GameBanshee Forums

My friend is late, so time for yet another post...

Originally posted by Audace
Further more...there is not a single piece of credible scientific evidence left that shows that being homosexual is a choice. Believe me, if that were the case I would've made a different choice ten years ago. This is not an issue that you can "feel" an opinion about or that it is something that's so individual that you can use the term "to me" to make statements about it.

Audace it totally correct here, homosexual orientation is not a choice. This is considered a scientific fact today, it is the totally non-controversial consensus...scientifically speaking. It is of cause still a controversial fact for some religious groups. Of course the homosexual individual just as the heterosexual individual can choose to repress his or her basic needs and emotions, which is very unhealhty of course...a person does not choose eye colour either, but can of cause choose to wear colour lenses all of his life.

I also agree with Audace that when facts are available one should try to avoid "feeling" what is right or wrong and how things work. It becomes sort of like feeling that pink unicorns exist, or feeling that the moon is made of green cheese. An stupid example, but my point is that when facts are available and feelings are not consistent with facts, that persons feelings are simply incorrect.

Current hypothesis regarding the determination of sexual orientation, is that it is not a learned behaviour, ie it is not aquired by model learning, conditioning or other learning paradigms. Instead, data suggest a biological background and mind you, biological is not equivalent to genetical. Biological could implicate genetical ie heritable, but it could also be a biological feature that is not herited. For instance, the level of hormones a fetus is exponsed to in utero is an example of a biological but not genetic factor that is speculated to have an effect on later sexual orientation. It could also be that homosexuality is indeed inherited, but, like all other human behaviour patterns, in a complex fashion including multiple genes and multiple promoters interacting to repress or express genes, and also interacting with the environment in it's widest sense, ie the biochemical environment as well as the sociocultural.

Btw, do any of you know of the study that was published in Nature (I think) about 3 years ago, where fruit flies' sexual orientation were changed by exposing them to certain peptides or hormones during development? Might provide a clue in the complex jigsaw of how sexual orientation is determined.

Originally posted by Beowulf
This is a scientific matter which can be tested and measured, so it's not really a matter of personal opinion. I don't know the details of the relevant studies, but I'm sure CE does, if she'd care to enlighten us.

And indeed it has been tested and measured, but now I really have to rush since my friend is standing here waiting for me...be back later with scientific data!

Originally posted by Enchantress
Does common law marriage still have the same implications it used to, Nippy? I think the law was changed about that....

And how long do you have to live with someone before you become their common law husband/wife?

Having said what I said earlier, I would like to get married, though, one day. I do feel drawn to the idea of devoting myself to one person. However, I'd only like to do it once. My parents and grandparents are divorced and my dad just divorced again. I don't think there is a happy marriage in my entire family!

No. "Common Law marriages" were fashionable in the rebellious seventies, and IIRC you only had to live with someone for 9 months (I might be wrong here though) to be considered married by common law. It didn't give the same kind of legal assurances as a traditional wedding certificate though.

@Enchantress, I come from a very similar background My dad is now married for the fifth time, my mum was married twice. My grandparents, though, married for life. I had not grown up with a great deal of respect for the institute of marriage, yet I married when he proposed (though a few years after). I would have happily remained unmarried and partnered for life, since I couldn't have been more committed, and am not romantic enough to have ever wished for a fairytale day with a proverbial happy ever after "Marriage" to me is learning to grow with someone, with or without a certificate.

I married because he wanted to, and I was at worst indifferent with regards to the formalities, but a convincing reason is simply that we had kids now, and even though I couldn't have been more committed, the laws here are bizarre. Unmarried, he was not considered a legal guardian of his own children; he could not take them abroad, or have any emergency medical treatment done, or sign schooling papers etc etc without my expressly written consent. ie a legally binding document of some kind. This I thought unreal! Especially since if we were to separate, the Child Support Agency would have hunted him down for ridiculous amounts of money (sometimes) reminding him heavily of his paternity Also, there was the issue of inheritance law. God forbid anything happened to either of us whilst the children were young, the other would not see a penny of any of the insurance/endowment policies we pay heaps into a month. It would all go into a trust fund for our kids.

