Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

redlightrobot

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"May, in some ways, tend, chose, rarely, on average, may have, on average, on average, according to some research, are likely, studies show, Of course, this isn't to say, report didn't compare, directly, research suggests, more likely than, could be, and part could be, No matter how you slice it, Interestingly, we find that a small percentage, but enough to be noteworthy, Research has shown, review of virtually every study, There is very little research, [WTF], couldn't draw conclusions [OMG], suspects that, on average, That's a speculation [LMFAO!], thus likely, may also experience, The bottom line, people who say, are misrepresenting the research, most of which, seems, While you do find broad differences, on average, there is much more, are more like, feel like their perspectives, tend to have, less wedded to, found that many, would help"

Wow Rbot! With facts like these who can argue. Every single fact was backed up with............Exactly!

The only fact in the article (a slip of the tongue) is the homosexual population is at best 1-1 1/2%.

KBM:

The FACT here is that there are some interesting possibilities. I know it puzzles you that the author has not stooped to phrasing conjecture as fact, but not everyone has the gift for making stuff up displayed by right-wing politicians and pundits.

redlightrobot you should stop posting articles out of your issues of Gay Cowboy. Your secret is safe with us.

Not like Abbie Goldberg has an agenda. From the Carpet munching capital of the East Central Ma.

Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle (Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay...

Gay Men Becoming Dads: Transitions to Adoptive Fatherhood

www.amazon.com

therainbowtimesmass.com

Careful, you are going to make bowel movement's head explode.

Well, you know these gay parents had hetro-sexual parents themselves.

So their Mom and Dad must have been doing something right.

-So their Mom and Dad must have been doing something right.

or not.

okay....just kidding.

The longer we deny them basic rights and equality, the longer we have to listen to 'studies' show how special and gifted they are.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,"

HAR~! HAR~! HAR~!

What silly horseshit! With abortion-on-demand everyone chooses to become a parent or not.

I've seen this. They are kicking our asses in parenting.

"What silly horseshit! With abortion-on-demand everyone chooses to become a parent or not."

That's as dumb as the comment you criticized.

Gheys are to parenting as asians are to math?

LoD is right...Let's just give these queers what they want so we can quit hearing about how they're special, and different than us regular folk, yet they're just like us at the same time...

11--First line funny! Second line just bitter, or angry. There's a point in there, granted, but the anger is too much.

I could argue that adoptive parents are generally better.

This isn't a message I would go out and try to sell.

At this point, you have many hetros who are tolerant of gay relationships and are willing to allow gay to marry.

But if go off and start asserting "because I'm gay, I'm a better parent", you'll lose ground...and fast.

Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident

"Rarely"? Don't they mean "never"? Or have gay men suddenly evolved to have a uterus attached to the rectum?

"But if go off and start asserting "because I'm gay, I'm a better parent", you'll lose ground...and fast."

Did any gay person assert this? I've never read or heard of such an assertion.
+++++

""Rarely"? Don't they mean "never"? Or have gay men suddenly evolved to have a uterus attached to the rectum?"

That's stupid. You've never heard of a gay person who dated and slept with members of the opposite sex? People get pregnant quite often in this world, sometimes as a result of sex with someone who later determined he/she was gay.

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have ....???

In other words "we have no evidence only assumptions"

Articles like this are crap and only appeal to the ignorant.

So we know Goatsy isn't gay. Tough luck 101.

-Did any gay person assert this?

no, not yet. I said "if", didn't I?

#18

For at least the hundredth time, northgay proves he is so obsessed with me that he has to bring me up in threads I have not participated in.

I'm under your skin bad, northgay. You once again proved it. How does it feel to be pwned by me, dipshit? LOL

You've never heard of a gay person who dated and slept with members of the opposite sex? People get pregnant quite often in this world, sometimes as a result of sex with someone who later determined he/she was gay.

#16 | Posted by pragmatist

Yes, Danni was married to a dude.

That being said, that seems like an individual that is extremely confused and unfit for the type of decision making required to be the "good parent" this article is attempting to convince us that gheys are.
Besides, to nitpick, that person you reference is Bi, not ghey, if I'm not mistaken.

So we know Goatsy isn't gay.

And using your logic, you are the best parent on the planet. (still trying to figure out how a "man" without balls pulled that feat off, but whatever)

Time to set yourself back up, bowling pin. LOL

It makes sense. With anti-gay bigotry running rampant in America, gay parents have something to prove. Straight parents don't have their rights on the line and have no reason to show themselves to be great parents.

We certainly didn't help the hetero cause. -Sonny and Cher

this was a bad "study" a few months ago when it was published, and discussed here and reposting does not make it any better. it is nearly a conclusion based on an agenda without anything but speculation to back it up. in other words, the author of the "study " is just hoping by speaking her wishes out loud that they come true.

