I would rather my money to go to adoption programs and social welfare agencies than an unjust war that I dont even agree with, along with half of America. Or fuckin space travel???

Could we get back on topic please?

• Please, PLEASE be more judicious in the quoting. My scrolly finger is done worn out. And by that I mean, PLEASE DON'T QUOTE THIS ENTIRE POST IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER. Just quote the part you're answering.
  
• The whole "___ parents tend to raise ___ kids" argument hinges on one difference. Religion, politics, agression, etc are all learned behavior. Sexual orientation is genetic behavior -- classic nuture vs. nature. For example, the only reason that one can equate the liklihood of being Muslim with the liklihood of being gay or straight is that the line between nuture and nature appears blurred. For example, the boy who was dressed up in dresses may appear to act gay, and he may have learned to think he was gay, but did the parents teach him to be genetically gay? Of course not. He learned to repress his genetic straigtness. Similarly, a genetically gay person brought up in a straight environment will learn to repress his genetic gayness and only realize he is gay years later.
  
• Keep in mind that all the kids so far are relatively young -- teens and twenties. They could think or act gay or bi because it's the "in" thing to do, when in genetic reality they are genetically straight but either don't know that for sure yet, or don't want to know that for sure because they are having too much fun "experimenting." Until all of these young people are fully mature and fully understand of their sexuality and are done dating and experimenting, you can't get any accurate read on what the genetic makeup is. So far, I would think that the studies on "genetic" makeup are tending to skew towards gay and bi, simply because the sample pool is young and horny and because it's now ubercool to accept gay people. Check back in 20 years, and you may have a totally different (and more accurate) answer. But of course nobody is willing to wait that long.
  
• Another monkey wrench: People are not all gay, or all straight. There is a continual gray area of bisexuality in between. So not only are the studies blurry, the genetic makeup itself is blurry. If somebody is on the straight side of the equation but is slightly bi, a gay environment could "feel" right to them. In this case, you could argue that the environment determined the behavior. However, you could not say that the environment determined the original genetic makeup.
  
• Yes, 44 is a laughable sample size -- I alluded to that before. HOWEVER, you cannot say "Well 44 is a small sample, therefore the original hypthesis is wrong and the other side is right." This means you, NCAR. You cannot say that. Because the sample size is small, the study could have very easily come to the that kids are NOT well-adjusted, and that conclusion would be just as invalid. HOWEVER, I'm positive that if such a study, invalid as it is, was published, the anti-gay groups would jump on such a study as proof -- and mighty quick. If anti-gay groups are not educated enough to recognize the blurry difference between nuture vs. nature, do you really expect them to seek out and evaluate the sample size of a study, especially if the study says what they want it to say?
  

These are arguments against Krem's devil's advocate. However, there is no way to convince the Krem's example of close-minded groups. Somebody says the word "science" to them and they get bad flashbacks of science in junior high and crawl into a corner. "God said so" is much easier. The argument I just posted takes work. (really, hands up, how many of you slogged through it? ) They'd rather run to the "Osmosis" because it's got this magical sound to it. Don't you worry, folks, we sciencey people in the lab coats got it all figured out so you don't have to wrack your brains. It's *drum roll* Osmosis. What a catchy talking point! The arguments against Krem's side doesn't even get IN, much less analyzed inside.

Where did ya go krem? :wink:

You want me to answer your question AGAIN?

No Krem, I dont want to see you backpeddle anymore. I was wondering why you hadn't answered Erendis posts :wink:

That's funny, because I do believe I did.

I swear it wasnt there a few minutes ago!!

Im sorry

[*] Yes, 44 is a laughable sample size -- I alluded to that before. HOWEVER, you cannot say "Well 44 is a small sample, therefore the original hypthesis is wrong and the other side is right." This means you, NCAR. You cannot say that. Because the sample size is small, the study could have very easily come to the that kids are NOT well-adjusted, and that conclusion would be just as invalid. HOWEVER, I'm positive that if such a study, invalid as it is, was published, the anti-gay groups would jump on such a study as proof -- and mighty quick. If anti-gay groups are not educated enough to recognize the blurry difference between nuture vs. nature, do you really expect them to seek out and evaluate the sample size of a study, especially if the study says what they want it to say?

[/list]These are arguments against Krem's devil's advocate. However, there is no way to convince the Krem's example of close-minded groups. Somebody says the word "science" to them and they get bad flashbacks of science in junior high and crawl into a corner. "God said so" is much easier. The argument I just posted takes work. (really, hands up, how many of you slogged through it? ) They'd rather run to the "Osmosis" because it's got this magical sound to it. Don't you worry, folks, we sciencey people in the lab coats got it all figured out so you don't have to wrack your brains. It's *drum roll* Osmosis. What a catchy talking point! The arguments against Krem's side doesn't even get IN, much less analyzed inside.

FYI~~~~

I spoke with my Prof tonight at class. SHe is a social worker for the government :wink:
Anways, she told me that gay couples adopting is really not that big of an issue. I mean it is, but currently a gay couple can get a child basically just as easy as a straight couple can.

And about those so-called genetic studies, Darwinian logic would say if homosexuality IS genetic and, presumably recessive, then how in the hell do we even have homosexuals today? Unless, of course, it's not genetic, but environmentally influenced.

That's good, but it doesn't mean it can't change for the worse.