Gay marriages would destroy geneology and lead to inbreeding

I have thought about this issue of gay marriages in an effort to understand what are the benefits and costs of marrying two people of the same sex.

The benefits would include:
- Legalizing, recognizing, and unifying two individuals in love who are parteners.
- Double income means better chance in buying houses, cars, ect.

The negatives and costs would include:
- Marriage penalty in taxation of gay couples.
- Inability to have pure biological offspring.
- Unknown roles in raising of children....who takes the mother role, and who takes the father role.
- Lack of sexual diversity, so the kids are exposed to different sexes and learn how the sexes should interact with respect.
Ect...

But what really confuses me is the issue of adoption or parenting for gay couples. While the marriage of a same sex couple may be innocent, parenting for a gay couple is a complex issue.

To examine the methods available for a gay couple to become parents:
1- Artificial insemination for lesbian couples.
2- A carrier and fertilizer mother for gay couples.
3- Adoption.

As far as artificial insemination is concerned, a potential hazard exist in destruction of geneology and understanding of ancestary of the child. This means a child have no idea what are their diseace risk, family health, race, ect.....In addition, that child may marry a sister or a cousin without knowing. In addition, the child will always have the permanent question of who are my biological parents?.

A carrier of fertilizer mother leaves many problems as well. First, only one of the gay guys could be the father, meaning, the other partner is not really a biological father. This can cause jealousy, differential treatment, and could eventually lead to a messy court battle on child custody.

Adoption poses all the problems stated above.

Of course, once a gay marriage is legalized, one would expect the number of gay people to increase and their desire to marry one another to increase. The next generation born into a gay marriage would be more likely to become gay than an average person born into a straight marriage. This means that the numbers of unnatural birthes in our societies will increase, thus increasing the risk of geneology destruction and inbreeding.

Any thoughts on this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think they are some inherent flaws in your argument:

1. The percentage of gays will never be so large(relatively of course) as to affect the population in such a drastic manner

2. As with adoption, in cases of artificial insemination, the medical history of the donor is increasingly, though gradually, becoming available as the importance one's medical history gains acceptance amongst the commonality.

3. The determination of 'race' will never be a problem

4. There is no increase, percentage-wise, in the number of gays. Any observable increase will be in the amount of openly gay, or individuals who embrace that lifestyle. In ancient attica, homosexuality was prevalent and the effect on genealogy was minimal. The reason was simply because it was accepted and a homosexual could and would marry a female and have children. Once homosexuality is accepted, male homosexuals will seek a female partner to inseminate; female homosexuals are already a step ahead.

5. The social roles of a 'father' or 'mother' are easily adaptable with a homosexual couple as they mimick the interelational dependencies of heterosexuals-- by virtue of being products of the same society/culture.

6. Adoption has always been part of human history.

7. You forget a likely benefit: population decrease.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What must be fully understood is the impact gay parenting has on a child. Being raised in a household that has two male parents and no females is obviously very different from heterosexual parenting. The child may lack maturity in social relationships with women later on in life, but such things can never be conclusively proven unless they're studied in depth.

As far as inability to have pure biological offspring goes, if both the parents are willing to compromise there should be no real problem. However, as you said - if the issue of divorce comes up; who can lay greater claim on the child? - the biological parent, or the other parent?

Many gay people wouldn't marry even if such a marriage was legalized. It is true that a child born into a gay household may stand greater chance of turning gay himself/herself; but again - only if it is studied in depth can it be understood. The number of gay people has to undergo a dramatic increase for it to make any severe and marked impact on society.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i guess that's their problem then huh. all those problems you foresee already exist in some form for hetero people but again, not your problem.

i guess my extreme willingness to extend marriage to gay couples, aside from the intrinsic justice of it, stems from how i see marriage at work for every single person i know. my parents are 1 male, 1 female yet they hate each other. they're the two most miserable people i've ever met. they stayed married "for the kids" but that only screwed us up and we ended up hating them both. they are unusual because most of my friends' parents are divorced. i know probably two successful hetero marriages. people my age getting married immediately complain about how their role has changed since getting married. one girl is on the phone with her mom daily complaining about how she has to do all his laundry and cooking and cleaning while he's off at grad school, yet she also has to do her own homework cause she's in grad school too.