They seem to want to make the claim that two gays are as good if not better than a mother and a father. Then they need to compare to a committed hetero relationship not the 'average'. Otherwise all they are arguing is that cat shit is better than dog shit.

"Besides, to nitpick, that person you reference is Bi, not ghey, if I'm not mistaken."

Not if they have gone full gay. I know men who were in marriages, for instance, and "realized they were gay," then divorced. That's not the situation we're talking about, but there are plenty of men who sleep with women despite being gay (not knowing, not being willing/able to admit, trying to "get over it"). Bisexual means you are attracted to both or active with both.
+++++

26 doesn't even make sense.

#17 may be the only relevant post on this thread.

There is no evidence to support the premise of the article.

But I'm sure in certain areas they do have advantages. And in other areas, they have a disadvantage. You can't teach a boy to throw a ball if you can't do so yourself, for example.

"26 doesn't even make sense."

Sure it does. Compare gay couples to adopt to other couples who adopt. If you're trying to figure out if a kid is better off being adopted by a gay or straight couple, thats the only sensible way to do it.

29--Your rewriting of it makes sense.

And sometimes "two gays" are better than a "[birth] mother and [birth] father." And sometimes a foster family (hetero) is better than a "[birth] mother and [birth] father." Hell, sometimes a cardboard box is better than a "[birth] mother and [birth] father."

But if what Hugu meant is what you said, then I agree: explore stats comparing straight couples who adopt with gay couples who adopt. Of course, that leaves out gay couples who arrange by other means (one of my good friends is a woman married to another woman, and they have a girl who is the same age as my older son; my friend's partner is the birth mother, though I don't know if that was in vitro or natural with the assistance of a friend). And gay men have been known to do the surrogate mother thing. Those two cases aren't the same as adopting.

I think the real gist of the article should be that gay adoptive parents are better than no adoptive parents, regardless of how they stack up to heterosexual parents. With so many unwanted children in the foster system, with nearly no chance to be adopted, we should look at gay parents as a resource, and part of the solution to our adoptive care system. Foster kids who are (for whatever reason) less likely to be adopted would, without rational argument, be far better off with loving and stable families, regardless of the sexual preferences of the adoptive parents...

People like Prick "frothy" Santorum, who prey on the weak minded intolerance of the Christian Conservative crowd, exploiting their hate as to garner votes are just opportunistic parasites, who by doing so, prove that they have no business in real politics...

Children need both a mother and father.

I will agree in the absence of a mother and father, a loving caretaker is far better than foster care.

well, well, here's a big rainbow kick in the teeth for you chickenshit fundies and homophobes...lol.

I guess that NO regular couples wanted any of the kids they had? WTF? Only queers choose to be parents?

#30 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

Spot on. We'll see if anyone does that study, but I expect it either won't happen or it will be pursued by someone attempting to discredit the authors of this articles study.

Personally, any parents are better than no parents.

"Gay People May be Retarded, but are Definitly Mentally Disturbed"

My headline is just as accurate, and even more plausible.

But I'm sure in certain areas they do have advantages. And in other areas, they have a disadvantage. You can't teach a boy to throw a ball if you can't do so yourself, for example.

#28 | Posted by Sully at 2012-01-17 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's the bull dyke's job. You must be assuming the queers are male.

"Spot on. We'll see if anyone does that study, but I expect it either won't happen or it will be pursued by someone attempting to discredit the authors of this articles study."

Possibly true. But then, why do we even need a study? It's stupid. If two responsible adults are willing to take on a child who needs to be adopted, why does it matter if they're gay or straight? For fuck's sake, it's the "responsible" part that matters. Just look at the shit that biological parents do to their kids. My half-brothers were beaten physically and browbeaten mentally for their entire lives; that shit does damage.

And Prolix, I don't agree that children need a mother and a father. I would say that children benefit most from a loving mother and a loving father, who love not only the children but each other. It's that last part, who love..., that means the most, not what sort of plumbing (and yes, I know, it's about more than plumbing) the loving parents have. If my wife and I died, I would have no problem with, say, my brother-in-law and his partner taking on the kids. Or my friend and her partner. Emphasis on "responsible" and "loving."

"You can't teach a boy to throw a ball if you can't do so yourself, for example."

In hetero couples, the woman may well throw a ball better than the man. But maybe you were joking (I hope). I also know men who cook better and clean better than their wives. Sex has nothing to do with these skills; you're referring to society and cultural expectations.

northgay proves he is so obsessed with me that he has to bring me up in threads I have not participated in.

