No evidence that gay people who adopt make the children gay.

reply to post by KatieVA


How is that a contradiction? Both statements are true. I seem bitter because you're blindly arguing your side without considering the logical aspects, which is annoying. It has everything to do with what I'm saying, if you were paying attention you would know this. I'm saying that they're more likely to be open to a homosexual relationship, think about that for a second, use your logic, that means they're more likely to be gay themselves, it's a tautology.

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by KatieVA

 

How is that a contradiction? Both statements are true. I seem bitter because you're blindly arguing your side without considering the logical aspects, which is annoying. It has everything to do with what I'm saying, if you were paying attention you would know this. I'm saying that they're more likely to be open to a homosexual relationship, think about that for a second, use your logic, that means they're more likely to be gay themselves, it's a tautology.

edit on 13-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

And that would be entirely correct if "being gay" was a choice. Which it isn't. It doesn't matter if a person has grown up to be open about homosexuality or not, they're still going to be gay, and acceptance and open mindedness isn't going to change that outcome. Acceptance doesn't make that outcome more or less likely. The outcome is determined the second that person is created and the child's upbringing, social background and what it perceives as "social norms" will not change the fact - only whether or not the child or person is accepting of him/herself or others.

As the silly video illustrates - it's the same as being left handed and right handed. We don't choose that and being brought up around "acceptance" of that isn't going to change that either. You're born one or the other, simple as. My 3 year old son is left handed - but myself and my partner are both right handed. Does that mean there's an increased likelihood of him "turning" right handed later on in life? Well, we both know that's impossible.

When people stop believing that sexual preference is a choice and start realising it's a genetic trait, pointless and ridiculous debates like this one wouldn't happen.

reply to post by KatieVA


No, not at all. None of what I said has anything to do with choice, just social factors, which definately can have an effect. This is what you seem to be missing, sexuality isn't set in stone when you're born and can be influenced by different factors.

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by KatieVA

 

No, not at all. None of what I said has anything to do with choice, just social factors, which definately can have an effect. This is what you seem to be missing, sexuality isn't set in stone when you're born and can be influenced by different factors.

edit on 13-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

I'm not missing a thing, thank you - I just don't agree with you and that's fine isn't it? My stance is that sexuality IS set in stone when you're born, it's predetermined by your genetic make up when you're in the womb and it cannot be influenced by different factors. The ONLY thing these "factors" of which you speak may influence, is whether or not the individual grows up accepting his/her sexuality or being accepting of other people's sexuality.

reply to post by KatieVA


Well then your stance is widely known and accepted to be wrong. You have just confirmed how little you know about the subject.

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by KatieVA

 

Well then your stance is widely known and accepted to be wrong. You have just confirmed how little you know about the subject.

edit on 13-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Ditto

Originally posted by KatieVA

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by KatieVA

 

Well then your stance is widely known and accepted to be wrong. You have just confirmed how little you know about the subject.

edit on 13-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Ditto

No, mine is observed and accepted to be true. Minimal research can prove you wrong, try it!

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by KatieVA

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by KatieVA

 

Well then your stance is widely known and accepted to be wrong. You have just confirmed how little you know about the subject.

edit on 13-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Ditto

No, mine is observed and accepted to be true. Minimal research can prove you wrong, try it!

Again, ditto.

The thing is, Spearmint, when you get involved in a debate you need to understand that there will, unfortunately, be people who don't agree with you or accept your viewpoint. If you can't accept that, you really shouldn't be getting involved. My signature sums things up nicely.

I have nothing more to say, other than much love and peace to you and yours

Originally posted by KatieVA

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by KatieVA

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by KatieVA

 

Well then your stance is widely known and accepted to be wrong. You have just confirmed how little you know about the subject.

edit on 13-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Ditto

No, mine is observed and accepted to be true. Minimal research can prove you wrong, try it!

Again, ditto.

The thing is, Spearmint, when you get involved in a debate you need to understand that there will, unfortunately, be people who don't agree with you or accept your viewpoint. If you can't accept that, you really shouldn't be getting involved. My signature sums things up nicely.