In the UK, the way inheritance law works (if someone was to die intestate) is first to the spouse, second to the children third to the parents and lastly to the extended family who call on it or to the state. Remove the spouse, it goes to the kids, if there are no children it will go to the deceased's parents and so on, irregardless of the fact that he or she might have been partnered for many years.

To summarize, I married because I dearly loved the man who asked, but also to protect ourselves from outdated laws. Common sense. I know we could have got around this by drawing up independant legal agreements, but that to me seemed pathetically formal and also very impersonal. (And it proved to be a great party!! )

To answer the original question The right to publically declare your commitment to one another, and the right to protect your partnership legally and financially should be available to all, irregardless of the sexual orientation, and the attitudes of society, governments or churches.

It is upto society to alter the common perception of unity and force change to the legal and ethical institute of "marriage" whether that be in a civil or religious ceremony. If the legalities were to change regarding long term partnerships, then marriage - as a ceremony - would surely just represent a declaration of love and commitment. What is wrong with that?

Originally posted by Beowulf
Now you've moved onto a different point. You started by saying that the child would be discriminated against. I pointed out the flaws in this reasoning, and you replied by saying that sexual orientation affects the how the adoptive parents would raise the child. We were discussing how the child's peers would react to having same-sex parents, not the effect that has on how the child is raised.

My fault. I rambled and lost track, I apologise.

I think what may be best is to say that at the current time, and situation, a child would be affected badly by a situation like that, obviously more so than having parents of different ethnic origin...

Personally I do not believe that any issue of person or persons adopting children should not be based on any issue other than thier parenting abilities, based upon thier current actions (jobs, history, family situation).

I live on a street thats relativly calm and some nice people but everyonce in a while I come across some five year old out on his own just running around, sometimes into the street sometimes not.

Personally my opinion is that being gay is something I will never understand, much like greek food. Doesn't mean greek food should go away... or that a good greek dinner couldn't raise a child..

I wont condemn something I dont completly understand, yet I wont be pro it either.

Its neglect and bad parenting that need to be adressed. A good parent could teach the child about why they are gay and why the people pick on them... my dad told me why the big guys pick on the little guys and I wasn't mad for being little no more.

Originally posted by Audace
I think it has less to do with who your parents are then with how good your parents are in raising kids.

Agreed

@ The Z, I agree that how a child grows is heavily influenced by environment, by peer groups, by parenting. Regarding your example, it is difficult to tell whether or not his parenting was the sole factor as to why he behaved, or was thought to behave, differently. There are many contributing factors.

Another angle, heavy, but just for the sake of it ok? Criminology studies have concluded that many male serial killers have lacked an intimate mother/son relationship in their very early years.

All I am trying to throw in is the fact that at some point, the reliance on role models moves outside of the home quite early. From what I am lead to believe in my limited reading, for boys it happens around the age of six. Whether they have a father in the home or not, they begin to look outside for male role models. I have seen this with my own son, with his relationships with my own (much younger than me) brothers, with his love of Cub Scouts, etc

Regarding the criminologists common findings on serial offenders, it is not necessarily a problem with an absent father figure, but moreso with an absent early intimate relationship with a mother figure. And this needn't be sex related, this is a role that is played by any close, sympathetic and empathetic individual.

I would argue that someone is just as likely to offend or at least appear different where there is no constancy in their lives, where they are denied of a base to return to, a comforting relationship for reference, a sound emotional foundation at home from which to grow and move out from.

I think that sexual orientation should have no effect on marriage. As for adoption, that is a tough one for me and one that I've not thought about a lot. However, I do think that if a gay couple can raise a child as well as a straight couple then there should be no problem. I'm just not sure if there is enough to prove that the child will not be affected too much because of that situation.

And @CE, I would be very interested in any studies you have on these issues, especially ones pertaining to evolution. I went to a Christian high school (fortunately I graduated recently ) and I always argued for evolution and this is one of the questions that I was asked and could never really answer (though I tried).

Should gay marriages by legally recognized?

As to the original question..."Should gay marriages be legally recognised? "

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Marriage is two things: a holy sacrament and a legal contract. Many denominations have restricted religious marriage to be defined as a convenant between a man and a woman, invalidating same-sex marriages.