Geez, you try to say something positive and it still makes him freak out.
Talk about yourpreserve maker with issues....

But then, why do we even need a study? It's stupid.

You're forgetting academic pride. Someone will rise to challenge the findings through more scrupulous scientific method (which was missing in this study, for the most part). You can't get the grants if you don't take the chance....

You've never heard of a gay person who dated and slept with members of the opposite sex? -- #16 | Posted by pragmatist

...that person you reference is Bi, not ghey, if I'm not mistaken. -- #21 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Not necessarily. I've known gay men who have grown up wanting a Leave-it-to-Beaver family life despite being sexually attracted to men and not women. At least one genuinely loved his wife and would have happily done the 'til-death-do-us-part thing if the double life hadn't taken its toll.

It's just they're used to the 'luring' thing. It's called hide and go seek, just at a higher level!

Not necessarily. I've known gay men who have grown up wanting a Leave-it-to-Beaver family life despite being sexually attracted to men and not women. At least one genuinely loved his wife and would have happily done the 'til-death-do-us-part thing if the double life hadn't taken its toll.

#42 | Posted by Phoenix

It wasn't really that important of a point for me to make, I was simply wondering if I had the correct terms.
In your above example, I have a hard time believing what he had was "love" in the "marriage" sense. Clearly he loved the other portion of his life more than he "loved" his wife, otherwise he would have ended the offending (in context) behavior.
Again, not a point I want to argue over, just talking to talk.

41--Well said. It wasn't that I didn't agree; it's that needing a study for something patently obvious (and mind you, I'm willing to see where sometimes that leads us to some other interesting and important explorations) just kinda pisses me off.
+++++

42--If he wasn't sexually attracted to his wife, he wasn't/isn't bi. He was living a lie, for whatever reasons, good or bad.
+++++

43--Flag: stupidest statement on the thread. Not even quality trolling. For lessons, see 101 or Kanrei. I expect neither would be cheap, though.

44--Goddamit, Chair. Would you stop being so... attentive to the topic? You're fucking with my sense of DR reality!

"Spot on. We'll see if anyone does that study, but I expect it either won't happen or it will be pursued by someone attempting to discredit the authors of this articles study."
Possibly true. But then, why do we even need a study? It's stupid. If two responsible adults are willing to take on a child who needs to be adopted, why does it matter if they're gay or straight? For fuck's sake, it's the "responsible" part that matters. Just look at the shit that biological parents do to their kids. My half-brothers were beaten physically and browbeaten mentally for their entire lives; that shit does damage.
And Prolix, I don't agree that children need a mother and a father. I would say that children benefit most from a loving mother and a loving father, who love not only the children but each other. It's that last part, who love..., that means the most, not what sort of plumbing (and yes, I know, it's about more than plumbing) the loving parents have. If my wife and I died, I would have no problem with, say, my brother-in-law and his partner taking on the kids. Or my friend and her partner. Emphasis on "responsible" and "loving."
#38 | Posted by pragmatist at 2012-01-17 01:13 PM

Let's also be honest - some parents are not the parenting type. And by logic, some non-parents are ready-made Courtship of Eddies Father.

What astounds me is that even being born in such privileged time doesn't afford you a parent based on gender politics backed by 2000 year old religious dogma. The most destructive elements of which have been proven distasteful to enlightened society, particularly classism and slavery. Christianity is being used as a weapon against these children, their opportunities to a healthy family are ignored.

The emotional damage caused by abandonment is pretty devastating - fundamentalists really shouldn't judge selfless love unworthy. Even a single parent who is engaged and loving is better than two who are absent.

Unplanned for MLK, I just happened to see The Help yesterday - all Americans should watch it. I don't want to spoil it, but when you see the separation that I'm referring to, realizing that children cannot choose what kind of "family" or how beloved they might be.

Someone will rise to challenge the findings through more scrupulous scientific method "

The politics of the issue make that difficult. Studies that end with results that do not praise gays are often avoided. Unfortunately you are often ostracized if your results are not PC or politically acceptable and while it is the very antithesis of science it is the norm to avoid politically controversial results.

Unfortunately you are often ostracized if your results are not PC or politically acceptable

Very true. We see it here all the time:

Scientists find evidence supporting MMGW = brilliant truth seekers.

Scientists find evidence questioning MMGW= paid off hacks and fake scientists.

@30
Yes, control for a single variable.

homosexuals or super humans as i call them are elite humans...
they combine men and women into one person...and give terrific blow jobs...

if you have ever spent any time with homosexuals in a professional enviroment you would understand...

if you discriminate against them you qualify as the lowest form of human...

fyi
dr. king thought homosexuality was a problem that needed to be fixed...

"Let's also be honest - some parents are not the parenting type."

