What is it with these Gay Rights people
-
I think the reverse samples were all regarding strait people, and in favor of that argument. When I point out a contrast, even if it's a small sample, it still goes to show that the point being made is absolutely not a fact.
Im_no_troll wrote:
When I point out a contrast, even if it's a small sample, it still goes to show that the point being made is absolutely not a fact.
On top of that there are numerous cases of a straight couple raising a gay child... I guess that data is conveniently ignored :rolleyes:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
OK to me as well ! I was actually a bit surprised at your positions, because I know (well, from what I have read on CP) that we happen to agree on a lot of other things that have been discussed here (no specfiic example, but overall feeling), so I did not expect that.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No idea. Right now I would say she emulates her brother and the dog the most.... I would not draw any conclusions from it. She is a 4 year old.
I wasn't asking about her brother or the dog. Between you and her mom, I would think she emulates her mom more. The fact that most of the boys in my family emulate their dads and the girls their moms cannot be coincidence since both are equally available.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You are mixing up things here. Lack of emulation does not conclude something. Because they are not emulating something that is not around that other kids emulate which is around them does not mean they are being raised to not do (or to do) actions they observed and are emulating.
A kid that does not participate in Baseball for most of their childhood does not mean the kid will not like baseball when they are older.But if the kid grew up watching baseball with the dad and played outside with the dad, they will like it. Similarly, the kid may not like it until he's old enough to try it and change his mind about it. But until they're old enough to change the way they think, they are learning from observation and their parents actions, inactions, or reactions around them. Emulation is not permanent and is mostly influential at young ages. Again, I fail to see your point here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
My wife and I are together for different reasons.
Different reasons than other married couples or different reasons than each other? :confused: (Pleading the fifth is acceptable.)
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No. You made a conclusion from the emulation claiming they emulate one sex over the other. You have no data to back that up.
Gender typing is a well studied subject and there are countless articles on it. The fact that I see it in my own extended family all the time cannot be coincidence. I see it in my son a lot and he's with his mother for most of the week. Google it if you need more data. It's there.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is an assumption.
Agreed. There are more plausible explanations of why and I'm just giving you the few that came to mind. However, I sincerely doubt that your daughter actually thinks she's a puppy and I'm sure you'd have her checked if you thought that was t
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Between you and her mom, I would think she emulates her mom more.
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated. On top of that you are going to compare this emulation to data sets which are a rarity in themselves (gay couple raising a child) and make a deduction. Do you know what margin of error means? :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The fact that most of the boys in my family emulate their dads and the girls their moms cannot be coincidence since both are equally available.
So you are taking one sample out of 1 to 1.5 billion (families in the world) and making a deduction from your observations. I ask again, do you know what margin of error means?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But if the kid grew up watching baseball with the dad and played outside with the dad, they will like it.
Why are you so certain? Maybe the kid hates it. The kid does it because the kid enjoys spending time with their father (or mother.. another example where sex is irrelevant).
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But until they're old enough to change the way they think
You think a child does not decide what they like and do like? "You will throw this ball and you will like it!" Wow. Must be fun in your household :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Different reasons than other married couples or different reasons than each other? :confused: (Pleading the fifth is acceptable.)
Both actually. Her and I have similarities but we definitely have many differences (likely more). Thus, our styles and such do not meld and mash. Why we most certainly influence each other on our styles it is more often than not a negotiation of A vs B rather than A + B = C. I mean to say our desires and styles of each other are accepted. She wants a wall to be painted light brown and it is. But I am going to hang this picture of a mountain. Does not mean I like to have brown walls or that she likes scenic pictures hanging on the wall.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Gender typing is a well studied subject and there are countless articles on it. The fact that I see it in my own exte
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And my daughter might start liking it too
Sure, especially if her mother isn't around to influence her. Then, tag, you're it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
A child "plays" and uses imagination to see if they like it.
That's not quite the same though. All kids have some level of imagination when left to their own devices.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Exactly. But that has nothing to do with you showing them it or not. They will like what they like and not like what they do not like.
