Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

mo42 · 09-25-2004, 10:59 PM

No no, you misunderstand. If my children are gay, it would be better to be openly gay, but I would rather not have my children who would be otherwise straight altered to be homosexual by environmental or social influences. Furthermore, I would think it would be more fulfilling to have children of your own seed than adopting. I'd prefer it if my children were Christians, too. And I'd prefer if they weren't socially maladjusted rapists, regardless of whether that would be satisfying to them.

The desire to pass on one's genetic code is an intrinsic feature in all organisms; it's the reason why we have sex drives. I think I have good genes. Intelligence, creativity, and above average physical fitness run in my family, and I would like more intelligent, creative, healthy people around.

I feel that gay marriage will, as my post stated, be a social factor encouraging homosexuality, and thus make it more likely (probably only slightly, I doubt there would be a change of more than 5% or so) that my children will not be of a sexual orientation where they can procreate with their spouse.

As for removing the stigma increasing the chances of homosexuality vs open homosexuality, unfortunately no data will be available, because as far as I am aware, there were no good scientific surveys taken with options to put down "openly gay, closet gay, openly bisexual, closet bisexual...".

It does become possible for gay couples to have children with the aid of others, but not with their partner. This would be costlier and more difficult to do than having children the natural way, however, and only half the kids would end up as my genetic grandchildren if they split them that way.

Gay marriage would be more than the removal of a stigma; it would be a watershed ruling on homosexuality as a whole. Books like the ones I mentioned earlier would be forced into the school system in an effort to encourage equality, just as books containing messages which I approve of, such as gender and racial equality, have been. I am sure that other media would also begin to spout pro-homosexual messages, such as TV specials.

Your last point on how there are many children with no parents in need of adoption is not a good one, however, at least in America. The waiting lists for adopting children are quite long. There are more would-be parents than healthy adoptable children at this point.

I also found a source a while back stating that 10% of children raised by homosexual couples became homosexuals (which, as the site claimed is consistent with average for the Kensey(sp?) study, which has since been found to be a biased study) compared with the average found on nearly every other population study of 3-4%. This is more of an aside in the current argument, but it does back up the post made by Halx a while back.

09-25-2004, 10:59 PM	#141 (permalink)
mo42 Insane Location: California	No no, you misunderstand. If my children are gay, it would be better to be openly gay, but I would rather not have my children who would be otherwise straight altered to be homosexual by environmental or social influences. Furthermore, I would think it would be more fulfilling to have children of your own seed than adopting. I'd prefer it if my children were Christians, too. And I'd prefer if they weren't socially maladjusted rapists, regardless of whether that would be satisfying to them. The desire to pass on one's genetic code is an intrinsic feature in all organisms; it's the reason why we have sex drives. I think I have good genes. Intelligence, creativity, and above average physical fitness run in my family, and I would like more intelligent, creative, healthy people around. I feel that gay marriage will, as my post stated, be a social factor encouraging homosexuality, and thus make it more likely (probably only slightly, I doubt there would be a change of more than 5% or so) that my children will not be of a sexual orientation where they can procreate with their spouse. As for removing the stigma increasing the chances of homosexuality vs open homosexuality, unfortunately no data will be available, because as far as I am aware, there were no good scientific surveys taken with options to put down "openly gay, closet gay, openly bisexual, closet bisexual...". It does become possible for gay couples to have children with the aid of others, but not with their partner. This would be costlier and more difficult to do than having children the natural way, however, and only half the kids would end up as my genetic grandchildren if they split them that way. Gay marriage would be more than the removal of a stigma; it would be a watershed ruling on homosexuality as a whole. Books like the ones I mentioned earlier would be forced into the school system in an effort to encourage equality, just as books containing messages which I approve of, such as gender and racial equality, have been. I am sure that other media would also begin to spout pro-homosexual messages, such as TV specials. Your last point on how there are many children with no parents in need of adoption is not a good one, however, at least in America. The waiting lists for adopting children are quite long. There are more would-be parents than healthy adoptable children at this point. I also found a source a while back stating that 10% of children raised by homosexual couples became homosexuals (which, as the site claimed is consistent with average for the Kensey(sp?) study, which has since been found to be a biased study) compared with the average found on nearly every other population study of 3-4%. This is more of an aside in the current argument, but it does back up the post made by Halx a while back.