homo- couples on the other hand have to really want it. it's not the expected event once you reach your twenties like it is for hetero people. they are not forced into it by social construct. every homo couple i've ever met who has made the effort to be a monogomous domestic couple has been utterly sickeningly beautifully in love. love. where do i ever see love in hetero marriages? come to think of it, there is only one married couple i can think of that loves each other: one of my neighbors...but their daughter is screwed up anyway and likely to be pregnant within the year.

then there is the problem of children. it's easy for a hetero woman to get knocked up. my mom couldn't leave my dad cause she ended up pregnant. it's also expected of hetero people to do because their parents pressure them into it if it doesn't happen by accident.

but a homo couple has to really want children to make it happen. people who so very want to have a kid are the kind of people you want having kids. they're the most likely to provide a happy loving home for their children rich in family values (hate is not a family value!!!) like love and acceptance and understanding. they have to make an effort to make sure the children have both male and female adult role models while many hetero situations are missing one parent or one is never around for the kids. (ex. my dad going to work in the morning and coming home at night, ignoring the kids as if we didn't exist then doing it all again the next day.) what i mean is, nothing is taken for granted. it has to be thought about so nothing gets missed.

these are the kinds of relationships that could provide a good example to hetero couples of what a marriage should be. not obligation but a loving commitment.

 

Let me tell you something honey, most gay/lesbian relationship starts from two main reasons:
1- These people are inept to face the other sex, they are too afraid and prefer to deal with the same sex or school enteem, because it's easier and lacks the intimidation and challenge of working out with the other sex.
2- These people are taking the easy way out in concealing their sexual relationship. Who would suspect that two teenage girls or boys entering the Gym bathroom or their house could be doing anything wrong.

A proactive prudent person is one that forsee a problem and avoids it. A drastic social change in a society is likely to impact us all in ways that you could never imagine.

Swedishfish, your examples really do suck. A person who is miserable in a relationship is a miserable person. Misery seeks company and hence you got your parents and your miserable friends. These people will remain miserable in a gay marriage and it have nothing to do with the merit of the straight/gay marriage.

I have never heard of a straight couple that really didn't want to plan that big grant wedding for 50,000.

Social construct isn't pushing anybody. I have many respectfull friends in their thirties and fourties who are happy to be single and won't have it any other way.

How do you know. Did you knock on their hearts, entered and found love. How do you judge love? By their number of visits to the bar that you're a regular at. How the hell do you know about the intimate secrets and feeling in someone elses relationship.

I for one, would die for my husband. I love him more than life. I adore him for loving me and wanting the best for me in ways more than my own father wanted for me. He typed my Master dissertation and changed my diaper pads full of blood after I had the baby because I couldn't move. There is nothing he wouldn't do for me and me for him.... Are you puking yet???, or do you prefer to listen to gay love stories and that's why you seem so prejudice in your discussions on this subject.

Where the hell do you live??? Must be some northern European countries where scuicide rates are exceeding birth rates. Move to a hoter climate, you might just see some love.

Excatly, homosexuals fear responsbility and lacks prudence. They want the easy way out. So let's all fuck now with no string attached, for their is no babies to worry about, just AIDS.
Are you suggesting that we all turn gay now so we don't concieve anymore? Do you have any sense of personal responsbility or are we all supposed to be sheap here.

Again, your horrific life experiences is influencing the reason unit in your brain. Move out of your infested environment, there's more to life than gay bars, divorces, women getting knocked up, booze, sex, and drugs.

The last thing that I would refer to for advice on relationship is a gay couple. I prefer straight behavior where I know how to respect my fellow woman and befriend her properly without thinking that all she think about me is my sexuality and knowing how to love fellow man as husband, coworker, neighbor, ect. Anyother way is demented and screwed up.

