'Two Gays Only Count as One Parent, Therefore they shouldn't be able to adopt':McCain

Originally posted by centurion1211
In fact, evolution has everything to do with procreation. They are like two sides of the same coin. It's exactly how and the only way evolutionary changes get passed down to succeeding generations.

Otherwise the change dies with the creature it exists in.

Really? I missed where downs syndrom has been irradicated from the gene pool. As they don't procreate, how could the genes be passed on? How about blue eyes? Nope, no one has those anymore. How about 6 fingers (dominant gene). We all have that right?

The ignorance around here astounds me.

reply to post by Ray Davies

"Sen. McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible," the statement added. "However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

Good for McCain. After I spoke poorly of him misguidedly I reviewed his belief system and found that despite personal religious beliefs he does not intend to keep homosexual couples from adopting and acknowledges there is no conclusive, substantiated research to counter the research stating children raised by homosexual couples are at no disadvantage. I applaud his common sense and more in depth knowledge on this subject.

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain said in reply to a reporter's query."

So, this means that single parents aren't going to be successful either? Then I suppose we can blame John and George, and the rest of them for a generation of "losers" that we're supposedly going to bring up as a result of all the soldiers dying in the war and leaving a family behind. He's right, none of those widowed mothers/fathers will raise their kids right. Nobody has extended family members, friends, community to rally around them and be role models/examples for their kids.

As a mother of five, I know what it takes to raise a family, and that is love. It can come from anywhere and should come from everywhere. I am fortunate to have my husband, but if anything happened to him, I take insult at the idea that somehow my family would fail as a result. I am an intelligent person, capable of seeking out others who can provide the examples and experiences that my boys would need to "learn how to be a man".

I think his statement was obviously appealing to his audience of the moment and if he really took a minute to think about what he was saying, he'd realize that having a successful family does not always hinge on a mother-father household. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to politicizing something that shouldn't be.

so two gays parents raising a child, the kid one day would ask why i don't have a Mommy ? what would they answer ? that being gay is normal ? that 2 guys #ing each other its just the way nature intended ? Im voting for McCain Kids wont understand whats love between 2 men is That's my 2 cents.

McCain can't even tell his shoe apart from his sandals let alone make such claims and judgment.

Who is he to say gay people basically count as one?

In my opinion, if someone wants to be gay then let them. Just because they don't follow your morals and ethics doesn't make them "less" human.

This just in. McCain goes to see 'Breakback Hill' for three times in a row for sensitivity training.

Homosexuality, I believe is a built- in population cap. Higher the pop. density, the higher the proportion of homosexuals.

It makes sense, you have community members capable of mechanically reproducing, but you have non-reproductive couples raise them.

Think of the long-term results...

reply to post by djerwulfe


Are you saying homosexuality occurs because of population control? That doesn't make sense. Homosexuals are not sterile, they can and do have children, simply not with their same-sex partner. But this does nothing to damper their ability to add to the population through reproduction.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Actually, I believe that it is nature's way of reducing the population. Some animals can change sexes if there's a shortage of males or females, so why can't humans become homosexual to snip the breeding population?

Not all homosexuals have children. Some do out of societal pressure. Without that pressure they probably wouldn't have. Some do because they want to.

Bottom line though is I believe it's a form of natural population control.

reply to post by Griff


Not all homosexuals have children.

Yes but their sexuality does not prevent their ability to produce off spring in the population. If nature controls population at all it is more likely it is controled through human beings being born sterile, something that completely obliterates the chances of off spring.

However I do understand your meaning, it is an interesting theory, and nothing is impossible when looking at this issue since we still can not determine if it is nature or nurture.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
However I do understand your meaning, it is an interesting theory, and nothing is impossible when looking at this issue since we still can not determine if it is nature or nurture.

I understand what you're saying also. But, to me, it's definately nature as oppossed to nurture.

I am gay. My sister is bi. My brother is straight. We all grew up the same.

BTW, my brother's father is not mine and my sister's, but my father adopted my brother when he was 1.

[edit on 7/17/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Very interesting, it is nice to see a family raised in the same home that has such diverse orientations. Families like yours may help us realize why you are gay, and may help to prove nature over nurture. I have no problem with homosexuality either way; it has been made clear one can not change themselves no matter how they gained their orientation. People focus too much on the “why”, I don’t think “why” is that important, people “are” is what is important and we need to accept and give the same rights to those individuals.