Exactly, but they can still be influenced by you while growing up and then they will get influenced by others which may or may not undo all that you've taught them. That doesn't mean I give up since their childhood and leave it all up to them (them being the kids and them being the other influencers).
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Sure, especially if her mother isn't around to influence her. Then, tag, you're it.
That is quite the assumption. Well in my case my wife is a home maker so she is essentially always around. My daughter does in fact love playing whatever her brother and I play. Mostly because she seems to really like playing with her brother. If he was playing in the mud she would jump in. Even if her mother was right there.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That's not quite the same though. All kids have some level of imagination when left to their own devices.
Right so how can does what they directly see or do force them into liking or disliking something? Their imaginations are unique and based off of said likes. It also allows them to understand more if they like or dislike something.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Exactly, but they can still be influenced by you while growing up and then they will get influenced by others which may or may not undo all that you've taught them. That doesn't mean I give up since their childhood and leave it all up to them (them being the kids and them being the other influencers).
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Between you and her mom, I would think she emulates her mom more.
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated. On top of that you are going to compare this emulation to data sets which are a rarity in themselves (gay couple raising a child) and make a deduction. Do you know what margin of error means? :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The fact that most of the boys in my family emulate their dads and the girls their moms cannot be coincidence since both are equally available.
So you are taking one sample out of 1 to 1.5 billion (families in the world) and making a deduction from your observations. I ask again, do you know what margin of error means?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But if the kid grew up watching baseball with the dad and played outside with the dad, they will like it.
Why are you so certain? Maybe the kid hates it. The kid does it because the kid enjoys spending time with their father (or mother.. another example where sex is irrelevant).
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But until they're old enough to change the way they think
You think a child does not decide what they like and do like? "You will throw this ball and you will like it!" Wow. Must be fun in your household :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Different reasons than other married couples or different reasons than each other? :confused: (Pleading the fifth is acceptable.)
Both actually. Her and I have similarities but we definitely have many differences (likely more). Thus, our styles and such do not meld and mash. Why we most certainly influence each other on our styles it is more often than not a negotiation of A vs B rather than A + B = C. I mean to say our desires and styles of each other are accepted. She wants a wall to be painted light brown and it is. But I am going to hang this picture of a mountain. Does not mean I like to have brown walls or that she likes scenic pictures hanging on the wall.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Gender typing is a well studied subject and there are countless articles on it. The fact that I see it in my own exte
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated.
I'm not dismissing all other aspects. I had asked just between the two of her parents, which one do you think she emulates more. I never said kids only emulate their parents. On the contrary, I said the opposite. However, I think even if she does emulate a dog or what-not, your daughter's emulation of her mom, and you, is going to stick much longer than that of the dog.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You are right. From the way you speak it is highly likely that you and your extended family type cast individuals purely off of their sex type. You may feel good about it but I say shame on you.
When scientific papers say that kids emulate their same-sex parent more, it is not just me and my family, but almost all families. I have nothing to be ashamed of if I'm in the norm. My margin-of-error is insignificant. So it would seem I'm not the outlier here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That was not what you said. You said there is no way that she wants to be a puppy.
Potatoe, po-tah-toe. Either way, I don't think she actually wants to be a puppy.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Sure, especially if her mother isn't around to influence her. Then, tag, you're it.
That is quite the assumption. Well in my case my wife is a home maker so she is essentially always around. My daughter does in fact love playing whatever her brother and I play. Mostly because she seems to really like playing with her brother. If he was playing in the mud she would jump in. Even if her mother was right there.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That's not quite the same though. All kids have some level of imagination when left to their own devices.
Right so how can does what they directly see or do force them into liking or disliking something? Their imaginations are unique and based off of said likes. It also allows them to understand more if they like or dislike something.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Exactly, but they can still be influenced by you while growing up and then they will get influenced by others which may or may not undo all that you've taught them. That doesn't mean I give up since their childhood and leave it all up to them (them being the kids and them being the other influencers).