 

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

Lesbian and Gay Parents

One belief that often underlies both judicial decision-making in custody litigation and public policies governing foster care and adoption has been the belief that lesbians and gay men are not fit to be parents. In particular, courts have sometimes assumed that gay men and lesbians are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians' and gay men's relationships with sexual partners leave little time for ongoing parent-child interactions (Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990). Results of research to date have failed to confirm any of these beliefs (Falk, 1989, 1994; Patterson, 1994b, 1995b, 1996).

Mental Health of Lesbians and Gay Men

The psychiatric, psychological, and social-work professions do not consider homosexual orientation to be a mental disorder. More than 20 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from its list of mental disorders, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities" (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). In 1975, the

American Psychological Association took the same position and urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that had long been associated with homosexual orientation (American Psychological Association, 1975). The National Association of Social Workers has a similar policy (National Association of Social Workers, 1994).

The decision to remove homosexual orientation from the list of mental disorders reflects the results of extensive research, conducted over three decades, showing that homosexual orientation is not a psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991; Reiss, 1980; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston, & McKee, 1978). The social and other circumstances in which lesbians and gay men live, including exposure to widespread prejudice and discrimination, often cause acute distress; but there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning (Freedman, 1971; Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Reiss, 1980).

Source: APA Research Summary on Lesbian and Gay Parenting

 

Curses! Flores has uncovered our plot to ruin pretty family tree pictures, and cause inbreeding (Which can only be prevented via looking at these pictures) I guess we will have to come up with another evil agenda.... maybe we can redirect rivers through major citys or something.

 

I'll take credits for that one, I design stormdrain systems and major culverts.

 

Flores,

Ah, this you measured how? Please, i do hope you have some conclusive research that points out that homosexuals make a concious choice to avoid the opposite sex out of fear of confronting them...

You conclude a to you otherwise completely unknown domestic situation to "Misery seeks company and hence...". You do not find this an extraordinary simplistic view?

Yes it does. It pushes homosexuals not to marry.

How do you know the motivations of a group of people? How can you easily categorize a certain segment of the population as being afraid of the opposite sex?

Please, proof to me that homosexuals fear responsibility. Do they live more recklessly? Are they more likely to put their fellow human in danger? Moreover, if you fear that they are irresponsible beings who do nothing more than living a wild life, what makes you think that they would like to adopt and raise children or would like to have the choice to spent a life time with a partner? Wouldn't that be a direct contradiction with the loose lifestyle and unmoral character you seem so eager to attribute to them? We can assume that it is clear to everyone that getting married and raising (adopted) children is not the easy way out.

Yes, that frightens you, doesn't it? You would like to have the world in simple and concrete terms so that you can cope with it, wouldn't you?

In your opinion.

edit: typos and deleted unconstructive sarcasm

 

Hahaha, Flores you crack me up! Seriously, you should go on some sort of comedy tour with this material.

Do you honestly think that homosexuals end up being with members of the same sex because they can't get members of the opposite sex? It's completely absurd. Why is it that gay guys get all the chicks? haha, why does gay porn exist, wouldn't they much rather look at members of the opposite sex? How is it that Gay people can have great friendships with heterosexuals of the opposite sex? You're just making this all up as you go along, aren't you?

Well if you're suggesting that they are homosexuals, then they aren't doing anything wrong

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway I have no idea what the hell you are talking about here. you are listing this as one of two ways that in your crazy little world you feel homosexual relationships get started. . . but I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say here. you're going to have to be much more clear, dear. I'm guessing that the problem is that you don't have a fucking clue either.

So now your argument is that the sky is falling? If we allow homosexual marriages, then by this time next year we'll all be eaten by bears? If a prudent person can forsee a problem and avoid it, then you've shown that you aren't a prudent person, you havn't forseen a problem. All you're doing here is running around shouting that the sky is falling.

Forgive me for this painfully obvious observation, but Swedish fish wasn't talking about planning out a marriage ceremony, he was talking about planning a working relationship, and creating a working and positive family environment. [completely irrational generalization characteristic of Flores]There's a big difference between planning something like that, and planning some big hedonistic party, but I guess that's all that heterosexuals care about anyway. [/completely irrational generalization characteristic of Flores

So, now you are trying to assert that traditional values have absolutely no bearing on society or how people live their lives? Then why, oh wise Flores, are you even bothering to argue against homosexual marriage?

