If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[A Theist]

Manipulating human genes?

no thank you

New research is disputing the so-called Gay Gene...

A team of international researchers has completed a study that suggests we will probably never find a ‘gay gene.' Sexual orientation is not about genetics, say the researchers, it's about epigenetics. This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confir...n-the-womb

[Ryantology]

New research is disputing the so-called Gay Gene...

A team of international researchers has completed a study that suggests we will probably never find a ‘gay gene.' Sexual orientation is not about genetics, say the researchers, it's about epigenetics. This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confir...n-the-womb

I'm just wondering if you realize that this doesn't change the fact that sexuality is not a choice.

[Aractus]

You have very deceitfully cited single parenthood as an argument against homosexual parents.

Oh get fucked. All I said is what the best arrangement is for the child. Children also suffer when parents go through divorce. There's any number of factors that CAN negatively effect children, I didn't focus on the NEGATIVE, I said what the ideal situation is, that's it.

There are no independent studies which show, conclusively, a significant benefit to children who have a mother and a father compared to those who have same-sex parents. Because, of course, that's total bullshit.

They need a father and a mother. When deprived of one, or the other, they look to others to be a father figure or mother figure, and this is well known to cause problems. You can counteract this, to some extent, by having a stable substitute father figure or mother figure for them, but it's still not ideal.

Children of caring homosexual parents are undoubtedly more suited to the task than a great many devoutly religious heterosexual parents.

Did you think that one up yourself?

When I see young people denying evolution, expressing homophobia, or being forced to attend many kinds of sinister religious services (especially Catholic and evangelical Christian), I see child abuse, because these are kids who are being intentionally denied their best interests and must succeed at life in spite of this.

Children are lied to in school. I know I was lied to. I was taught that the primary colours are red blue and yellow, and that you cannot make blue paint because it's a "primary colour". Actually you make blue paint by mixing cyan and magenta paints in equal amounts. I was taught many things that were wrong.

When I see children being taught global warming and shown "Incontinent Truth" I see child abuse. I would like to see them exposed to a more balanced teaching on science. The same goes with Evolution, I was taught lies about Evolution when I was a child, and it wasn't until I moved on from the lies that I could accept it. I was taught certain things about Evolution that are theory were fact.

I was taught in school, essentially, that Pons and Fleischmann were con men. Nothing could be further from the truth!

I was taught all kinds of bullshit in school that I believed, and I had to unlearn as an adult. So don't have a go to me about it.

As I said in my first response to you, there is not a single secular argument against homosexuals marrying and adopting which does not apply (and much more strongly, arguably) to religious heterosexuals.

Just because you disagree with the argument doesn't mean that there isn't one.

[Waratah]

There are no independent studies which show, conclusively, a significant benefit to children who have a mother and a father compared to those who have same-sex parents. Because, of course, that's total bullshit.

They need a father and a mother. When deprived of one, or the other, they look to others to be a father figure or mother figure, and this is well known to cause problems. You can counteract this, to some extent, by having a stable substitute father figure or mother figure for them, but it's still not ideal.

Please tell me what is the difference between the roles of a mother and a father if there is one? Does the male have to take on the "father figure" role? Does the female have to take on the "mother figure" role?

I thought it was well known that a child ideally only needs at least one stable loving carer in their life.

[paulpablo]

They need a father and a mother. When deprived of one, or the other, they look to others to be a father figure or mother figure, and this is well known to cause problems. You can counteract this, to some extent, by having a stable substitute father figure or mother figure for them, but it's still not ideal.

Please tell me what is the difference between the roles of a mother and a father if there is one? Does the male have to take on the "father figure" role? Does the female have to take on the "mother figure" role?

I thought it was well known that a child ideally only needs at least one stable loving carer in their life.

I've heard that girls without fathers become more promiscuous in later life, but I'm skeptical when i hear stuff like that.

[Question Mark]

Please tell me what is the difference between the roles of a mother and a father if there is one? Does the male have to take on the "father figure" role? Does the female have to take on the "mother figure" role?

I thought it was well known that a child ideally only needs at least one stable loving carer in their life.

I've heard that girls without fathers become more promiscuous in later life, but I'm skeptical when i hear stuff like that.

Sounds like folk lore to me.

[Esquilax]

They need a father and a mother. When deprived of one, or the other, they look to others to be a father figure or mother figure, and this is well known to cause problems. You can counteract this, to some extent, by having a stable substitute father figure or mother figure for them, but it's still not ideal.

Just a heads up: when someone requests that you back up your assertions with real data, just restating your original premise just makes it look as though you have no evidence.

As to this talk of needing a father and a mother... without getting too in depth, I would have been far, far better off without my father in my life. I had neither an effective father or mother figure in my life, and I turned out just fine. Where are you actually getting this from, anyway? I mean, do you have any evidence, or are you just going from personal experience and tradition?

[Gabriel Syme]

Considering this planet has massive over-population

Hi Napolean,

The world is not over-populated, or anywhere remotely like it.

Overpopulation is one of the great "Secular myths", propagated by the powerful and the media to make people think the reason for poverty and famine in the world isnt western lifestyles, but rather 'overpopulation'.

GS.

[LastPoet]

Hi Napolean,

The world is not over-populated, or anywhere remotely like it.

Overpopulation is one of the great "Secular myths", propagated by the powerful and the media to make people think the reason for poverty and famine in the world isnt western lifestyles, but rather 'overpopulation'.

GS.

Is that you Ian Juby? I suppose the sahara desert isn't overpopulated, if only you could feed them sand. Ahahah @ secular myths.

[downbeatplumb]

Considering this planet has massive over-population

Hi Napolean,

The world is not over-populated, or anywhere remotely like it.

Overpopulation is one of the great "Secular myths", propagated by the powerful and the media to make people think the reason for poverty and famine in the world isnt western lifestyles, but rather 'overpopulation'.

GS.

Calculations show that the planet has available 1.9 hectares of biologically productive land per person to supply resources and absorb wastes—yet the average person on Earth already uses 2.3 hectares worth. These “ecological footprints” range from the 9.7 hectares claimed by the average American to the 0.47 hectares used by the average Mozambican.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810