However, there is no reason why the state should prohibit such civil unions. Just as straight marriages can be performed by a civil magistrate or a notary, there is no real reason (homophobia is an excuse, not a reason) why gay people cannot enter into the same legal contract.

HLD did a great job of summing my thoughts up in brief....but to expound further...
In the U.S.A. there are many legal disadvantages to being single. Most tax codes favor married couples even living seperately over those couples who choose to cohabitate. The exception being if there si a child, then the single parent has the most favored tax bracket.

Most insurance policies offered through a person's employer recognise a spouse as benificiary, but will not recognise a partner.

Social security offers no survivor's benifits to an unmarried partner, no matter how long they lived together. To make it even more unfair...If a couple divorce, and then one goes on to establish a live-in relationship with another partner, the surviving ex-spouse is entitled to survivors benifits...even if the person has had a long term cohabitative relationship with their new partner in the interim.

Property laws do not protect a partner when the deceased has children.

A surviving partner has to sue for custody of a child he or she has help raised in the event of the death of that child's parent when the deceased has a surviving blood relative, or the child's other parent is alive....even thought the child may never have met that person, and has spent their entire life with the deceased parent's partner.

In many states, the sodomy laws prevent a parent from having custody of their own child, even when in every respect they may be the better parent.

A partner can not pick up a child from school without written, notarized documentation from the parent...a step-parent does not have to go to such lengths.

A same-sex partner is not recognised by most schools as co-guardian.

Many appartments bar singles......this would include an established couple, hetero, or same-sex who may have been togeter in excess of 20 years.

Many career tracs look at a person's family life when deciding promotions for key positions..linking stable home life with a good indication that this person will be a stable employee. At the same time, these companies frown on "Alternative Life-stylers" as beeing unstable and riskey...even though the divorce rate in the states has made marriage a bit of a revolving door entity where people do not partner for life, but indulge in a sort of serial monogomy.

(@CE:..Going back to my beliefs in personal freedom )I will not even address the point rather homosexuality natural or a choice......for me, that is not relivant. Even if it is was a pure choice.......it is still that persons life and no one should make the choice for him what to do with it .

As to the question of 'morality?...If the Church does not want to recognise a marriage between same-sex couples....then perhaps they are worshiping at an alter which does not truly represent their heartfelt beliefs.......and they should find another alter.

I know many Catholics who still take communion after their third time down the isle...even though the 'Church' forbids it without annuling all previous marriages.

Marriage began as a civil contract, adn to a large degree, when you strip away the romantic notions........it remains just that.

IMO, People (and I am not limiting this to only couples but poligamists as well) who share their lives, share their assets, share their space, their hearts, and their energies, in a way that a traditional husband and wife do, should be able to enjoy the same legal protections .

As far as the church goes...I don't recognize them, they are not obliged to recognize me...(sorry I'm fed up with churches....I could post a link of a conservative church wich features Matthew Sheppard burning and screaming in hell, but it's just too gross......) Which is a shame really, because there are a lot of religious gay people(which is possible, for anybody who wants to go into a theological debate) that are hated and excluded by a religion that preaches love...

As long as the state recognizes a same-sex marriage with all the legal consequences that it implies (as Scayde summed up in her excellent post) I'm happy.

As far as same-sex couples adopting children...if science proves that it's a bad thing(I haven't seen any studies, but I doubt it), with a possible increased risk of for instance of children becoming a serial-killer(as Yshania wondered/raised) then I'd be the first to say that there should be legislation to prevent it. I don't believe that this is the case, and I doubt there will be proof of this, but I'm not a dogmatic person.

@ CE...thanks for the back-up...you from a scientific point, me from a personal background. I hope you can provide evidence of same-sex couples being as well suited as traditional couples to raise a child. I think you are better(actually i know) equipped to give scientific evidence about the subject.

Anyways, any opinion is alright for me, even a religious one, as long as it is based on facts, aka believes(which are facts for those that believe)...I might disagree but stuff happens...