Please do!

Ahh yes, because lord knows that America's 50% divorce rate is such a big improvement. Yeah, we really know how to make people love each other over here.

Yet another example of those wild and irrational generalizations I made fun of you for earlier. How can you possibly paint all homosexuals with the same brush like that? You don't even have any concept of who you are talking about, you've just turned homosexuals into this imaginary enemy for yourself to hate. It makes you sound like a bitter and stupid old woman. It’s not flattering, just don’t do it!

You know, Flores, that is the homosexual agenda after all. We want everyone to turn gay, that's why we are so evangelical, and set up missions to convert poor misguided heterosexuals.

No one has ever seriously made an argument for trying in some way to make heterosexuals gay (the idea is just absurd). Homosexuals aren't preaching that heterosexuality is wrong or a disease, we don't try to say that you don't have a right to your own sexual orientation. It only works the other way around, but if you were genuinely concerned that someone was suggesting that you should turn gay try to remember how that made you feel, and then maybe you'll get a better understanding of exactly what you are trying to do with every word you vomit forth on this subject.

Well, this has never worked with you, before, but I'm going to ask that you apologies, again. You made wild and hate filled assumptions about Swedish Fish, and that's just not fair. He hasn't once mentioned anything about booze, sex or drugs, but again you have to go off the deep end, completely lose touch with reality and turn him into this imaginary stereotype for you to hate.

Well, maybe that's how it is in the imaginary world you've built for yourself, but if you ever care to join us here in reality I'm sure you'll see that this just isn't the case.

 

I would argue against Flores, but you all seem to be doing a good job. carry on.

 

whoa flores, not that your arguments would have merit anyway, but the big flaw is what "causes" homosexuality. there is overwhelming scientific evidence that gay people are born gay. no self respecting scientist would ignore that data in favor of their ancient religious beliefs. it would be a sad sad thing for a person to pretend to be gay. almost as sad as a gay person pretending to be straight.

*digression: i never quite understood this. if sexuality is a choice, than theoretically any of us could be gay including the straight person saying that it is a choice. so straight people, is it possible for you to be gay?*

i don't hang out at bars, i've never been to a gay bar in my life. i have close personal friendships with many gay people. they are not mentally ill except for a couple who have had to deal with non acceptance which of course is very hurtful and damaging. my closest dearest friend in the world is from portugal. her parents were raised on a portuguese farm and never made it past 4th grade. they don't understand what homosexuality is so she was never able to explain it to them. she doesn't even know if there is a word in portuguese for it. she says she's known since she was a very little girl that she liked other girls and not boys. she thought she was going to grow up to be a nun so she wouldn't have to get married to a man before she found out that there were other people like her and it was ok to love people of the same sex. but it's terribly sad that her parents think she is straight. her dad having lived in the country for several years now and watching his daughter grow up is finally getting the picture but her grandma keeps asking when she's getting married (to a man). if she ever does get married (probably in canada) i'm going to be her best man/maid. there was a time she tried pretending to be straight and had several boyfriends, so she never had any trouble with the opposite sex. she just isn't attracted to them.

 

Swedishfish, I'm talking from a personal experience. You said yourself that playing doctor is part of growing up..... So why do we need a scientific resport to confirm a certain Gene, ect...while all we have to do is look outselves and ask ourselves, and put each others in the other shoes. I tell you that your first good experiences with sex is bound to establish your sexuality. SOme of you may say, what proof to you have for that statement. But really think about it with some common sense. If a gay person is having a good experience having sex with a woman then what is his motivation for having sex with a man. The only conclusion is that a gay person doesn't like to have sex with a woman because he either had a personal bad experience or he have seen too many negative implications to sex with women growing up. Let's say for example that I slept first with this horrible man that doesn't know how to touch a lady right. He hurt me, he didn't please me, it was disgusting...Next, I had sex with SwedishFish, she was considerate, loving, touched me correctly, showed me all about my sexuality, taught me how to enjoy sex, then how do you think I'll turn out to be.....I'll be a lesbian of course and it doesn't matter what I was born into and what is my gene makeup. Sex with the opposite sex is hard in the beginning, it's not that pretty and it could be painfull.....afterall, it's two people with opposite poles when it comes to sexual pleasure. I said before that sex with a woman is a violation. A man enters the woman body. Some sensitive men souls don't pleasure from such violation and feel as if they're hurting their partener, this within itself is a sex turn off for many men and a justification for becoming gay. Also, men and women sexual pleasures are quite different. One likes to be stimulated this way and the other like to supress their stimulation by doing that....It's almost like machine gears, one turn in one direction while the otherone goes the opposite. It takes time for opposite sexes to understand one another and get in the groove....We don't call them opposite sexes from thin air.

