systematicly raped and sold child pornography featuring her for years, whilst gay couples who are loving and willing to adhere to court supervision of their home life with the child wish to adopt.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Homophobe and bigot are thrown at most who disagree with this issue and the definition simply does not fit them or their opinion.

Although I agree homophobia is thrown around too much, I believe bigot does fit. Maybe even myself included.

big·ot Audio Help /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

dictionary.reference.com...

Just saying we are all bigots to some extent about something we feel strongly about.

reply to post by Griff


utterly intolerant

A bigot has to be utterly intolerant. Many people on here are not completely intolerant, they simply disagree and have arguments as to why. Painting these people with a hard core definition such as bigot only helps to perpetuate false and blurred concepts of labels. This happens a lot and is one of the reasons I have trouble with labels existing to define others in the first place.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Um. Well, illustrating that statement was one of the main points of the posted reply. ???

There are a myriad of factors involved in selection. It is not just about viable machines randomly slopping gametes around.
The human courtship dance, if you will, is incredibly complex and diverse. More so than any other critter.
As I said, among other factors,timing of reproduction is really important.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Aw, you didn't look ...
entered "selection in humans" into google...
Links:

science.cnpg.com...

www.bio-medicine.org...
ETC., ETC.,

Erm. In Sweden, they apparently (source: Wikipedia) did a study on the effects of having gay parents, and the children more or less turned out the same as the heterosexual parents' children did.
Seriously, shouldn't they at least do a study or something before jumping to conclusions?

Also, hi. Gay person, here. I don't beat my girlfriend or do crack or anything like that. We're not all crazy paedophiles out to have our nasty, devilish, immoral ways with little boys/girls. Whilst some are, there's also heterosexual adults who are out for the same.

EDIT because I say "seriously" too much; I need to stop doing that.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by LiquidTheBrit0]

reply to post by LiquidTheBrit0


I think it's pretty well documented for the timeframe in which the issue has been an issue.
No statistically significant harm shown.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Yes. I agree. That's why I said "to an extent". Also, I know I don't tolerate neo-naziism, genocide, infanticide and a few other things. That's why I said I'm a bigot when it comes to a few things too. I think the problem is that the word "bigot" has negative conotations. I don't believe in every case that it does.

reply to post by djerwulfe


"Aw, you didn't look ...
entered "selection in humans" into google...
Links:

science.cnpg.com...

www.bio-medicine.org...
ETC., ETC., "


Thanks for links !

reply to post by djerwulfe


Come to think of it, how long has the issue been an issue? (I'm young. I can't recall anything earlier than the '90's because, well, I wasn't exactly alive then. Methinks I wasn't alive at all then, but that could just be a rumour.)