I don't think the nature/nurture argument is one worth fighting in the hopes of justifying homosexuality. Even if it were somehow proven to be biologically determined, conservative religious groups and evangelical universities would probably begin funding genetic research geared towards isolating and eradicating a "gay gene." Furthermore, conservative PACs may start lobbying for NSF/CDC type government organizations to start doing the same. And who's to say if an anti-gay medical treatment weren't ultimately perfected, that they wouldn't push for federally funding it the way we do abortions? (And who's to say some people wouldn't take it, or force it upon their sexually confused children?) *PS - Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner (remember him?) is reported as having voted for the bill, but I've seen an unofficial quote from him online saying the vote was by accident (link below). Anybody know the story on this? http://newsfare.com/laniac/frames.p...ort.com/archives/003732.html&recommend_id=78-{SHA}qyJxVs48lFCeln7nwvVBQ73Z4ig%3D
Only having 2 kids and signing up for war etc are choices. They are not BIOLOGICALLY Driven so . .. . this examples supports the Nuture Comparing mammals to insects is an interesting comparison How ever . . . .The reproduction model of Bees is better for bees than humans. The Queen is capable of having HUNDREDS of babies while humans i generally one at a time the growth cycle of the bee is short and the maturity is incredible while children require more nuturing etc many different factors should be taken into account If ever drone and every female bee could produce like humanity then bees would over run us. . or the competition between bees would be counterproductive to their existance TTTTHHHEEE CCCIIIRRRCCCLLLEEEE OOOOFFFF LLLIIFFFEEE as Pouche says The Nuture v Nature argument is interestign but rights should not be counting on the final answer rights are rights their are only certain choices that should cause a curtailing of rights Rocket River
I think both exist. I think experiences can help to form choices and decisions, but I don't think those are the only things that form them. This will apply to Hayes as well: I don't claim that because some homosexuals choose to be homosexuals, that they are the majority. I do claim that there are many(not all that are that way because it is natural for them. I will also allow that experiences one way or another might have also played a role in a few instances. But we've all had bad experiences with people of the opposite sex. Some people have almost exclusively bad experiences with people of the opposite sex. Some people have numerous experiences, and over-indulged(if tha'ts possible ) with people of the opposite sex, and they still keep going on the same as before. They may be less tentative about pursuing those desires because of their experiences, but the desires aren't lessened.
The word is "nurture." I have worked for DFPS (formerly PRS) in complaint and fraud investigations and the need for "quality" foster parents is always high. Trust me. You would be amazed at the number of "traditional" foster families who are only in it for the money and are not the best placement for an already troubled child. Gay foster parents have traditionally been harbors for some of the more difficult to place children (i.e. HIV positive, developmental delays, etc.). Believe what you want about gender preference, the issue here is providing homes for unwanted and abused children. I don't see these congressmen lining up to take in HIV positive children. Eliminating a needed source for acceptable foster families is not a good idea.
Free contraception for everyone = less kiddos. Less kiddos = less unwanted kiddos Wrap it up and bring back sexual education!!!!!!
They should grandfather the ones in that are already part of a family....but i dont have a problem with the decision going forward...especially for the chicks with dicks.
ok, so they're about as unbiased a source as al jazeera, but worldnet daily has a hilarious article about Moby on their website. i tried finding the original article on planetout.com, but searches for moby returned a christian music download service! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43960 -- Pop singer Moby: Make my kid 'gay' Musician also rips DeLay, Coulter, Hannity as 'immoral' right-wingers Posted: April 24, 2005 Moby Pop star Moby, known for his political statements as well as his music, says he'd do everything he could to make his future child homosexual should the singer ever have a family. He's also blasting conservatives Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich as "amoral/immoral" right wingers. In an interview with Planet Out, a publication geared toward homosexuals, the musician, who is not "gay," was lamenting so-called homophobia in society when he suggested his future child should be raised to be a homosexual. "As a matter of fact, I was talking to my friend Laura, who sings on [my latest] record, and we're both getting to the point where we want to start families," Moby said. "We're convinced that if we have children, we're going to do everything in our power to make them gay. Like maybe drinking a lot of extra soy milk while she's pregnant, or anything that would work to make that happen. I'd just rather have a really sharp, interesting, smart gay son than some big dumb hetero meathead." On Moby's website, he also said he wonders why Christians in general are so "worked up" about homosexuality. "I ask this because Christ, at least in the New Testament that I have, never mentioned homosexuality, so we thus don't know what Christ might have thought about homosexuality. Why is the church so up in arms about an issue that Christ never seemed to have mentioned? And why does the church so routinely gloss over so many of the issues that Christ actually did talk about? It just makes no sense to me." Moby, who once called President Bush a "big, fat f---ing liar" at a New York event hosted by the political organization MoveOn.org, is now taking on well-known conservatives in his online diary. In his entry yesterday, Moby writes: "I hope that Tom DeLay sticks around for a long time. "He's such a profound and continuing source of embarrassment for the right wing in America that his resignation or indictment would actually work to the detriment of the left wing in the states. "The progressive movement needs more crazy and amoral/immoral right-wing politicians and pundits like Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. "Seeing as the progressive movement [is], sadly, not so good at self-promotion, the progressives have to rely on crazy right-wingers like DeLay and Coulter to drive people away from the Republican Party and into the ranks of the Democrats." Moby, whose real name is Richard Melville Hall, traces his ancestry back to Herman Melville, author of the classic whale epic "Moby Dick."
I'm weighing in on this argument late so forgive me if some of this has already been said. First off in regard to the assertion about homosexuality being a choice there are probably a certain percentage of homosexuals who are so by choice but I doubt it. Homosexuality has been known in almost all cultures and even tolerated or considered acceptable in some cultures. The ancient Athenians even celebrated it considering that women were only good for procreation while true love (both romantic and sexual) was reserved between men. Its also been displayed among many animals including primates and dolphins. Given its prevalence that would tell me that there is a very strong biological proponent to it and that if it was some sort of defect its unlikely that that trait would be present in so many species or throughout human cultures. In regard to whether its deviant from a raw biological perspective any sex that doesn't lead to procreation is deviant including sex between infertile people. Humans though have sex for more than just procreative reasons since we have active sex drives even in the absence of ideal breeding conditions. So the argument that sex and sexual orientation only has to do with procreation doesn't match up with the reality of human sexuality. Finally if homosexuality is a choice given the strong social stigma against it in this society why would anybody choose homosexuality? Its like saying that people chose to be black prior to the Civil Rights movement.
Rhester; I wanted to respond to this since this is an example of something you've brought up on several issues. You're using an ideal to argue against a solution. Yes, I think everyone would like there to be no foster children and every child to be brought up by loving biological parents. The problem is we live in a world where there are foster children and also in a world where there is a dearth of foster parents. Would you rather have the children institutionalized or would you rather have parents, even if they are homosexual, look after them? I think most people would believe its better to have foster children in homes than institutions.
Because there's plenty of evidence that smoking and drugs are addictive. So for the smoker or drug user it isn't a choice but a biological imperative also. I'm not aware that there was a social stigma attached to liking chocalate. If so then I should prepare for some social stigma.
There is a social stigma attached to being a lardass, which can be a consequence of liking chocolate too much.
I always knew Basso was a devient! As a side note anyone checked out the ads on this thread/ My favorite is "Denver Lesbians"