Tell me about your first sex with a man and dare tell me it was beautifull. He broke my hymn, I hurt, I bled. I couldn't bare sex after that, at least that night, somehow he's still horny and he's moving inside of me while I'm hurting. I don't want to embarass him and hate to pain him and ask him to stop. He was heavy and sweaty....What the hell, don't you think experiences like that would turn any woman off sex. At the same time, I'm sure he have sensed that every muscle in my body was tight that I didn't enjoy this, that I held back, ect....Don't you think that would affect a man and cause him to think that his sex with a woman is not all that it should be, without inhibition. I still stuck around though and the next time was better, the third time was actually enjoyable. I didn't discover that I could orgasm until my tenth time.

This is in my view the main reason that leads to homosexuality...Lack of patience and inability to understand and deal with the opposite sex....Period. What is my proof, it's the pudding of it.

 

Since the fountainhed stayed purely with the issues presented in the first post, I'll use him as a crow bar to bring this discussion back to topic

I expect the number of gays/lesbians to increase drastically after marriage legalization in a country like the US for many reasons.

1- Marriage is the key to many people's freedom and first step toward independance. Many elect to marry as young as highschool graduation to escape a turmoil homes or financial pressures that parents exert on children on that age. The biggest challenge and deterent for marriage at this age, is fear of having children and the guys fear of inability to take care of a weaker sex. A gay marriage would present a simple solution out of these mess. First, children are not an issue to deter a couple from uniting forces, second, a boy wouldn't fear the mountain responsbility of caring for a weakly female, afterall, he is marrying his equivalent counterpart. There is no conditions on types of jobs that could be undertaken, i.e., they can both work in construction and pull nice $20.00 an hour, ect.

2- Just like politics, you have republican, democrates, and independants. Marriage is the same way. You have those who are confident that the way to be is straight, others who are confident that the way to be is gay, a minority, and another majority of independants who really don't think about this issue and may end up singles in the future. It's those independant sections of our society that may sway into the gay section if a behavior like that was embrassed by the government as legal. This will increase the populations of gay.

3- The second and third generation children resulting from gay marriages are more likely to become gays. If you ask for proof to this, then you're in denial. Overtime, the gay population would increase.

Really, does a child who is artificially inseminated have direct access to his sisters, brothers, father, mother, cousins, ect...just in case he need a marrow, kidney, blood, ect...transplant. How much does this child know about his family history. Does he know of his grandpa who was epileptic, or his sisters and brothers that developed cancer, or his father that died from heart attack that he didn't know off when he donated the sperms.

Be real please, there's an extent to debating and you're surpassing it with your assertions here.

Really, you must not have heard of the white couple that used artificial insemination in MD that was said to be from a white donor and ended up having a black baby. The white donor had a black ancester that he didn't feel the need to report.

So one of them grow tits to breast feed the baby, while the other one grows a moustache and a beard to teach the baby how to shave. How does a little girl knows about her period and bikini waxes from a gay couple, and how do a little boy learn about being a man from two lesbians.

A wrongly applied option. While adoption seem to be a noble cause, it carries many risks and problems. In my view, an adoptive parents should be allowed to perform their charity within the context of being adoptive. The child should know that they are adopted, they should keep their original names they were found with, and they shouldn't be treated as equals in inheritance, ect...to the biological children. An adoptive child should never be lied to from the very start or misled to believe that he is a biological son/daughter to the adoptive family.
7. You forget a likely benefit: population decrease.

