Children and Same Sex Couples

[brook]

perhaps a reread of the OP is in order

[Ormond]

I love how on this forum whenever someone says something that some else dosent agree with its automatically labeled 'trolling'. If you can't provide valid feedback on this topic that we are discussing as mature adults then don't respond at all please. I find it very immature that just because you disagree with my views that you label me a troll!

As of the moment I'm writing this you have been a member of the board for 30 days and have made 45 total posts yourself and you already think you know that "whenever someone says something" the response is "automatically" the same?

Sorry, you don't have enough experience to validly make such a judgment. But I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise given the judgments about same-sex parenting you've been making on this thread.

[Ghjhero]

I asked if you were trolling because I couldn't get a good read on you. The words you used were a little more than inflammatory. I gave you a serious response, though, regardless. :P

Yes thank you at least I can have a serious discussion with one person here.

As of the moment I'm writing this you have been a member of the board for 30 days and have made 45 total posts yourself and you already think you know that "whenever someone says something" the response is "automatically" the same?

Sorry, you don't have enough experience to validly make such a judgment. But I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise given the judgments about same-sex parenting you've been making on this thread.

Just because I didn't start posting until recently dosent mean anything, I've read the threads here for quite some time before I decide to make an account so please don't act like you know me. And even if the response isn't always the same 'automatically' there was no reason to get accused of trolling for stating my views and thoughts! Whatever happened to free speech?

[Jaxom 1974]

I love how on this forum whenever someone says something that some else dosent agree with its automatically labeled 'trolling'. If you can't provide valid feedback on this topic that we are discussing as mature adults then don't respond at all please. I find it very immature that just because you disagree with my views that you label me a troll!

The moment you choose to ask a "serious" question with the casual use of a slur, you lose any credibility and being called a troll is the least of your worries.

Its almost cute that you actually think you're trying to have a serious conversation.

[Elder Sister]

Yes thank you at least I can have a serious discussion with one person here.

Just because I didn't start posting until recently dosent mean anything, I've read the threads here for quite some time before I decide to make an account so please don't act like you know me. And even if the response isn't always the same 'automatically' there was no reason to get accused of trolling for stating my views and thoughts! Whatever happened to free speech?

Your speech was inappropriate and offensive. That's why you got the responses you got.

[BLU-RAY]

Yes thank you at least I can have a serious discussion with one person here.

Just because I didn't start posting until recently dosent mean anything, I've read the threads here for quite some time before I decide to make an account so please don't act like you know me. And even if the response isn't always the same 'automatically' there was no reason to get accused of trolling for stating my views and thoughts! Whatever happened to free speech?

Free speech refers to government controls, not to people calling you out - that's them exercising their freedom of speech.

[Warg Arry]

It's an interesting life lesson. Whenever you hear or read the word free or freedom. You better comb through the fine print.

[Salome the Persian Witch]

Ghjero - honest question, is English your native language? There are nuances in your question that (if honest) triggers others as inflammatory. The word "homo" is a negative slur, and the way in which you asked the question had many assumptions - which some of the boarders are challenging you on.

The experience I've had - I've never known any parent who wants their children to grow up with more pain/prejudice/potential for being the recipient of violence. However, parents who are openly gay or trans have had to do so much soul searching and personal development that children of theirs may be more open about expressing who they "truly"are.

In terms of the last few decades of Christian programs turning "gays into straights" - far from these programs being proven effective, they have culminated in decades of increased suicides, self-mutilation, and disenfranchisement. So I would say "no", the values you teach your children can't change who they fundamentally are in terms of sexual identity, but can certainly play a role in how they express who they are in the world.

[sologdin]

there was no reason to get accused of trolling for stating my views and thoughts! Whatever happened to free speech?

there's sufficient reason for the accusation when the statement of views is so ludicrous that no sane, serious adult could reasonably express them in good faith. freedom of expression has nothing to do with it.

[Free Northman]

I disagree with the statement that upbringing and early childhood events don't have an influence on a person's sexual orientation.

I don't agree that it is purely genetic.

[Stubby]

I disagree with the statement that upbringing and early childhood events don't have an influence on a person's sexual orientation.

I don't agree that it is purely genetic.

Why?

[kairparavel]

Environment can play a part in the expression of sexual orientation, sure. But it plays no part in what the actual orientation is. If my environment is hostile to gay expression, for self preservation I can learn to hide it but it will not actually make me straight. Conversely if I am told my behavior makes me appear to be X (dress, hobbies, voice) I can think I am, but it does not mean I am.