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
What's the margin of error on that? Where's the proof, the data, the statistics, the published scientific papers that attest to this?
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated.
I'm not dismissing all other aspects. I had asked just between the two of her parents, which one do you think she emulates more. I never said kids only emulate their parents. On the contrary, I said the opposite. However, I think even if she does emulate a dog or what-not, your daughter's emulation of her mom, and you, is going to stick much longer than that of the dog.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You are right. From the way you speak it is highly likely that you and your extended family type cast individuals purely off of their sex type. You may feel good about it but I say shame on you.
When scientific papers say that kids emulate their same-sex parent more, it is not just me and my family, but almost all families. I have nothing to be ashamed of if I'm in the norm. My margin-of-error is insignificant. So it would seem I'm not the outlier here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That was not what you said. You said there is no way that she wants to be a puppy.
Potatoe, po-tah-toe. Either way, I don't think she actually wants to be a puppy.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I'm not dismissing all other aspects. I had asked just between the two of her parents, which one do you think she emulates more. I never said kids only emulate their parents.
ANd I have no idea because both values are a fraction out of the whole emulation. That's the point. So lets say you are right and she emulate her mother twice that of me. If out of all emulation she emulates me 1% that means she emulates her mother 2%. Hardly meaningful. Maybe she is emulating the dog 10%. That does not mean she will become a dog, own a dog when she is older, fall in love with dogs to the point of bestiality, nor does it mean she will not own a cat.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
However, I think even if she does emulate a dog or what-not, your daughter's emulation of her mom, and you, is going to stick much longer than that of the dog.
It seems you do not actually observe toddlers much. I have seen many toddlers (not just my own, in fact I recall playing similar games) emulate dogs and cats for hours on end. Don't see too many kids emulate anything about their parents for the long of a stretch. So yeah, I say that is a BS guess and not even back-able by any data. Go ahead and prove me wrong and find resources backing your claim.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
When scientific papers say that kids emulate their same-sex parent more
Reference? Also, them emulating the same sex parent does not mean they are not gay. Nor does it mean they are gay if they emulate the other sex. That is a subset of data that must be compiled out of this data which you are claiming but not yet referenced.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I have nothing to be ashamed of if I'm in the norm. My margin-of-error is insignificant. So it would seem I'm not the outlier here.
Your error is in the fact you make deductions from data that don't make since. Even if what you claim is true that has nothing to do with sexual preference. My mother prefers salty snacks and my father prefers sweet snacks. I have no idea who I emulated more, but for the sake of argument lets say I emulated my father more. Today I am open and no for certain I prefer salty snacks more. How can this be!? I emulated my father more!!
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so h
-
Im_no_troll wrote:
When I point out a contrast, even if it's a small sample, it still goes to show that the point being made is absolutely not a fact.
On top of that there are numerous cases of a straight couple raising a gay child... I guess that data is conveniently ignored :rolleyes:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
What's the margin of error on that? Where's the proof, the data, the statistics, the published scientific papers that attest to this?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What's the margin of error on that? Where's the proof, the data, the statistics, the published scientific papers that attest to this?
You have made the claim that it impacts it. You need data. The point of this is about rights of people. You want something oppressed or out of sight because it violates your opinion on what is standard or right and wrong. Until you provide data it is simply that, an opinion.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
It was a ... joke. Derived from the joke "Racism is like niggers, should not exist"... That apart, I am completely backing you up and I fundamentally disagree with Bassam. I am even surprised to have this kind of dark age mentality still going round nowadays, but, well, everyone may think what they fancy, as long as their resulting acts do not mean harm for others.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I'm not dismissing all other aspects. I had asked just between the two of her parents, which one do you think she emulates more. I never said kids only emulate their parents.