I posted one of the "too complex" votes. I'm not in disagreement with much of what anybody has written so far: ideologically, I'm all for legal recognition of same-sex marriages. But I have to wonder at what point, in any given culture, it is permissible to force a culture to change its laws and customs, regardless of however unfair outsiders may view them. If I were in Chretien's place, I can see voicing support for such legislation; but I wouldn't do it in Nigeria, or Turkmenistan. Far from being a method of reinforcing private judgement or a noble, humanitarian gesture, it would probably backfire, possibly bringing about the lynching of homosexuals in cultures that have always been severely homophobic. That's to the extent that such a law was practiced; because from what little I've been able to gather, when laws are instituted that go against cultural norms, the culture usually finds ways of getting around the law. The situation might be analagous to broad areas of the Deep American South in early 20th century, when blacks were legally entitled to vote, but the entire political system was rigged in such a way that ballots were never made available to them.

So I'm very uneasy about the forced passage of such laws in nations that are overwhelmingly against them. No problems about the laws, themselves, since I think governments can and should play an active part in the stripping away of prejudices from within their own societies. But to what extent that can be done in any individual case, remains best for local leaders with vision to consider.

@Audace: I appreciate your posts (I've been reading over the thread after being offline for most of the day). Let me preface my comments by telling you that I've known (and worked with) quite a number of open homosexuals, many of whom ended up being my friends. Atlanta, Georgia, has quite a strong homosexual community, and I lived in that city for close to ten years.

I think you need to know my basic attitude concerning homosexuality so you'll know where I'm coming from. I don't feel that the feelings and attraction shared between two people of the same sex is any different than the chemistry that happens between a man and a woman. I'm not "uncomfortable" being around a homosexual, probably due to a lack of a religious upbringing on my part. I simply don't find males attractive, and to me this was the only thing that separated myself from my friends who were gay.

Many shared their life's story with me, and one thing they all shared in common: most paid a high price for being gay. Estrangement from their families, hostility from society, and ridicule was the norm. It was heart-wrenching to listen to their tales, and I came to appreciate the courage it took for them to be openly homosexual.

My personal judgement concerning the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple stems from a knowledge of the hostility that is still prevalent in society towards homosexuality. I think so many different factors shape and mold us as human beings, that it's patently impossible to nail down something like sexual preference in a sweeping manner. I'll agree that in some cases, the person has no choice as to their sexual preference, which becomes obvious as they continue to grow and develop, encountering difficulities with assuming (and maintaining) a heterosexual role. Still others, later in their lives, assume the homosexual lifestyle after being exposed to it in one form or another, often through the agency of a homosexual friend. Such was the case with many of my gay friends. In my opinion, a large number of factors contribute to homosexuality, enough for me to not feel comfortable with pointing a finger at any one factor as being the cause.

Personally, if a child is naturally predisposed towards homosexuality, then the sexual orientation of their parent-figures will have little impact on their sexual identity, beyond the social obstacles they might face depending upon the kind of upbringing they receive. However, if a child is *not* disposed in this way, then being exposed to this environment could have serious consequences for him or her.

Love is never wrong, with the caveat that it must be between people of reasonably maturity and mutual consent.

The form that love takes is immaterial. In my opinion, homosexual sex is just a kinky form of sex I'm not into. There are lots of types of straight sex that I don't find arousing (erotic asphyxia, for example), but if people out there like it, hey, I'm all of them doing what they like in the privacy of their own homes. I see no reason why homosexuals should be denied the legal right to have expensive and messy breakups like straight folks.

@fable that's where democracy is supposed to take us, though. It seems that more people (or at least most of us here) would like to see same-sex marriages recongnized in our own areas. If this holds true throughout a given area then I think the government should comply to the public's wishes. After all, that is the idea of a democracy isn't it? In another homophobic place I would certainly like to see them recongize these marriages, however I don't feel it would be my place to say anything to them. If their population decides to recognize them, then so should the government, otherwise it should be left alone. And yes, I realize this logic is likely faulty when applied to some other situations, but I think in this particular one it works.

And on adoption I pretty much agree with Chanak. I have no doubt that a gay couple could be just as good or maybe better parents then any straight couple, however the child may have problems socially. @Audace, you pointed out that this kind of logic is flawed and used women voting as an example. However, I see these as different kinds of issues. In the case of adoption, the fact that society is not ready for it may in fact destroy someone's life. This would not happen in the other situation. That is why I think this issue has to be looked at more carefully then many of our other, previous social issues.