Exactly my point. What's the line? It's easy to be a father, but really difficult to be a dad?
+++++

48--It wouldn't be praise to say that most gay parents raise well-adjusted kids with no weird issues or sexual problems, which I expect is the case. (That is, I expect the incidence of problems in kids raised by homosexuals is no greater than that in those raised by heterosexuals. Proportionately.)
+++++

49--And vice versa.
+++++

50--Sure. Consider the other points now, if you really want to get into this. : )

"they combine men and women into one person...and give terrific blow jobs...
if you have ever spent any time with homosexuals in a professional enviroment you would understand..."

Gettin' blow jobs in the workplace again, YouGot? : )

"they combine men and women into one person...and give terrific blow jobs...
if you have ever spent any time with homosexuals in a professional enviroment you would understand

Prison guard?

Someone will rise to challenge the findings through more scrupulous scientific method "
The politics of the issue make that difficult. Studies that end with results that do not praise gays are often avoided. Unfortunately you are often ostracized if your results are not PC or politically acceptable and while it is the very antithesis of science it is the norm to avoid politically controversial results.
#48 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-01-17 02:14 PM

Now I'm down in it.. ugh.

Sexuality studies have been extraordinarily fought against by the puritanical religious Right, particularly where a committee would be allocating funding. Face it, everything you've posted is backwards to reality.

Regarding that trailer - the music is all orchestrated, and quite appropriate. That modern soul track is only at the ending credits. Trailers are often edited by use of employing monkeys to fling feces at the Billboard chart.

"they combine men and women into one person...and give terrific blow jobs...
if you have ever spent any time with homosexuals in a professional enviroment you would understand"
Prison guard?
#54 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-17 02:21 PM

OFF THE TURNBUCKLE FF!

@52
OK Prag:

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents"

It seems to me that the variable in good parenting she identifies is 'choosing' to be a parent. Hardly something that she can correlate with being gay. Then, she needs to show that simply 'wanting' kids makes you a good parent.

Kids raised by their biological father and mother do BEST. I don't think that anyone disputes that.

@52
OK Prag:
Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents"
It seems to me that the variable in good parenting she identifies is 'choosing' to be a parent. Hardly something that she can correlate with being gay. Then, she needs to show that simply 'wanting' kids makes you a good parent.
Kids raised by their biological father and mother do BEST. I don't think that anyone disputes that.
#57 | Posted by Huguenot at 2012-01-17 02:32 PM

The character of the person does matter, absolutely.

Clearly he loved the other portion of his life more than he "loved" his wife, otherwise he would have ended the offending (in context) behavior. -- #44 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Can't argue; he might even agree with you. Doesn't change the fact that he really did love her.

They were living in the same house again, with their daughter, after she had divorced him, when his (then ex-) wife died. Kinda makes you glad you're life is (presumably) a little less confusing, eh?

As an alumnus of Clark University (also fondly known as Hymie U) I wouldn't put any stock in any study that comes outta there it's even too far left for Brandeis

" Face it, everything you've posted is backwards to reality."

Uh huh, sure.

Studies on sexuality were quite taboo until kinsey. At that point his study became the only real resource and though it was amazingly flawed it was used as a base to the understanding of human sexuality. To this day you here people parroting his fake 10% of the population being gay but there have been almost no studies that would point to an accurate number. So what we are left with is an estimate between .5-2.5% because people are afraid to tackle the issue. In this study, what you have is someone with a pony in the race who worked with a conclusion before looking at the data and you see that in the lack of factual support. But if it went the other way and a study was put out saying th opposite it would be written off as just religious anti-gay rhetoric without regard to its possible validity. Belittlement of research that point to the issues with homosexuality is easy and works well in the fear inspired world where being labeled a homophobe can be political suicide, but on the other side if you work inside the gay agenda you are lauded as an open minded individual and either way the work itself is not the reason. It is politics and to deny that it is a driving factor is disingenuous at best. Pertending that the 700 club is somehow manipulating the scientific community is flat out delusional.

Kids raised by their biological father and mother do BEST. I don't think that anyone disputes that. -- #57 | Posted by Huguenot

You're forgetting the important "all other things equal" caveat. Important b/c you probably don't want to suggest that all adopted children would have been better off if they had been raised by the biological parents who didn't want them.

You're forgetting the important "all other things equal" caveat.

Very true. My mother and step-father who loved one another deeply raised me far better than my biological mother and father did while they were married and hating one another.

@62
I don't know of any way that a conclusive answer to your question could be found. I guess my statement could be qualified by saying 'from the evidence we have'.