ANd I have no idea because both values are a fraction out of the whole emulation. That's the point. So lets say you are right and she emulate her mother twice that of me. If out of all emulation she emulates me 1% that means she emulates her mother 2%. Hardly meaningful. Maybe she is emulating the dog 10%. That does not mean she will become a dog, own a dog when she is older, fall in love with dogs to the point of bestiality, nor does it mean she will not own a cat.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
However, I think even if she does emulate a dog or what-not, your daughter's emulation of her mom, and you, is going to stick much longer than that of the dog.
It seems you do not actually observe toddlers much. I have seen many toddlers (not just my own, in fact I recall playing similar games) emulate dogs and cats for hours on end. Don't see too many kids emulate anything about their parents for the long of a stretch. So yeah, I say that is a BS guess and not even back-able by any data. Go ahead and prove me wrong and find resources backing your claim.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
When scientific papers say that kids emulate their same-sex parent more
Reference? Also, them emulating the same sex parent does not mean they are not gay. Nor does it mean they are gay if they emulate the other sex. That is a subset of data that must be compiled out of this data which you are claiming but not yet referenced.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I have nothing to be ashamed of if I'm in the norm. My margin-of-error is insignificant. So it would seem I'm not the outlier here.
Your error is in the fact you make deductions from data that don't make since. Even if what you claim is true that has nothing to do with sexual preference. My mother prefers salty snacks and my father prefers sweet snacks. I have no idea who I emulated more, but for the sake of argument lets say I emulated my father more. Today I am open and no for certain I prefer salty snacks more. How can this be!? I emulated my father more!!
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so h
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So lets say you are right and she emulate her mother twice that of me. If out of all emulation she emulates me 1% that means she emulates her mother 2%. Hardly meaningful. Maybe she is emulating the dog 10%.
One of these days, your daughter is going to grow up and you'll realize how similar she is to her mom and you. That's when you'll realize that she was emulating her parents much more than 3% combined. The dog is just a playtime phase, not emulation.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It seems you do not actually observe toddlers much. I have seen many toddlers (not just my own, in fact I recall playing similar games) emulate dogs and cats for hours on end. Don't see too many kids emulate anything about their parents for the long of a stretch. So yeah, I say that is a BS guess and not even back-able by any data. Go ahead and prove me wrong and find resources backing your claim.
Are you kidding? I've spent hours everyday playing with my son when he was a toddler. Less now since he prefers many other things. The same goes for my nephews and neices. The fact that they're acting like a dog during play time does not mean that they retain any of that behavior down the road. The comparison is absurd. Google same-sex parent emulation or copy and gender-typing. It's there.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Also, them emulating the same sex parent does not mean they are not gay.
I never said they were or weren't. I said you can affect them. Period. I'd really like to see statistical data on this.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What's the margin of error on that? Where's the proof, the data, the statistics, the published scientific papers that attest to this?
You have made the claim that it impacts it. You need data. The point of this is about rights of people. You want something oppressed or out of sight because it violates your opinion on what is standard or right and wrong. Until you provide data it is simply that, an opinion.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have made the claim that it impacts it. You need data.
That was your statement. Yours needs equal data proof as mine.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You want something oppressed or out of sight because it violates your opinion on what is standard or right and wrong.
I never said any such thing. I said that as long as they don't tell me how to raise mine, I won't tell themhow to raise theirs (my other comments). But that too is not good enough. You want mine to be raised without my input so that all he'll get is the input (yours) that is being shown everywhere else. That's absurd. I can teach him to be straight and have good values. You seem to think that is impossible because it offends you. Using the data argument when you have none is a weak excuse.
-
I'm fairly certain that heterosexual couplings result in more new homosexuals than homosexual couplings do.
chriselst wrote:
I'm fairly certain that heterosexual couplings result in more new homosexuals than homosexual couplings do.
Exactly.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So lets say you are right and she emulate her mother twice that of me. If out of all emulation she emulates me 1% that means she emulates her mother 2%. Hardly meaningful. Maybe she is emulating the dog 10%.
One of these days, your daughter is going to grow up and you'll realize how similar she is to her mom and you. That's when you'll realize that she was emulating her parents much more than 3% combined. The dog is just a playtime phase, not emulation.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It seems you do not actually observe toddlers much. I have seen many toddlers (not just my own, in fact I recall playing similar games) emulate dogs and cats for hours on end. Don't see too many kids emulate anything about their parents for the long of a stretch. So yeah, I say that is a BS guess and not even back-able by any data. Go ahead and prove me wrong and find resources backing your claim.
Are you kidding? I've spent hours everyday playing with my son when he was a toddler. Less now since he prefers many other things. The same goes for my nephews and neices. The fact that they're acting like a dog during play time does not mean that they retain any of that behavior down the road. The comparison is absurd. Google same-sex parent emulation or copy and gender-typing. It's there.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Also, them emulating the same sex parent does not mean they are not gay.
I never said they were or weren't. I said you can affect them. Period. I'd really like to see statistical data on this.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
One of these days, your daughter is going to grow up and you'll realize how similar she is to her mom and you. That's when you'll realize that she was emulating her parents much more than 3% combined.
Over the course of years sure. But as a 4 year old no. They will emulate more as they become more what? ... .. Similar. It is also possible they are not similar to you and do many things you never did as a child and do very little that you did. My father and I are very different. He played football in highschool and joined the marines when he was 18. I took Advanced Calculus my Junior year and went to College.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Are you kidding? I've spent hours everyday playing with my son when he was a toddler. Less now since he prefers many other things.
So he his no longer emulating you. Oh oh... I bet you are not spending enough time with him. Watch out! You are raising a gay man!
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Google same-sex parent emulation or copy and gender-typing. It's there.
What is there? Data showing kids emulate? So what? That does not mean they are gay or straight!
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I never said they were or weren't. I said you can affect them.
Affect what? It seems you have been claiming you raise a child straight or gay. Are you not claiming that?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I said you can affect them.
Affect their sexual orientation?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I'd really like to see statistical data on this.
Yeah me too. I did not make the claim. Seems you did. Have any data to back it up or can I use my data to back up something? My data says you are in fact using an opinion based on your religious faith. Correct me if I am wrong and either you have no religious faith or your religious faith supports LGBT, but statistically we can show that most people believing as you do acquire such opinions from their religious institution.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it c
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have made the claim that it impacts it. You need data.
That was your statement. Yours needs equal data proof as mine.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You want something oppressed or out of sight because it violates your opinion on what is standard or right and wrong.
I never said any such thing. I said that as long as they don't tell me how to raise mine, I won't tell themhow to raise theirs (my other comments). But that too is not good enough. You want mine to be raised without my input so that all he'll get is the input (yours) that is being shown everywhere else. That's absurd. I can teach him to be straight and have good values. You seem to think that is impossible because it offends you. Using the data argument when you have none is a weak excuse.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That was your statement. Yours needs equal data proof as mine.
More homosexuals have hetro sexual parents.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
chriselst wrote:
So childless relationships between men and women are wrong and not normal then?
A implies B does not mean B implies A. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other and using an openning argument like that shows a failure in understanding.
chriselst wrote:
I'm not sure that's a fact, I doubt it is true at all.
That's absolutely true. Since my son was born, I've seen how he emulates me mostly and other boys. This is a fact. If you had a son you would see that every single day.
chriselst wrote:
How on earth do you raise someone gay?
Who would you tell your child to date? If you're gay, you'd tell they they can date anyone. If you're straight, you'd tell them to date the opposite sex. You don't have kids, do you?
chriselst wrote:
You can tell your son whatever you want to, and with any luck he'll grow up to make his own mind up about things rather than hang on every word you've ever told him.
That's true. And how you raise them greatly affects how they will grow up. Or is this not a fact either?
chriselst wrote:
Again, how the hell can you teach someone to be straight
Same as above.
chriselst wrote:
Your son will be whoever and whatever he turns out to be. I hope for the sake of both of you that you can cope with what that is, because it is unlikely to be exactly what you have planned for him.
Hopefully, he'll be more influenced by family and friends than by television as well as grow up to make all the right choices.
-
Im_no_troll wrote:
True, sure. Fact... only about YOUR situation, not every situation.
Bullshit! EVERY kids I've seen has emulated their same sex parent in one way or the other. I've seen it in my dozen nephews and cousins. Hell, I even see it in myself. Manerisms and all that are picked up by kids.
Im_no_troll wrote:
This may be true among some people (probably prejudice). However, it is not true among all parents. Most parents, including myself, would say the former.
Obviously the case for all is impossible one. But I would say with a high certainty that most parents want their kids to be like them in many ways. And that only enforces my point.
Im_no_troll wrote:
That is a fact, and that is why it's important to be careful.
There's nothing wrong with raising your kid straight and with good values.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
EVERY kids I've seen has emulated their same sex parent in one way or the other. I've seen it in my dozen nephews and cousins. Hell, I even see it in myself. Manerisms and all that are picked up by kids
I am guessing you don't know many gay folks. Apparently you don't realize that all those "mannerisms" you are referring to are in fact exhibited by people who are gay. How do you reconcile the fact that some guy plays football and baseball, maintains his own car, works construction in the summer to pay for college and like to drink with the guys but still prefers to have sex with other men?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
There's nothing wrong with raising your kid straight and with good values.
Nothing wrong with raising a kid without experiencing serious medical issues either. But some things are not by choice.
-
I agree with you that they are comparable. Just think back 100 years ago. I think black/white marriage was as "offensive" in the US as gay marriage..
Nicholas Marty wrote:
Just think back 100 years ago. I think black/white marriage was as "offensive" in the US as gay marriage..
Actually wrong. But only because it wasn't as long ago as you think. The last law wasn't invalidated until 1967 and the prejudice lasted after that.
-
Ten years ago, they argued that it was nature, not nurture. Now they're pushing to nurture kids and teach them that they're not born straight. If it's okay for you to be gay and raise your kid gay, it's okay for me to be straight and raise my kid straight. They're conflicting ideologies. You can't teach both.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Now they're pushing to nurture kids and teach them that they're not born straight. If it's okay for you to be gay and raise your kid gay
Nonsense. No one is claiming that.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
You can't teach both.
Nor is anyone trying.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
One of these days, your daughter is going to grow up and you'll realize how similar she is to her mom and you. That's when you'll realize that she was emulating her parents much more than 3% combined.
Over the course of years sure. But as a 4 year old no. They will emulate more as they become more what? ... .. Similar. It is also possible they are not similar to you and do many things you never did as a child and do very little that you did. My father and I are very different. He played football in highschool and joined the marines when he was 18. I took Advanced Calculus my Junior year and went to College.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Are you kidding? I've spent hours everyday playing with my son when he was a toddler. Less now since he prefers many other things.
So he his no longer emulating you. Oh oh... I bet you are not spending enough time with him. Watch out! You are raising a gay man!
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Google same-sex parent emulation or copy and gender-typing. It's there.
What is there? Data showing kids emulate? So what? That does not mean they are gay or straight!
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I never said they were or weren't. I said you can affect them.
Affect what? It seems you have been claiming you raise a child straight or gay. Are you not claiming that?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I said you can affect them.
Affect their sexual orientation?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I'd really like to see statistical data on this.
Yeah me too. I did not make the claim. Seems you did. Have any data to back it up or can I use my data to back up something? My data says you are in fact using an opinion based on your religious faith. Correct me if I am wrong and either you have no religious faith or your religious faith supports LGBT, but statistically we can show that most people believing as you do acquire such opinions from their religious institution.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it c
First off, I'm unitarian. Never cared for religion. Second, l said he's emulating me less as he's growing up and being influenced by other sources. That's to be expected. Third, once I see data that shows the percentage of straight kids in straight marriages is almost the same for straight kids in gay marriages, I'll believe there are no external influencs. But considering the sample difference between them, that would imply that most kids raised in gay marriages will be straight. Not some as was stated elsewhere, but most.