Originally posted by Yshania
Another angle, heavy, but just for the sake of it ok? Criminology studies have concluded that many male serial killers have lacked an intimate mother/son relationship in their very early years.

I think this is an important point which is overlooked by many. Unbridled male aggression does indeed have links to dysfunctional families...whether it's a lack of a solid mother/son relationship, or a lack of stability in the area of a strong male father-figure in a young man's life. Both the male and the female seem to have important roles in the well-being and development of a child. This speaks nothing of sexuality...rather, I think it deals with emotional and mental stability. I don't believe that a homosexual is "ill" by any stretch, any more than a heterosexual is sick for their own sexual preference.

I don't think a female or male parent figure has to necessarily be married - or even live together - as much as they simply need to be involved in a child's life. This is the important thing, for we all know that the simple virtue of a man and woman being married, and living in the same household, means nothing in and of itself. Dysfunctional families can happen in any setting.

Really, I can think of some homosexual couples who could provide a stable, secure environment for a child...however, they would have to go out of their way in order to insure that somehow, the child had the balancing parent-figures present in their development. They certainly wouldn't lack for love and attention...however, I do feel that setbacks can be suffered if a child doesn't have the basic, elemental needs attended to. This really doesn't address sexuality issues, though for some that can indeed become an unbalancing factor in their lives, as almost anything can develop into an unhealthy condition if the environment permits.

Originally posted by Yshania
No. "Common Law marriages" were fashionable in the rebellious seventies, and IIRC you only had to live with someone for 9 months (I might be wrong here though) to be considered married by common law. It didn't give the same kind of legal assurances as a traditional wedding certificate though.

Thanks for that info, Yshania - that was very interesting. Because my parents divorced when I was a baby I have little idea of what marriage means to people and to society in general so it's good to hear your personal story about what it means to you.

I think I'd like to walk down the aisle myself one day in a white dress with flowers in my hair. And I'd also like to show the man I love that I love him by making that huge commitment to him and our future together.

But I wonder why so many marriages don't work?

Originally posted by Chanak


I think so many different factors shape and mold us as human beings, that it's patently impossible to nail down something like sexual preference in a sweeping manner. I'll agree that in some cases, the person has no choice as to their sexual preference, which becomes obvious as they continue to grow and develop, encountering difficulities with assuming (and maintaining) a heterosexual role. Still others, later in their lives, assume the homosexual lifestyle after being exposed to it in one form or another, often through the agency of a homosexual friend. Such was the case with many of my gay friends. In my opinion, a large number of factors contribute to homosexuality, enough for me to not feel comfortable with pointing a finger at any one factor as being the cause.

Tnx for explaining, though I never really thought you'd be troubled by people being gay.

However, you keep using phrases like "I think", "In my opinion" on a subject that is scientific fact. Just for my personal background. I'm what they call straight-acting. I'm just out(of the proverbial closet) for three months, being 23. Everybody is surprised when I tell them. My point being, I could've stayed (or rather could have acted) heterosexual for as long as I live. Then again the reason I didn't is because things were going down hill rapidly. Constantly depressed for the last 2.5 years, and my emotional state of mind being such that I really didn't have a choice left but to accept who I am. I was never exposed to the "homosexual life-style". I just woke up one night in Highschool realising I was in love with a guy. Scared me ****less(if you'll permit me this one indiscretion). It's not about "assuming" a life-style. Being gay isn't a life-style. It's a characteristic, the same as having blue eyes.

Personally, if a child is naturally predisposed towards homosexuality, then the sexual orientation of their parent-figures will have little impact on their sexual identity, beyond the social obstacles they might face depending upon the kind of upbringing they receive. However, if a child is *not* disposed in this way, then being exposed to this environment could have serious consequences for him or her.

What serious consequences might that be?

Good to see there are many posts in this discussion! I have compliled scientific data about the subject. Scientific data will of couse not change the minds of people like Fas whos opinions are based on the rules his religion set, but it should change the mind of all who wish to base their opinions on facts and not religion, ideology or personal subjective feelings.

Homosexuality, like many other behaviour patterns that are in minority in society, is often connected to lack of understanding and discrimination. There are many prejudices, misunderstandings and simply lack of knowledge surrounding homosexuality. However, just as society once discriminated against non-white people based on erranous idea, soceity should now cease discrimination against gay people.