 

you're not making any sense. you've made up this ridiculous scenario that is simply not true. sorry, your opinions are just not science. how could a straight woman possibly know why another woman is gay, why a straight man is straight or why a gay man is gay from *her own* personal experience? you just can't. there are brain maps, genetic pedigrees, hormonal studies showing quite matter-of-factly the exact opposite of that silly theory of yours.

if we're going to base the lives of other people on personal experience, i can tell you what i know about my gay friends. most have known since they were very small children and just about all before they had ever had any sexual contact.
i have a (different) lesbian friend who has two gay aunts and other suspected but deep in the closet family members. they're a "traditional" catholic family so they'd die before telling anyone.
i knew i liked boys when i was a little child and no one had to tell me whether or not i was supposed to.

 

Swedishfish,
You never answered my question of why does a person become gay if their straight experiece was good? and If their experience was bad, couldn't that be merely a function of the experience or the partener they had?

Please just debate that issue.

 

Flores,

I'm pretty curious- just how many homosexuals have you personally talked with and taken the time to get know and understand them as a person?

I've read your posts regarding homosexuals, and Flores you couldn't be further from the truth. You can say the proof is in the pudding...but, that would be YOUR pudding.

Let me ask you this..prior to having your first sexual encounter, were you attracted to men and women?
I, for one, was attracted to women- not men and that was PRIOR to any sort of sexual contact whatsoever.

Now I must point out to you that because I wanted to please my parents, I tried very very hard to be straight. So hard that I got married. I loved him as a friend, but I couldn't stand having intimacy with him. Not because he was rough or a bad lover etc... but, because for me it was 100% unnatural. Needless to say, I got divorced.

Think of it like this. The majority of people are born right-handed and minority being left-handed.
It used to be long ago that the left-handed people were thought to be evil people and were persecuted and killed just for being left-handed. As time went on in the early 1900's lefthanders were forced to write with their right hand- sometimes they tied their left arm so it couldn't be used.

Now they advise it is better to allow for nautral handedness.

What is natural for you can be unnatural for another- but, one should not be superior over the other.

As far as the pros and cons, don't you think it should be left up each homosexual couple to decide...just as any heterosexual couple has a right. (see we are are not wanting special rights here...just the very same rights as heterosexuals have)

 

Flores,

No, moving out of the parental house is. Perhaps in your part of the world this is synonymous with marriage, in other parts it certainly is not.

I'd say that in this day and age the majority of marriages is certainly not during teen years. Again, of course, i am referring to the situation i know best: Western Europe. I, of course, have no clue of your local situation.

With contraceptives out of the tabboo sphere and widely available, the number of teenage parents is dropping. So you see, the fear for having children is generally not present in most young heterosexual couples, as they know how to prevent it from happening.

When i married my wife, we promised that the burdens and joys are equally shared. Financially and otherwise. This seems to be the standard here - we do not consider a female partner to be more weaker or stronger than her male. Sure, there is inequality in the job market. You see but a few female truck drivers and you see but a few little male waiters or hairdressers. In general, i think it evens out and both sexes can make a very decent living without being dependent on the other. Women are entitled to pregnancy leave and continuation of pay or government subsidy.

On the topic of "the first time" and how this could scare from males having sex with females - i suspect that usually the female is under more pain than a male during a first time. If your theory would be valid, i would expect a much higher rate of female homosexuals rather than male homosexuals. On top of that, if you realise that homosexual sex between two males, if done improperly e.g. due to lack of experience, can just as well end up in an unpleasurable experience for one or both partners you can see that the same barrier would apply for male-male unions.

People who are not convinced of their own sexuality? Usually everyone has a pretty good idea about their preferences.

I could imagine that some bi-sexuals would choose for the homosexual union option. This would not increase the number of gays, though. It remains exactly equal.

Why?

I do ask for proof. If you have none to give, so be it. But how can you expect me to accept your statements just on face value?

Your argument holds or falls by your statement that people choose to be homosexuals to avoid a confrontation with the opposite sex. Interesting hypothesis, but i do not think it works like that.

