Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[vyo476]

There is research that shows that children of homosexual parents have more problems with sexual identity than children of heterosexual parents, and they have more problems socializing than children of hetero parents and as a result, are more prone to drug abuse, unsafe sexual practices, and suicide.

Add that onto the fact that the vast bulk of aids cases are the result of homosexual behavior and your case for homosexuality harming no one goes right out of the window.

If you don't mind, I'd like a link to this research.

 

[palerider]

If you don't mind, I'd like a link to this research.

I don't do a whole lot of research on the internet. Any medical school library can provide you with volumes to pour over.

Here are a couple of references to get you started if you have any interest in doing more than scratching the surface of the topic via what you can get on the internet.

This one is interesting in that it exposes serious deviations from standard methodology in some of the most often cited studies that supposedly show that the children of homosexuals and those of heterosexuals fare equally.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.PDF

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k54p45p221q15j1p/

 

[dahermit]

The vast majority of those who are identified as gay are not true homosexuals but rather people who have made lifestyle choices. Less than 2% of the population are true homosexuals.

Please give a link to this statement. I cannot believe that a strait person(person who is only attracted physically to the opposite sex), would "choose" a lifestyle of sex with the same sex. Nevertheless, I await the link.

 

[palerider]

Please give a link to this statement. I cannot believe that a strait person(person who is only attracted physically to the opposite sex), would "choose" a lifestyle of sex with the same sex. Nevertheless, I await the link.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr... Topics/Organizations/U/University of Chicago

 

[BigRob]

And here comes the same studies to contradict you.

NY Times

APA Statement


More....

Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."

Dr. Stacey, who published a critical review of studies on the subject in 2001 and has argued in favor of allowing adoption by gays, added, "The debate among scientists is all about how good the studies we have really are."

Since 1980, researchers have published about 25 studies comparing children from same-sex households with peers in traditional families, using measures of social adjustment, school performance, mental health and emotional resilience. Some of the studies have focused on elementary-school children, others on those not quite teenagers, a few on adolescents; a handful have followed children for years. Uniformly, the authors have reported that there are no significant developmental differences between the two groups of children.


WebMD
Study

 

[vyo476]

I don't do a whole lot of research on the internet. Any medical school library can provide you with volumes to pour over.

Here are a couple of references to get you started if you have any interest in doing more than scratching the surface of the topic via what you can get on the internet.

This one is interesting in that it exposes serious deviations from standard methodology in some of the most often cited studies that supposedly show that the children of homosexuals and those of heterosexuals fare equally.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.PDF

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k54p45p221q15j1p/

I looked over the paper on "serious deviations from standard methodology" and I'm personally of the opinion that it's mostly rubbish. The idea seems to be that since the sample sizes were kept small, and almost all samples were simply of white, middle-class gay men and women, the samples were not indicative of the total populace.

This is a logical fallacy. The point is to show that it is possible for gay parents to be as proficient at childrearing as heterosexual parents. Therefore, any sampling of homosexual parents would do; to suggest that others might have tilted the scales downward because they aren't white or middle-class or anything else is only to suggest that those factors affect parenting, not homosexuality.

It's like this. Say they take 12 gay, white upper-middle class guys for the test group. They all prove to be good fathers for their children - the kids aren't experiencing any undue conflict. This report cries foul - after all, aren't there poor, racially diverse gay people who want to be parents? If they were here, the results would have been different. Yes, they would have - but not because of homosexuality.

I don't have time to read any more of the report right now as I have class this afternoon (and probably a couple more threads here to hit - I'm an addict) but we'll see what you have to say to this post.

 

[Coyote]

blooper

 

[Coyote]

I stopped when I just needed glasses

damn...made me snort up crystal lite again!

 

[Coyote]

Sorry Rob. I am not the politically correct sort. I won't deny the truth simply because it may hurt some feelings. The fact is that traditional families are the best environment for children and the further away from that environment kids get, the more likely they are to develop problems and the further away from that environment they get, the more severe those problems are likely to be.

What exactly is "traditional family" - the problem is, that has changed over the years. It used to be an extensive extended family. Then it became the so-called "nuclear" family. Family is constantly re-defining itself. I think you need to look at stability, the ability to nurture, educate, discipline over the exact composition of the family.

Do you know of any studies that show this and, in particular in relation to a homosexual couple raising children as opposed to dysfunctional families?

 

[Coyote]

I fail to see how homosexuality, in and of itself, harms anyone. What evidence?

 

[dahermit]

Bad reseach

Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay

*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. April 15, 1993, Thursday
By FELICITY BARRINGER (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 986 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - A new national study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough published since the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows that about 2 percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and that 1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual. The figures on homosexuality in the ...

This link is of little value. It is an abstract of a supposed study; not the study itself. No evidence is shown of how the study was done, nothing to indicate which if any factors were controlled. For instance, how many gay males wish to conceal the fact that they are gay and would not indicate on a questionnaire that they have had sex with same sex? Also, there is no indication in this link that strait men have been having sex with same sex.

 

[palerider]

I looked over the paper on "serious deviations from standard methodology" and I'm personally of the opinion that it's mostly rubbish. .

Tell me, do you accept and defend the results of all studies that stray from accepted scientific methodology or just those whose findings support your position?

 

[vyo476]

Tell me, do you accept and defend the results of all studies that stray from accepted scientific methodology or just those whose findings support your position?

Ha ha, very funny, now read the rest of my post.

The assertion was that they didn't diversify the study groups enough. So long as they used gay people, this doesn't matter, as any "diversification" of the study group wouldn't add to the root factor: homosexuality.

An upper-middle class gay man with a home in suburbia, a nice car, and a supportive family and friend base is just as capable of displaying how homosexuality affects parenthood as a lower class gay man with a crappy job, living in the middle of a decaying post-industrial urban enviornment. The point is homosexuality, and any difference between the latter gay man and a straight man would probably have to do with his means - not necessarily his sexual orientation.

 

[jb_1430]

I looked over the paper on "serious deviations from standard methodology" and I'm personally of the opinion that it's mostly rubbish. The idea seems to be that since the sample sizes were kept small, and almost all samples were simply of white, middle-class gay men and women, the samples were not indicative of the total populace.

This is a logical fallacy. The point is to show that it is possible for gay parents to be as proficient at childrearing as heterosexual parents. Therefore, any sampling of homosexual parents would do; to suggest that others might have tilted the scales downward because they aren't white or middle-class or anything else is only to suggest that those factors affect parenting, not homosexuality.

One example of a gay couple as proficient at childrearing as heterosexual parents would demonstrate that point. These studies were offered as evidence that gays actually were as proficient as heterosexuals, by comparing the statistics between two groups. By including poor minorities in the heterosexual group and excluding them from the homosexual group, their claims of equality become meaningless.

 

[numinus]

So you are suggesting masturbation is harmful?

It is amusing how people can only see what they want to see.

While masturbation, done in the privacy of your own home, does not present any harm to society, neither does it represent a behavior that the state wishes to encourage. That's the point.

I leave it up to you to apply this particular logic to gay marriages.

However, masturbation is a moral question because it is an action that render a human person as an object of another's personal pleasure.