Scientific data:

1. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Development of sexual orientation occurs very early in life, perhaps even in utero (ie before one is born). There is no data suggesting parents can influence sexual orientation. On the contrary, data from studies comparing straigh and gay parents show that there is no difference in prevalence of straight and gay sexual orientation respectively in the children. This is consistent with prevalence of homo- and bisexuality across cultures. It does not matter if a society is repressive or liberal concerning homosexuality, in sociological studies where people are allowed to be anonymous, the frequency of homoseuxal people is constant. What of course differs is their behaviour - in Iran, gay couples are not holding hands on the street, as they might do London. Where there is a constant prevalence of a phenomena across cultures and over several generations, this means that the phenomena in question is either determined genetically or biologically (as I described in my post above), not by sociocultural factors since it should vary between cultures if cultural factors had an impact. So what causes homosexuality? Is it chemical events in utero? Is it a genetic mutation that occurs with this frequency? Is is even inheritable in some complex fashion? All or none of these? Nobody knows, but since homosexuality occurs in many other species as well, there is a

2. Current evolutionary hypothesis about homosexuality
Often you hear arguments such as "Men and women were meant to be together and reproduce" and of course this is so. But what many people overlook, is the fact that humans were not originally couple-living but a group living species. And we still are, our genes have not changed the slightest since then, but modern society is organised around the core family concept. However, humans originally lived in groups where the group collectively raised offspring and gathered food. Just as some people still today carry a genetic disposition to become obese because in times of scarcity this was selected for (ie the likelihood that you survived was bigger if you were fatter and had a higher ability to store fat in your body) the hypothesis is that homosexuality was selected for because adults who could collect food and take care of offspring but did not burden the group by reproducing themselves, were highly valuable in hard times. This hypothesis must of course be tested, but it is certainly a plausible hypothesis and in support for this hypothesis are observation that in animals, homosexual individuals can be observed rearing other's offpspring when the biological parents have died for instance. And now, look at homoadoption in this perspective, it's exactly this happening in modern society!

3. Adoption for homosexual parents
Anybody could go to a library and do searches in Medline, Psychlit and Psychinfo and come up with the same results as I. However, for convenience I post some summaries of scientific finding regarding homosexual parents here.

APA (American Psychological Association, but is is very international actually) is the largest body for behavioural science and they are the ones responsible for international diagnosis criterna, golden standard for treatment, etc. In short, they are the most influencial international authority on psychology, and they have a good summary article of the current data here:
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
At the bottom of the article are links to the original studies etc.
A review article (a scientific article that goes through current status of a field and is peer-reviewed just as if it was a study) can be found here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/gaylaw/issue6/Mcneill.htm

Data speaks for itself. There is no support for the idea that homosexual parents are in any way less good that heterosexual parents.

Regarding consequences of having homosexual parents, the argument that children may get social problems have been debated. However, this is largely depending on the degree of prejudice in the society they live in. What if we had a socieity where brown haired people were discriminated against, should we therefore think that brown-haired people are not allowed to adopt children? Of course not! The problem is not the existence of brown hair, the problem is the prejudices in society, and efforts should be made to change such arbitrary and erranous prejudice. A child risk to have social problems if the parents have any features that a particular society discriminate against. In the former days, single parents were discriminated against in Sweden, and people believed it was bad for kids to grow up with single parents. In the 50's, kids could get bullied at school and outfrozen because they lived in single parent households. However, recent studies show that there are no differences in social, psychological and physiological health between children who grew up with 1 or 2 parents.

Scientific studies of childrens health and developement show that it is important that a child has many adult role models and many adults it can trust. One, two or four parents is not important, several adult figures close to the child, is. So, does this mean we should not let lonely people raise kids? JK of course, but it is important to note that one or two parents is not the issue, and the child's need for role models of both genders does not need to be connected to parenting.