Originally posted by Griff
I understand what you're saying also. But, to me, it's definately nature as oppossed to nurture.
I am gay. My sister is bi. My brother is straight. We all grew up the same.

oh, you proved the nurture thing alright, you and ur sister are GAY! man that totally means something is weird with ur family. ur brother was the lucky one.

Originally posted by DuneKnight
oh, you proved the nurture thing alright, you and ur sister are GAY! man that totally means something is weird with ur family. ur brother was the lucky one.

Actually my brother and my sister are the lucky ones. My sister is married and my brother-in-law knows and enjoys it. But, basically she lives a "straight" life to those who don't know.

So, yes. They are lucky. Lucky to not have to endure the biggotry of people like you.

reply to post by Griff


easy there, i was just joking. i was merely trying to prove a point. i think nurture is responsible. that or the fact that ur parents are very accepting. they probably say: "we will always love u no matter what",
i wonder what gay parents would say to that: "YAY, U ARE GAY LIKE US!"

Originally posted by Griff
Actually my brother and my sister are the lucky ones. My sister is married and my brother-in-law knows and enjoys it.

of course he enjoys it, the possibility of having a threesome isn't far fetched for him now.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by DuneKnight]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


I know why you're saying this. "All the parts still work," but slecection doesn't happen that way. And doubtless, there is a more subtle sophisticated genetic drive to sow seeds beyond the lower "hump" instinct. So, certainly people with same sex preferences can and will reproduce, YET, here's the key, WHEN you reproduce is as important as How much. Homesexuals probably have fewer children over a lifetime than heteros. On average. Other groups are like this.

Good case: A group of primates in recent study. The question was put forth about why there was a large percentage of small non-breeding males when the females in the group ALWAYS mated with the big strong stupid anti-social males. Also noted, the prefferred gene-mate had little or nothing to do with actually raising the chimp kids. The smaller males were involved heavily. They were acting "Dads."

Females chose robust males with latent "sissy" genes. Maybe they always pick the big strong males based on survivability in the raw, but it seems the females can select among the big strong males with smelling out the "nurture" genes too.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by centurion1211
In fact, evolution has everything to do with procreation. They are like two sides of the same coin. It's exactly how and the only way evolutionary changes get passed down to succeeding generations.

Otherwise the change dies with the creature it exists in.

Really? I missed where downs syndrom has been irradicated from the gene pool. As they don't procreate, how could the genes be passed on? How about blue eyes? Nope, no one has those anymore. How about 6 fingers (dominant gene). We all have that right?

The ignorance around here astounds me.

It should. Start by looking in the mirror. Obviously, Downs Syndrome isn't caused or cured by evolution. From the Mayo Clinic:

Is it inherited?
Most cases of Down syndrome aren't inherited. They're caused by a mistake in cell division during the development of the egg, sperm or embryo.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by centurion1211
First thing to look for would be to see if kids with gay parents were more likely to be gay as adults than kids with straight parents.

Again, I'll state that 99% of gay people had straight parents. So, your reasoning is flawed. Yet again.

Again, look in the mirror for flawed reasoning. You simply reversed what I said, which is not the same thing at all. Don't let your obvious emotional attachment to this issue cloud your reasoning abilities.

Plus, as I said previously, this issue hasn't been around long enough to do a true study of the long-term effects on the children. I also offered the possibility that the only effect of having 2 gay "parents" might be an increased level of tolerance towards other gays. Was that so bad?

Originally posted by DuneKnight
easy there, i was just joking. i was merely trying to prove a point. i think nurture is responsible. that or the fact that ur parents are very accepting. they probably say: "we will always love u no matter what",

No, actually it's the other way around. I remember when I first found out what "gay" was. I was watching a movie with my family about AIDS and it was about a gay man living with AIDS and his mother taking him in etc.

The point to this is that I knew that is what I was even back then...probably around 7-10. My mother said to my father in front of me "I don't know what we'd do if one of our children was gay". No wonder it took me until my 30's to come out to them.

So, no, it wasn't "be gay all you want, we don't care".

Also, they are wonderful now but I was afraid for a long time.

i wonder what gay parents would say to that: "YAY, U ARE GAY LIKE US!"

Yeah, I'm sure they'd be ecstatic knowing their child will be ostrasized by society.

Originally posted by Griff

Yeah, I'm sure they'd be ecstatic knowing their child will be ostrasized by society.

Which, I believe, was one of the main points against gay parents adopting children made by many on this thread. Looks like you've started to come around to looking at this from the perspective of what it would do to the child.