None of which has anything to do with SB's OP

[Free Northman]

Why?

To the best of my knowledge, the jury is still out on the exact cause of sexual orientation. That there are genetic factors that predispose one to homosexuality, for example, seems to be pretty likely. But at the same time environmental factors during early childhood haven't been excluded as possible contributors.

The current understanding of the phenomenon seems to be that the exact cause has not been conclusively proven yet.

[karaddin]

To the best of my knowledge, the jury is still out on the exact cause of sexual orientation. That there are genetic factors that predispose one to homosexuality, for example, seems to be pretty likely. But at the same time environmental factors during early childhood haven't been excluded as possible contributors.

The current understanding of the phenomenon seems to be that the exact cause has not been conclusively proven yet.

Well yes, it's not conclusive proven exactly what causes it yet, but best indicators are that it is largely epigenetic in nature and absolutely that it's neurological. So if by environment factors you mean in the womb, then you would be correct, if you mean having parents that tell you being gay is OK? Well that's just fucking flat out wrong. I have not seen any credible scientific study showing that it can be influenced by this, while there have been plenty showing it's not.

[Kolantero]

Is there any proof beyond doubt that sexual orientation is 100% biological (or genetic, however you want to call it)? Genuine question since I have seen it many times passed off as some unquestionable fact but did not receive in any occasion enough proof when I asked for it (not in this forum, talking generally)

[Free Northman]

Well yes, it's not conclusive proven exactly what causes it yet, but best indicators are that it is largely epigenetic in nature and absolutely that it's neurological. So if by environment factors you mean in the womb, then you would be correct, if you mean having parents that tell you being gay is OK? Well that's just fucking flat out wrong. I have not seen any credible scientific study showing that it can be influenced by this, while there have been plenty showing it's not.

Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article on homsexuality. It goes into great detail on the prevailing scientific opinions and significant studies that have been done on the issue. And the conclusion of that article seems to be that the cause is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

[Free Northman]

Is there any proof beyond doubt that sexual orientation is 100% biological (or genetic, however you want to call it)? Genuine question since I have seen it many times passed off as some unquestionable fact but did not receive in any occasion enough proof when I asked for it (not in this forum, talking generally)

You are correct that on this board it is usually very strongly stated as a matter of fact that it is a purely genetic phenomenon. But as it turns out, no final conclusion has been reached yet by the scientific community, unless Wikipedia is utterly wrong on this issue.

[Elder Sister]

Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article on homsexuality. It goes into great detail on the prevailing scientific opinions and significant studies that have been done on the issue. And the conclusion of that article seems to be that the cause is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Dude, please tell me you're not relying on Wikipedia as a credible source of information.

Also, I have to ask, why do you think anyone would put themselves through being gay if they didn't have to, given how society has treated them? This argument is antiquated at best.

ETA: Here's an excellent article by Time. Apologies for links...

http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/

Here's another article that goes into a bit more detail about epigenetics.

http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb

[Free Northman]

Dude, please tell me you're not relying on Wikipedia as a credible source of information.

Also, I have to ask, why do you think anyone would put themselves through being gay if they didn't have to, given how society has treated them? This argument is antiquated at best.

I am indeed relying on Wikipedia here.

And the conclusion it is advocating precludes the objection you raised above, as it indicates that sexual orientation is determined very early in life. In other words, you aren't "putting yourself through it through some willful choice". The choice has already been made for you when your sexual orientation was established early in life.

The sole difference between the Wikipedia conclusion and your position, seems to be that it potentially shifts the final determination of sexual orientation to early childhood, rather than to the moment of birth. So it moves it by a difference of a few years, potentially. There is no verdict either way, as conclusive proof is still outstanding. According to the article.

[Elder Sister]

I would suggest you do a bit more reading of something other than Wikipedia for information. I linked two articles that are excellent in their coverage of something called epigenetics. Here's a link to a bunch of articles by Popular Science that cover this topic. http://www.popsci.com/search-results

I have just provided you with at least 10 different articles telling you that your Wilipedia information is incorrect. I understand that it's hard to accept, but I would suggest you open your mind a bit and acknowledge that no one in their right mind would 'choose' to be gay 100 years ago if they didn't have to; if it weren't a non-choice. Scientists are now discovering the truth in this; IT'S NOT A CHOICE.