How could you compare kids raised by people that thought about giving them up for adoption but didn't versus kids that actually were given up for adoption? Sometimes it seems obvious that some kids should have been given up for adoption but weren't. In those cases you could say that adoption would have been better. But if they are being raised by their biological father and mother then they would be accounted for.

Maybe you mean to suggest that being raised by your biological father and mother is not a panacea which is right. It just has the best outcomes compared to everything else. Which is why, IMHO, deference should be given.

Time to set yourself back up, bowling pin. LOL

#22 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2012-01-17 11:32 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Another self proclaimed victory.

How can they tell the outcomes yet? Not even one generation has been molded by these kooks in the first place. Lets wait and see how all the bullying rules and toleration crap plays out in society. Then we'll know. My guess is the nation continues its downward fall. Americas 2008 brain fart lives on. NOBAMA 2012.

"Kids raised by their biological father and mother do BEST. I don't think that anyone disputes that."

I dispute that. Cf. my earlier comments about being responsible and loving. Also cf. the comment about a cardboard box. There are plenty of shitty biological parents out there, easily blowing a big fat hole in your sweeping assertion.

That said, in an ideal situation, yes, I agree with you. And if the parents are good parents, I don't think anyone would disagree.
+++++

Gee, biased much. "Kooks"? There ya go. And what in the world does Obama's election have to do with any of this? Putting that in there, your standard sig I know, just makes you look like (more of) a fool.

"Face it, everything you've posted is backwards to reality."
Uh huh, sure.
Studies on sexuality were quite taboo until kinsey. At that point his study became the only real resource and though it was amazingly flawed it was used as a base to the understanding of human sexuality. To this day you here people parroting his fake 10% of the population being gay but there have been almost no studies that would point to an accurate number. So what we are left with is an estimate between .5-2.5% because people are afraid to tackle the issue. In this study, what you have is someone with a pony in the race who worked with a conclusion before looking at the data and you see that in the lack of factual support. But if it went the other way and a study was put out saying th opposite it would be written off as just religious anti-gay rhetoric without regard to its possible validity. Belittlement of research that point to the issues with homosexuality is easy and works well in the fear inspired world where being labeled a homophobe can be political suicide, but on the other side if you work inside the gay agenda you are lauded as an open minded individual and either way the work itself is not the reason. It is politics and to deny that it is a driving factor is disingenuous at best. Pertending that the 700 club is somehow manipulating the scientific community is flat out delusional.
#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-01-17 02:40 PM

I will entertain this topic of percentages solely if you are willing.

You are right - I have no faith in most studies and shouldn't expect others to blindly rationalize without some experience. To that end, I have the experience and hopefully enlightened enough to recognize that sexuality is more than a clear-cut identification of gender attraction.

History indicates the majority of human rulers are bisexual. Why we don't see so much of that is due to religion imposing sexual roles, imposing it's own rules to sexuality. When people are freed from or "above" that dogma they gravitate toward compatibility and opportunity dictating elements sexuality.

If you have seen any period pieces you would immediately recognize the religious imposition on that society, and every culture perpetuates this as a means of controlling the population. For better or worse, most people want to belong to a righteous faith that defines them as greater than the sum of this mortality. This crosses all segments of population, everyplace. Church generally are not talking about that, and would rather tell them "they are called". The psychology of belonging.. and exclusion. And thus you get zealots, prohibition, curfew and sinners.

@67
It's not like comparing Republicans to Democrats. While it's true that the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat, I'm not saying that the worst two biological parents are better than the best single parent or gay parents or foster parents. I'm just saying that in 'stand alone' groups, a biological father and mother together (in other words an intact family) do the best. ;)

List all of the societal benefits of queer sex, redlight.

It ain't natural, boy. That's that.

List them anyway.

Maybe you mean to suggest that being raised by your biological father and mother is not a panacea which is right. It just has the best outcomes compared to everything else. -- #64 | Posted by Huguenot

No, after more thinking, I don't even believe we can say that being raised by biological parents is best, all things equal.

For example, many moons ago I read a study indicating that adopted children are less likely to be racist, as they did not grow up imprinting on people who looked like them.

I think generalizations like the one you're trying to make are beyond useless.

"History indicates the majority of human rulers are bisexual."

No, there were some obviously but there is no reasonable way you could call it a majority. There is just no data aside from the accounts of a fews excesses and debauchery.