First of all, as i explained above, the fear of having children is not that present in at least the society i was raised in.

Secondly, the notion that having sex with a member of the opposite sex can be a discouraging experience is valid for male-male sex as well as female-male sex. If people regarded this as a major factor in establishing their preference, i would have expected to see significantly more female-female homosexuals than male-male homosexuals.

Thirdly, observation has led me to believe otherwise. E.g. i discovered my heterosexuality when i was five or six years old. I did not think of responsibilities, of a weaker sex or of children... i just found myself attracted to females. No conscious choice. From discussions with homosexuals it seemed to me that they had a similar experience with of course the difference that they prefer the same sex.

 

"It's those independant sections of our society that may sway into the gay section if a behavior like that was embrassed by the government as legal. This will increase the populations of gay."

Whereas the probably most appropirate way of looking at it is like a continuum between heterosexual at one and and homosexual at the other, and there are some peopel on the bisexual area of it. One of my friends is bisexual, but now has a boyfriend and is faithful to him. Would you say she has been converted to heterosexuality, or is sex not necessarily connected to love?
And you also need to demonstrate that people currently thought of as heterosexaul will suddenly think, "oh great, homosexuality is alright, i'll give it a go."

"The second and third generation children resulting from gay marriages are more likely to become gays. If you ask for proof to this, then you're in denial. Overtime, the gay population would increase."

You have what data on this? Go on, bring us some numbers, some respectabel surveys, some PROOF! YOu dont expect us to believe you without some proof do you? And how are we in denial for asking for proof? We're just being fair and even handed and scientific.

"Really, does a child who is artificially inseminated have direct access to his sisters, brothers, father, mother, cousins, ect...just in case he need a marrow, kidney, blood, ect...transplant. How much does this child know about his family history. Does he know of his grandpa who was epileptic, or his sisters and brothers that developed cancer, or his father that died from heart attack that he didn't know off when he donated the sperms."

And your point is? We have had adoption for centuries, usually with the concommitent lack of knowledge of ancestors, and it hasnt apaprently hurt many people yet. Can you give us some urls to info on it?

"Really, you must not have heard of the white couple that used artificial insemination in MD that was said to be from a white donor and ended up having a black baby. The white donor had a black ancester that he didn't feel the need to report."

And? A mistake was made in a case like that in the UK, maybe the same one you were thinking of, except it was a pure or nearly so negro and white couple. How does this matter to the debate abuot how homosexual marriages would destroy genealogy and lead to inbreeding?

"So one of them grow tits to breast feed the baby, while the other one grows a moustache and a beard to teach the baby how to shave. How does a little girl knows about her period and bikini waxes from a gay couple, and how do a little boy learn about being a man from two lesbians."

Thats about the most sensible thing youve said so far. I'd like to say i have a perfect answer, but in fact the situations will likely end up like when you have single parent families, eg when one spouse dies. They rely on friends and relatives. Its real life, its messy, live with it.

 

Flores -

Regarding gender role models in raising children. First off, I think you associate way too much with gender identity. Secondly, in terms of what can reasonably be associated with gender identity (eg menstruation), it appears you assert that such children would be raised in a bubble. Yes, this would be a problem for a couple raising a child in the wilderness without outside contact, but any social problems that result would be more directly attributed to a general lack of outside contacts. A healthy individual, regardless of the gender of their primary guardians, has a wide variety of examples to learn from. This is why we have communities.

Regarding medical data of adopted and artificially inseminated offspring. The issues you bring up have more to do with disclosure of information than the sexual orientation of the parents. I agree that these are issues which need to be addressed, but if you believe this is reason homosexual couples should not be allowed children, you are sorely mistaken.

Regarding the "proof-denial" comment. I'll risk beating a dead horse on this one. That argument has no more merit than "I'm from Mars. If you want
proof, you're in denial."

Heart -
Semi-off-topic. Historically, the practice of killing left-handers was far less common even before 1900 than was the practice of forcing them to use their right hand. Feudal Japan is an example that comes to mind, where wearing a sword on your right hip was a sign that you weren't going to draw it. Just a little tidbit.