Just a quick start to address the outright falsehoods and some of the more spectacularly silly arguments.
Wiyaka wrote:Quote:="L.R.R.Hood"]Sam1951, I do not believe it is genetic. There is no scientific proof of that.
There had been Dutch scientific studies done on the human brains of "transgender or transexual" individuals showing that brains of people like myself have been much more closer to a woman's brain than that of a "normal" man. The size and shape of various parts of the "transgender" brain and that of a woman's are nearly identical.
There's a lot of junk science out there, I hope that was your point. I've read a study that sounds identical to that one, and it never ceases to amaze me what can get a grant these days.
Quote:I hate to disagree, but if you do the research that same and I have done, you'll find that being as we are is not only scientifically proven, but a genetic factor. Choice is not a consideration.
This is false. I happen to think that the available evidence is such that it is likely to be genetic but saying that it is "scientifically proven" is wishful thinking posing as proof.
There's a lot of evidence pointing that way but we are not yet at a level of genetic science to put that dispute to rest.
fairandbalanced wrote:Can you tell me where is your concrete scientific proof that heterosexuality is genetic? I would like to know. Homosexuality may not have concrete proof that it is genetic but there is also no proof that it is not genetic.
This is an silly argument that fairandbalanced is shameless enough to actually post more than once and even demand a response. Asking people to pardon its issuance would have been a better idea.
"Can you tell me where is your concrete scientific proof that heterosexuality is genetic?"
Heterosexuality itself when considered within the abiguity of sexuality almost makes this argument make sense.
But a cursory consideration of what constitutes genetics and the mechanics of reproduction (inherently heterosexual in nature even with assexual reproduction) makes this a laughable question.
Here's a really simple answer:
Heterosexuality is the vector through which genetic continuance exists at all. To doubt it's genetic nature is simply absurd. But I won't side-track this thread into an effort to get fairandbalanced to comprehend basic elements of procreation.
Later you make the brainfarts bold and actually beg and demand responses to them!
By all means, someone should address them:
fairandbalanced wrote:Homosexuality may not have concrete proof that it is genetic but there is also no proof that it is not genetic.
The invisible dwarf on my shoulder may not have concrete proof as to its existence but, get this,
there us also no proof that it does not exist.
I trust that my use of large type was sufficiently convincing to ignore the complete disregard for burden of proof.
The bold font should probably also suffice as a means through which to curcumvent the realization that I am making an insipid demand for proof of a negative.
fairandbalanced, that one is something that really should have been hidden under a bushel.
Sam1951 wrote:
I have yet to see one post on this thread that states clearly why GLBT people, either as individuals or as couples should not raise children.
The reason, there is none. That's right there is no reason why GLBTs should not raise children.
False. There are plenty of reasons. <stepping out from temporary role> it's just that they aren't good enough ones (by our estimation).
Sam1951 wrote:Now I ask, most respectfully, please give a good reason why GLBT people should not raise children.
Before I continue just remember that I don't care, gays can raise a whole herd if they want, I don't care. But because of the shoddy arguments I'm playing devil's advocate.
I have to go to work so I'll start small:
Lesser deviations from societal norms preclude adoption. The same reasons that many of the other factors in precluding adoption can serve as a reason to form the basis of such a rejection.
Many of the arguments against such a proscription are arguments that have just as much weight in, say, arguing against pot being something that prevents adoption.
Biological parenthood is a horse of a different colour.
I have known quite a few homosexuals, and every single one of them is extremely self-centered, and basically selfish.
L.R.R.Hood wrote:
I have known quite a few homosexuals, and every single one of them is extremely self-centered, and basically selfish.
Positing this anecdotal evidence as an argument is risible. But you prefaced it with an "I'm about to use a bad argument" disclaimer in regards to its anecdotal nature so let's examine the other angles to this brainfart.
1) How were you able to determine that your observation is not merely a product of prejudice and a predisposition to interpreting them that way?
2) Do all self-centered people not deserve kids? All selfish people?
L.R.R.Hood wrote:I was referring to all of the homosexuals that I have met... that's all I can speak for. They all had the qualities I mentioned, and as I stated... if I meet one who doesn't fall in that self-centered and irrational category, I'll change my view.
What view? Do you actually base any conclusions on your anecdotal evidence?
If so, I hope the conclusion is:
In my life I have found the specific gay
individuals that I have met to be ______.