Religion is not the only factor that goes against homosexuality. It does not exist in many places where religion(assuming you are speaking judeo-christian) has not been brought. Many of thees peoples do not allow homosexual activity in their social structure. That has been the case historically in the lesser populated areas and is still the case. Much of that has to do with social rule not just, and in many cased no, religious rule. It may be an innate preservation instinct although homosexuality does exist is some animals or it may be an underlying morality as it is well documented to exist without religion.
Again, it is not religion that imposes gender roles in sexuality, that is done via biology. Much of the rest comes from social standards which again can be traced to the animal kingdom. For instance, there are very few matriarchal cultures in the human race. As a species we have historically set the leadership roles as male. To allow homosexual activity would be to be dominated as it is in the vast majority of animal species. That carries over to a resistance to homosexuality.
(I use homosexuality as a term loosely when i speak of animals as very few of the cases involve sexual tendencies but are rather social markers)

But from what i have seen religion is more a scapegoat then a cause for anti gay thinking. It is easy to blame religion and call it an antiquated dogma that is wrong because you don't fit in it but it is no less valid as a social structure then any other. But that would bring us to a universal morality which is another topic.

"most people want to belong to a righteous faith that defines them as greater than the sum of this mortality."

This is natural, it is a fear of death as well as a desire for order and authority. Religion is not the culprit, human nature is and it is not a negitive by definition.

Where is the proof?

@72
All things aren't equal ;)

"While it's true that the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat,"

It's not TRUE; it's your OPINION. And a pretty crazy one--not on an ideological level, but on a linguistic one. Think about it.

"I'm not saying that the worst two biological parents are better than the best single parent or gay parents or foster parents. I'm just saying that in 'stand alone' groups, a biological father and mother together (in other words an intact family) do the best. ;)"

What does that mean, a "stand alone group"?

BITCHES - if we can have shampoo and conditioner in one, yogurt with fruit on the bottom and neopolitan icecream we can bet gay parenting is NO DIFFERENT from straight.

"History indicates the majority of human rulers are bisexual."
No, there were some obviously but there is no reasonable way you could call it a majority. There is just no data aside from the accounts of a fews excesses and debauchery.

Oh, if you believe it's not chronicled you've got to be kidding. Right now I'm guessing Suetonius might be a great read for you - not to claim that Roman are the best examples of normal sexual appetite, but they were varied and far more open regarding bisexuality than Christendom permits. Thus, yolked to Church authority the last couple centuries have been sexually repressed - up to this point, where once again homosexuals will be accepted as equals, coming full circle.

Religion is not the only factor that goes against homosexuality. It does not exist in many places where religion(assuming you are speaking judeo-christian) has not been brought. Many of thees peoples do not allow homosexual activity in their social structure. That has been the case historically in the lesser populated areas and is still the case. Much of that has to do with social rule not just, and in many cased no, religious rule. It may be an innate preservation instinct although homosexuality does exist is some animals or it may be an underlying morality as it is well documented to exist without religion.

Born Gay? Let's see the facts
Ricky Gervais - Gay Animals (Animals)
Yes, homosexuality exists in ALL sexually diverse animals that we are aware of. We know sort of when it happens and what occurs, but answers to "why" are obscured by prejudice and ignorance. I'm gay and absolutely can think about heterosexuals no differently than their skin tones, hair color, number of teeth or toes. Do you see gay as differently assembled? The Bible is missing so much regarding biology, sexuality and social growth - you believe it was written via extra-terrestrial seance, and I say it's hardly worth their time. There are lots of excellent authorship from many cultures culminating a far larger picture of human development than just the writings of people from the Middle East which the Bible focuses entirely upon. I don't want to devolve this into an "age of the Earth" argument, but if you would recommend limitations such as the Bible we should just devolve into systems of slavery as the first Biblical "greatest" civilizations? Jesus would not approve. He also didn't make any effort to warn against homosexuality whatsoever - because he undoubtedly approved of us as human equals.

Again, it is not religion that imposes gender roles in sexuality, that is done via biology. Much of the rest comes from social standards which again can be traced to the animal kingdom. For instance, there are very few matriarchal cultures in the human race. As a species we have historically set the leadership roles as male. To allow homosexual activity would be to be dominated as it is in the vast majority of animal species. That carries over to a resistance to homosexuality.
(I use homosexuality as a term loosely when i speak of animals as very few of the cases involve sexual tendencies but are rather social markers)

Interesting - something to note about humanity - the percentage of bisexuals in leadership roles tends to be disproportionate. Particularly left-handed bisexuals.

Humans are geared toward sociological needs, so "rutting" and such are limited expressions of hormone activity to us. I imagine that the leadership centralized in nature would be geared toward assigning breeding order within the herd/collection - thus heterosexual or bisexual would be the optimal lineage provider. Gender roles are inborn, but we obviously learn conformity. Thus, you lack gaydar and I do not. You also probably don't relate well with children, pets or police.