I must confess @CE, I never follow the links you provide.
The very thing annoyes me a bit (no offense meant of course ).
The points are:

• Scientists have proven to be as faulty as every other human group, or even more gravely, given the responsibilities they're charged with
• A scientific experiment needs often to "semplify" and somehow isolate the phenomenon from the rest of the environment.
  You just *can't* take everything into account in an experiment.
• Nobody is unbiased. Not even you, your signature proves it!
  No bad in it, it's the beauty of human nature to have passions and biases. But still, you act as a "filter" in providing links.
  There are "scientific studies" that prove smoking is dangerous to the health. But there are even "scientific studies" that prove its innocuity!!!! It all comes down to the ones you "select".

I think with my own mind: for example in the case of smoke the coughing it causes me is a sufficient reason for me to stay clear of it.
I didn't say a child raised by a single or a gay couple will surely have problems, or will deserve a worse treatment by the rest of the society. Everyone has his life, his experiences, his inner strenght and will make a personal use of them.
I don't judge basing on the results.
I judge the action.
I'm sure a child would suffer from not having a mom, or a dad.
And a single who wants at all costs an adoption, knowing the child could be as well adopted by a "complete" family, acts egoistically in this regard.
And maybe with a bit of arrogance (sort of "I can provide everything the child will need!")

Originally posted by Littiz
I must confess @CE, I never follow the links you provide.

That's a pity, because if you had done so, you would have found that the provided material is not one or two studies but the official stance of the APA and the consensus in the scientific community.

A scientist, any scientist, can be personally biased just like anybody else. However, the scientific method is systematic strategy in order to override possible personal biases, as is the peer-review system. If hundreds of scientists in different countries independantly come to the same conclusion, it decreases the impact of single individuals biases.

* Scientists have proven to be as faulty as every other human group, or even more gravely, given the responsibilities they're charged with
* A scientific experiment needs often to "semplify" and somehow isolate the phenomenon from the rest of the environment.
You just *can't* take everything into account in an experiment.

Sure scientists can be faulty, science is a changing process, but what I present is what is known currently and one cannot refrain from acting on something because it might be proven wrong in a non-foreseeable future. In the future there might be better treatment against cancer than cytostatica, but that 's no reason not to use it today. Knowledge have limits, we can only act upon what is currently known, no more.

Regarding experiments, you can of course not study homosexual v heterosexual parenting experimentally since that would require isolating people and raising kids in labs, which would in itself be a serious confounding factor since the lab-environment can not be generalised to soceity. However, by controlling for certain factors and comparing groups that are equal in other respects that can affect parenting, save sexual orientation, one can be fairly sure that the results are valid. But you should really read some of the studies to find out how scientist have controlled for error sources.

[*]Nobody is unbiased. Not even you, your signature proves it!
No bad in it, it's the beauty of human nature to have passions and biases. But still, you act as a "filter" in providing links. [/b]

Of course I am not unbiased, and I have stated several times on this board that I am pro adoption for homosexual people, for instance. However, that's why I stated initially in my post that anybody could just pop down to their local library and do a search in the scientific databases. That's an easy control for selection bias, and if a person does not want to check himself, then he can't claim to base his opinions on facts. This is very much a question of how people wish to form their opinions - what do they want to be governed by? Religion, tradition, ideology, personal feelings, subjective experience, scientific facts, what other people say, etc.

Personally, I wish to form my opinions based on facts, and I will change my opinions if facts change. Other people might wish to follow a religions paradigm or follow their subjective beliefs - well, so be it, but one must be aware of the choices one make, and what implications they have.

There are "scientific studies" that prove smoking is dangerous to the health. But there are even "scientific studies" that prove its innocuity!!!! It all comes down to the ones you "select".

There are bad studies, sponsored by the Tobacco industry, heavily critisised by the majority of the scientific community. It is not the consens, quite the contrary. And no such studies have been published in the best peer-reviewed journals, and no Cancer research organisation in the world support these faulty findings. So there is a big difference.

Originally posted by Enchantress
But I wonder why so many marriages don't work?

Perhaps it is because people aren't willing to work at them. Feelings come and feelings go, waxing and waning like the tides of the sea. Being married/committed to someone involves more than that initial attraction, or the "warm fuzzies" that are a by-product of romance. Overall, being committed to someone is a conscious decision, an act of the will, that we have to reinforce daily with compromise and mutual respect. I think this is lacking to a large degree, perhaps because people do not feel that it is worth it anymore.

@Audace: I'll respond later to your post.