Because almost anything other than that and we need to talk "scientifically sound data sample".
ehBeth wrote:LRR - if all of GBLT people you meet are the same, and are all as awful as you suggest (do you really number the GBLT people you are acquainted with, BTW ? ), you might want to generally reconsider the people you spend time with.
Take a bow Bethie! This is an important filter to use on the already dismissable anecdotal evidence:
LRR, how did you determine that your experience with gays is not a result of the ilk of people with which you associate?
Sam1951 wrote:Seriously, 23 individuals out of the 700 million GLBTs in the world is something like 3.28%.
You
must be an accountant. To err is human, to err to the tune of 8 figures takes an accountant.
Wy wrote:How do you count the number of GLBT people you know? And once they're "counted", do they fulfill the expectations you hold for them?
Awesome point! Mebbe I should retract my earlier arrogant claim of bad arguments here, there are some damn good ones.
LRR, how do you know that you did not perhaps only identify the flamboyant gays and perhaps interpret the flamboyance as self-centeredness?
This one seems really probable, hell I can dig an interpretation of a Will and Grace's Jack type of gay being self-centered and maybe your "gaydar" only shows you those, making you miss the unassuming homos all around you.
Sam1951 wrote:The leading cause of death among GLBTs is suicide followed by murder and then disease. We kill ourselves because we have been told by society that we are defective and bad people.
How have you reached that conclusion? Because that is usually a standoff between people thinking that gays intristically have psychological issues and gays inheriting those issues from societal treatment.
Either way, it's not a great thing to mention here as some people's objection to homosexual adoption centers on the data on psychological issues they have at rates higher than the general population.
fairandbalanced wrote:
Just where did you find these homosexual acquaintances or friends of yours? The local sex club perhaps?
Open your eyes for once. Ooooh. What a concept!
fairandbalanced, you asked me to point out your shoddy arguments. Here's one. It sounds like a throw-back to elementary school and contains the usual "open your eyes and agree with me" ploy.
But if it is any consolation to you, you do that "ooooh" thing very convincingly. It was almost sufficient argument for me to see things your way.
fairandbalanced wrote:L.L.R.Hood must have missed this post. :wink:
L.L.R.Hood writes,
Quote:Sam1951, I do not believe it is genetic. There is no scientific proof of that.[/size] doglover, how can a gay couple conseive? Unnaturally, right?
Can you tell me where is your concrete scientific proof that heterosexuality is genetic? I would like to know. Homosexuality may not have concrete proof that it is genetic but
there is also no proof that it is not genetic. 
Arg. The only thing worse than a brainfart argument is when the interlocutor thinks he has stumbled upon a wicked awesome argument that just must be addressed under the threat of bigger and bolder fonts.
fairandbalanced, I happen to think that homosexuality is, in some forms (some nurture forms of homosexuality exist) is genetic, but this is still an idiotic argument for the reasons I will summarize.
1) It disregards burden of proof. Just like dwarfy. Reducing an argument to this level makes it futile.
2) It is demanding proof of a negative, which is idiotic for the reasons we all know. Now it is sometimes possible to proove a negative, but that one can't be should almost invariably have no bearing on accessment of the positive.
fairandbalanced wrote:His silence speaks volumes.
Perhaps, but I assure you that it speaks less than repeating a brainfart in increasingly bold fonts while thinking you've made a positively crushing argument.
Oh boy, you are gonna make it bolder aren't you?
fairandbalanced wrote:L.L.R.Hood must have missed this post. :wink:
L.L.R.Hood writes,
Quote:Sam1951, I do not believe it is genetic. There is no scientific proof of that.[/size] doglover, how can a gay couple conseive? Unnaturally, right?
Can you tell me where is your concrete scientific proof that heterosexuality is genetic? I would like to know. Homosexuality may not have concrete proof that it is genetic but
there is also no proof that it is not genetic.
fairandbalanced, what you lack in way of ability to contruct sound arguments you more than make up for with obdurate tenacity and admirable skill with the use of bold fonts.
I'm convinced now.
Ahh, I'm gonna have to stop here, I have to go work and, in addition, if I see another post where fairandbalanced huffs and puffs and makes his fallacious argument even larger and in an even bolder font I will get very little work done.
Sorry a bit off thread, but interesting. Ay?)