But from what i have seen religion is more a scapegoat then a cause for anti gay thinking. It is easy to blame religion and call it an antiquated dogma that is wrong because you don't fit in it but it is no less valid as a social structure then any other. But that would bring us to a universal morality which is another topic.
#73 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-01-17 05:38 PM

We're naturally bisexual-able creatures, religions dictate exclusive sexuality in the face of science and logic. A couple of the biggest religions here in America have been swapping millions in-between States to pass anti-homosexual legislation, anti-marriage, anti-job.. The Church is used to divide families and destroy lives. We've only recently have had any protections put in place, but I can tell you that being fired for nothing more than assumed being homosexual is just as hurtful as racial prejudice. Social equality requires extracting religion from rule of law and curbing hateful behavior. Interracial marriage has only been legal for what, 40 years? And throughout American history the Church was predominantly a component re-enforcing racism, maintaining slavery. I want no part of it, and again neither would Jesus.

The irony of perverting Jesus' principals to justify everything from touchdowns to terrorism makes the Evangelical Church an abomination, imo. But accepting 8 million from a "heretic" denomination just to hurt gay married couples was the icing on the fucking cake. It's days are numbered, literally.

Gay parents are statistically more likely to chop the dicks off of boys and convert them into girls too.

A very sick and bankrupt situation that I think is illegal based on consent and statutory law.

Maybe Abbie Goldberg's parents are fags and didn't want her, but many straight parents do want the children they have.

Fuck you Abbie, you dick chopping fuckface.

BS: Gay parents are statistically more likely to chop the dicks off of boys and convert them into girls too.

That's BS.

Where do you come up with this crap?

Protip: The voices in your head are lying to you.

Also: Your meds. Take them.

Be Well.

Without having read the article (I can smell propaganda a mile away)...I would love to understand what their scientific method is for this "study". The notion that heterosexual couples don't choose to have kids is silly Unless you live in the ghetto, how many families do you know of that started as a result of an oops pregnancy? A few maybe. How do you measure being a "better" parent?

red it is time to let go of your hate.
religion is not the problem that stirs your struggle.

and the left handed bisexual leader thing, yeah someone has been yanking your chain.

Sure - operative word is 'may'. Of course we all do remember the recent thread about the two lesbians raising a preteen boy who wants to wear dresses and makeup and is gender confused, wanting to be a girl. I'm sure they are in no way responsible as 'better parents' - right?

Of course we all do remember the recent thread about the two lesbians raising a preteen boy who wants to wear dresses and makeup and is gender confused, wanting to be a girl. I'm sure they are in no way responsible as 'better parents' - right? -- #84 | Posted by MSgt

Right, because the vast majority of gender-confused pre-teens have two heterosexual parents.

compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals

Like Danni, Danfuck, BruceyBanner, and Northguy.
All accidental human beings.

I've seen this. They are kicking our asses in parenting.

They?
Trying to play hetero again, eh Brucey?

He also didn't make any effort to warn against homosexuality whatsoever - because he undoubtedly approved of us as human equals.

#78 | Posted by redlightrobot

He did however warn against sexual immorality. In that day and age, when the line between right and wrong was a little more pronounced, having sex with someone of the same gender was a no-no. His disciples addressed gayness, and a couple of times said that it is both wrong and that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Bottom line is, Jesus would not approve of homosexuality. Just the same as every other major religion on earth. This concept of homosexuality being normal and healthy is a very new one spoon-fed by Hollywood into American mainstream culture.

"He did however warn against sexual immorality."

You mean like Bible-hero Lot?

You remember Lot, don't you? His wife --what was her name again?-- turned into a pillar of salt for her curiosity. Well later on, Bible hero Lot gets drunk, and incestuously impregnates both of his daughters. And their descendants are celebrated.

If that's not a warning, what is?

What does Lot have to do with any of that Danforth?

"His disciples addressed gayness, and a couple of times said that it is both wrong and that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of heaven."

Um, other than Paul, who only met Jesus in a dream, who are you talking about, and where was this addressed?

"Bottom line is, Jesus would not approve of homosexuality.'

Bottom line, His Father keeps cranking them out. I seems presumptuous to suggest you know better.

I = It

Being that homosexuality is 1% to 3% of the world population if it were any other behavior (i.e. not political) it just might be barely enough to be considered a reoccurring mutation.

Meaning not part of the normal behavior of the species that would increase its survival or to produce any beneficial returns to the mutated individual.

However, a mutation that does act in the favor of the mutated individual is usually referred to as a "evolution" in the life cycle of the species were as the "best able" survives.

As survival is the single motivating factor in evolutionary change, homosexuality must then be relegated to an less than positive mutation.

....NOPE IN NOVEMBER....

1-3%? Link?