I have nothing more to say, other than much love and peace to you and yours

Yeah, I know. Sometimes there's people like you that disagree who could realise they're wrong with a small amount of research, but blindly argue their point regardless. What I have said is true, observed, and accepted. What you have said is just plain wrong, and sexuality is not set in stone at birth, that's proven beyond dispute.

reply to post by SpearMint

This is what you seem to be missing, sexuality isn't set in stone when you're born and can be influenced by different factors.

Uh, yes, it is.

I agree with everything Katie said. You really don't know what you're talking about, and you are wrong. Yes, there are people who, if sexually abused as a kid, become abusers themselves, which means they are DAMAGED, and were damaged by others. But that sort of thing has nothing to do with inherent sexuality. Boymonkey is absolutely right, and I'm very glad he posted this thread. (S/F, boymonkey!)

People are born with sexual preferences. People are also messed up by other people who abuse them. You're talking about mental disorders, and that is an entirely different thing than genetic sexual predisposition. Gha.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by SpearMint

 

This is what you seem to be missing, sexuality isn't set in stone when you're born and can be influenced by different factors.

Uh, yes, it is.

I agree with everything Katie said. You really don't know what you're talking about, and you are wrong. Yes, there are people who, if sexually abused as a kid, become abusers themselves, which means they are DAMAGED, and were damaged by others. But that sort of thing has nothing to do with inherent sexuality. Boymonkey is absolutely right, and I'm very glad he posted this thread. (S/F, boymonkey!)

People are born with sexual preferences. People are also messed up by other people who abuse them. You're talking about mental disorders, and that is an entirely different thing than genetic sexual predisposition. Gha.

There are so many resources and experiences from different people that prove you wrong, look in to the subject. Sexuality is not set in stone at any time, YOU do not know what you're talking about. I don't know how you can say that, you obviously don't have a clue. People are not born with sexual preferences, and sexual preferences can change. Take 5 minutes to research it. It's a very ignorant view that you have.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by SpearMint

 

This is what you seem to be missing, sexuality isn't set in stone when you're born and can be influenced by different factors.

Uh, yes, it is.

I agree with everything Katie said. You really don't know what you're talking about, and you are wrong. Yes, there are people who, if sexually abused as a kid, become abusers themselves, which means they are DAMAGED, and were damaged by others. But that sort of thing has nothing to do with inherent sexuality. Boymonkey is absolutely right, and I'm very glad he posted this thread. (S/F, boymonkey!)

People are born with sexual preferences. People are also messed up by other people who abuse them. You're talking about mental disorders, and that is an entirely different thing than genetic sexual predisposition. Gha.

There are so many resources and experiences from different people that prove you wrong, look in to the subject. Sexuality is not set in stone at any time, YOU do not know what you're talking about. I don't know how you can say that, you obviously don't have a clue. People are not born with sexual preferences, and sexual preferences can change. Take 5 minutes to research it. It's a very ignorant view that you have.

edit on 15-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Experiences aren't scientific evidence though, are they? They're just somebody else's perspective. Can you provide us with some of this scientific proof that you keep banging on about? I'm really interested to see it.

Do you think you're able to have a calm, mature discussion about this without the constant jibes that we "don't have a clue", we "don't know what we're talking about" and that we "have a very ignorant view"? It certainly isn't very productive and it's quite rude. Please, try and be pleasant

Originally posted by KatieVA

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by SpearMint

 

This is what you seem to be missing, sexuality isn't set in stone when you're born and can be influenced by different factors.

Uh, yes, it is.

I agree with everything Katie said. You really don't know what you're talking about, and you are wrong. Yes, there are people who, if sexually abused as a kid, become abusers themselves, which means they are DAMAGED, and were damaged by others. But that sort of thing has nothing to do with inherent sexuality. Boymonkey is absolutely right, and I'm very glad he posted this thread. (S/F, boymonkey!)

People are born with sexual preferences. People are also messed up by other people who abuse them. You're talking about mental disorders, and that is an entirely different thing than genetic sexual predisposition. Gha.

There are so many resources and experiences from different people that prove you wrong, look in to the subject. Sexuality is not set in stone at any time, YOU do not know what you're talking about. I don't know how you can say that, you obviously don't have a clue. People are not born with sexual preferences, and sexual preferences can change. Take 5 minutes to research it. It's a very ignorant view that you have.

edit on 15-4-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Experiences aren't scientific evidence though, are they? They're just somebody else's perspective. Can you provide us with some of this scientific proof that you keep banging on about? I'm really interested to see it.

Do you think you're able to have a calm, mature discussion about this without the constant jibes that we "don't have a clue", we "don't know what we're talking about" and that we "have a very ignorant view"? It certainly isn't very productive and it's quite rude. Please, try and be pleasant

Are you serious? This topic relies heavily on people's personal experiences, that's what it's about.

A useful resource for you: en.wikipedia.org...

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".[1] It also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[1] "[F]or some ["people"] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..."[37] At least one study suggests that self-reported sexual orientation in a community may change over time in response to differing social trends.[38] In a joint statement with other major American medical, psychology, educator, and religious organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".[39] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".[40] "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . [I]t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of 'the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time'] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."[41]
"[A number of] lesbian women, and some heterosexual women as well, perceive choice as an important element in their sexual orientations."[42]

That's just a small reference, you can find much more in-depth resources if you try. That bit even says what I said earlier, sexuality may be influenced by social factors. Sometimes even choice. Therefore gay parents influencing a child's sexual orientation is logical conclusion based on what we know.

Can't you see why I come across as unpleasent? It's like someone arguing that the Earth is flat. What you're saying is just plain wrong.

Unless they are per-disposed to being gay(hormonal factors/genetic make up for brain), it does not matter who they grow up with, they will be whatever they were meant to be.

Kids growing up with gay parents will be more open to the concept of the situation, thus IF they were per-disposed at birth, they will most likely to express it rather than hide it, where as kids of straight parents will hide it.

No matter how much social factors is forced upon someone, it is not going to make someone genuinely be attracted to another sex. They will like whoever they were designed(chemically) to like.

Originally posted by luciddream
Unless they are per-disposed to being gay(hormonal factors/genetic make up for brain), it does not matter who they grow up with, they will be whatever they were meant to be.

Kids growing up with gay parents will be more open to the concept of the situation, thus IF they were per-disposed at birth, they will most likely to express it rather than hide it, where as kids of straight parents will hide it.

No matter how much social factors is forced upon someone, it is not going to make someone genuinely be attracted to another sex. They will like whoever they were designed(chemically) to like.

edit on 4/15/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

Exactly the points I've made

Spearmint - Experiences are not scientific proof. They are just the perspective of a person. 2 people could experience the exact same thing and their perspectives might be completely different - in that case, which would be the "proof"?

For example - imagine 2 people go skydiving. The first person might describe their experience as "absolutely amazing, thrilling, the best thing I've ever done"...the second might describe it as "awful, horrible, terrifying...the most traumatising thing I've ever been put through". Can we then say that the first person's experience is "proof" that skydiving is an amazing experience? Clearly not, because it's just a perspective.

I am yet to see the "evidence" that you keep speaking of, which apparently "everybody in the world" is aware of, (except me of course) - that proves being brought up by gay parents will turn a person gay.

I'm also very confused, because earlier on in the thread your stance was that having gay parents won't "make" a person gay, but will make them more open minded about being gay. That's something that goes without saying, I agree with this as I have said many times already. As I explained earlier, being open minded about something doesn't and cannot change what's already there - it can only serve to make the person more accepting, comfortable and secure about his/her own sexuality and the sexuality of those around them.

However, you've now changed your stance to "having gay parents increases the chance of a person turning gay", which is a different argument entirely.

This is where we disagree - because for your (now changed) stance to be true, sexuality would depend entirely on social and environmental factors. The fact that I disagree with this means that according to you, I am incredibly ignorant. Obviously, I'm just as ignorant as those who, hundred of years ago, used to believe that being left handed wasn't a choice and was a genetic trait. *cough, splutter etc*..

Anyway, I'm going to assume now that you're either trolling, on the verge of a midlife crisis, or you're incredibly young and immature or perhaps a combination of all three. Either way, you're seriously frying my brains and I simply can't keep up with the lunacy anymore

reply to post by SpearMint


I already acknowledged that kids who are sexually abused may have their sexuality influenced. There is no way you can shield a child from being aware of homosexuality. It's far more important to teach them about the spectrum of sexual orientation and let them develop in their own way, without imposing a value system on them.

I have presented at conferences and inservices about brain-training, early childhood and adolescent development, focusing on social, biological, neurological, and environmental stimulus. I have spent years studying it. A child who decides to 'experiment' with other sexual orientations is no different than a child who experiments with other things such as challenging authority, rebellion against parental views, style of dressing, career interests, and peer groups/friends.

THAT IS ACTUALLY THEIR JOB as developing human beings. If they are kept from exploring their own identities, they will be warped until they DO SO. I have seen countless cases of kids being held captive and denied the necessary experiences of learning to make their own choices. Have you ever heard of self-differentiation?

I didn't ever say that some people don't have 'fluid' orientations - some are bisexual. Some are not. The predisposition is in place at birth, just like a certain modality of learning (kinesthetic, audial, visual, musical, etc). Perhaps if you did some study into personality development you'd be less hostile about this.

The fact remains, there is no EVIDENCE. Very few people are aware of how their own preferences developed, and far too few try to learn about it. Unfortunately, far too many parents are also not equipped to deal with the challenges of rearing a child in a balanced and appropriate way according to the CHILD's style of learning or temperament.

A shy baby can't be forced to be an outgoing one; a baby sensitive to sound or other sensory perceptions cannot be forced to be insensitive to it. The same thing goes for sexual orientation. If a child has questions or is curious, they should be allowed to ask, and answered with as little emotion as possible. They can't be programmed like robots, no matter how authoritarian their parents are.

NO CHILD should be witnessing adult sexual activities, so how is it any different if, say, two sisters live together and are raising their kids? Or two widowers sharing a household. Having two nurturing adults as parents is the important thing. I would assume that even gay and lesbian couples - if they really ARE good parents - will provide a role model of the opposite sex, meaning that two women, if they are healthy parents, would ensure a male adult is also involved in the child's life. That would be my only objection. If a person has no role model for whichever gender, for example a single boy raised only with women, it doesn't matter whether they're lesbians, his mother and her aunties, or a passel of sisters, he will grow up lacking a very important aspect of upbringing.

Good Lord, you are quick to judge!

reply to post by KatieVA


Katy, I am sure you will be an excellent mom when your baby arrives, and I applaud you for your thoughtfulness and knowledge.
Excellent post.

reply to post by wildtimes


I don't see the point of that rant, I've never suggested that gay parents are bad parents, or that they should be shielded. I also haven't said there's any evidence that they can influnce their child's sexuality, in fact I said it's all theoretical. What I have said is that sexuality is not set in stone (fact), can be influenced by a number of factors (fact) and therefore it is plausible that gay parents could influence their child's sexuality.

Pay attention to what I say before arguing, you're also replying to a post directed at someone else, who does believe sexuality is set in stone.

reply to post by KatieVA


Personal experiences are what the subject is about, they matter more than anything. Of course people will have different experiences, but if one person experiences something then that thing is possible, it doesn't matter that experiences differ. It's really painful arguing with you, nothing sinks in, it's a fact that sexuality can change and be influenced. Take 5 minutes to research it.

I'm really wasting my time arguing with you, so I won't anymore, I couldn't really care less if you continue your ignorant view of sexuality. Everything I've said has been right (I suggest you revise just what that is, as it appears people have assumed I've said things that I haven't), maybe one day you'll realise that.

reply to post by SpearMint

Pay attention to what I say before arguing,

You told me repeatedly that I was wrong and that if I spent 5 minutes researching I'd realize I was 'ignorant'!

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I felt I was under attack and being ridiculed and dismissed as stupid by you.

I don't see the point of that rant.

It wasn't a 'rant.' It was me explaining my perspective and reasons for saying what I did. Which was to defend myself against what you earlier accused me of being: ignorant and not knowing what I was talking about.
*sigh*