And you gotta work on not including your NOPE every time. You do know that Obama had nothing to do with the greater acceptance of homosexuality in our society today, right?

i don't know that answer about whether gay parents have a constitutional right to adopt. does anyone know if that has been decided? can being in a homosexual relationship be considered as a factor for or against adoption by competing couples?

does anyone know (not what they think the law ought to be, but what it actually is)?

1-3%? Link?

And you gotta work on not including your NOPE every time. You do know that Obama had nothing to do with the greater acceptance of homosexuality in our society today, right?

#94 | Posted by pragmatist

U.S. Census on the link .
As for the ....NOPE IN NOVEMBER.... am not assigning anything to Obama from this thread.

And Gays, I don't care who people sleep with. People are people.
Unless they or their acts are destructive....like LIBTARTS.
Which is Obama base.

Libtarts are the single most destructive group on the planet.
They preach chaos and divisiveness even as they try to tell you just the opposite.

A perfect example of this would be the Democrats controlled all three branches of the Govt. COMPLEATLY for 2 Years and accomplished NOTHING.
They still have NOT passed a budget in 3 years.

If the Republicans where pulling the B.S. that the Obama Administration is today, I'd be a Democrat.

Its about America and the useful people of America.
NOT one party or the other, nor the give me people.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER....

#96 | Posted by MENSAKOOK

U.S. Census is the link you want to cite to support your claim that only 1-3% of the world's population is gay?

Not surprised that you didn't bother to provide the imaginary link.

Here's a link indicating that your WAG is way off: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

" Our findings highlight the importance of using more than just homosexual behavior to examine the prevalence of homosexuality."

Missed the last line...did you.

Based on that article if I walked by a clothing store and a well dress handsome man came out and I said the guy looked good...it would be Homosexual behavior.....please.

That article is more geared to say that being Gay is OK and then goes on to try to find ways to say that Homosexuality is much more prevalent than it is by equating anything and everything as being homosexual.

The only people buying it are the Gays.

The "WORLD" population deflection you speak of was called by my brother as he said some Butt Pirate would say just what you said.

You can be Gay if you want, fine by me.....just stop trying to prove it's normal and not deviant behavior.

Gay animals.....really ?

Who would go looking to prove that and why ?
The animals do it, so we're normal.
They also kill and consume each other.
I haven't seen gays doing that.
Notice the word "consume".

Sorry your just a minute part of the WORLD POPULATION as an oddity at most.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER.....

Missed the last line...did you. -- #98 | Posted by MENSAKOOK

No, I didn't. Apparently, though, you missed the parts in the middle where they reported numbers limited to homosexual behavior, and they were still bigger than yours.

I'm sure your U.S. Census link that reports rates of homosexuality in the entire world will set the record straight, though.

"As for the ....NOPE IN NOVEMBER.... am not assigning anything to Obama from this thread."

Then why bother to include it--it sure makes it look as if you are linking the ideas. Poor writing, I guess, and if you're happy with that, go for it.

As for 1-3%, you said "world population"; the census is of the US. And by the by, is there really gay/straight on that census form? And do you really think people are gonna be totally honest about that, given the shit that gays receive in this country (and in many others)?
+++++

99--Amazing how he just avoided that, huh? Or rather called it a deflection. Hey, Kook! You fucked up on the stat. Admit it. Jeez, even if I agreed with you, I'd probably point out your error. It makes you look careless, at the very least.

He also didn't make any effort to warn against homosexuality whatsoever - because he undoubtedly approved of us as human equals.
#78 | Posted by redlightrobot
He did however warn against sexual immorality. In that day and age, when the line between right and wrong was a little more pronounced, having sex with someone of the same gender was a no-no. His disciples addressed gayness, and a couple of times said that it is both wrong and that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Bottom line is, Jesus would not approve of homosexuality. Just the same as every other major religion on earth. This concept of homosexuality being normal and healthy is a very new one spoon-fed by Hollywood into American mainstream culture.
#88 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-18 05:25 PM

Busy day - six pot pies.

Okay, so you are claiming that homosexuality wasn't seen - I completely disagree. Isn't the modern Evangelical interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah expressing an entire city laden with homosexing?

Plus, as I've expressed before, actual historians, stories and poems describe bisexuality at minimum among the ruling classes, warriors, other historians, their enemies, friends and Gods. This is commonplace all over the planet.

#96 | Posted by MENSAKOOK
U.S. Census is the link you want to cite to support your claim that only 1-3% of the world's population is gay?
Not surprised that you didn't bother to provide the imaginary link.
Here's a link indicating that your WAG is way off: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
#97 | Posted by Phoenix at 2012-01-18 09:34 PM

Excellent site.

What is strange is the guilt tripping associated with sexual development.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable