instinct: "nstinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. Instincts are generally inherited patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli. In humans they are most easily observed in behaviors such as emotions, sexual drive, and other bodily functions, as these are largely biologically determined. Instinct provides a response to external stimuli, which moves an organism to action, unless overridden by intelligence, which is creative and hence far more versatile. Since instincts take generations to adapt, an intermediate position, or basis for action, is served by memory, which provides individually stored successful reactions built upon experience. The particular actions performed may be influenced by learning, environment and natural principles. Generally, the term instinct is not used to describe an existing condition or established state."
mature person has the intelligence to overcome instinct, a young child does not. should a young person be thrown into turmoil while they gain experience from gay parents?
However, the fact there are homosexual people prooves that there is no such thing as "natural heterosexual insitincts".
Jackal wrote:However, the fact there are homosexual people prooves that there is no such thing as "natural heterosexual insitincts".
The weird thing is, homosexual people say its not choice. If it's not choice it must be inhereted or some kind of mutation.
The fact that there are homosexual people doesn't _prove_ that there aren't heterosexual instincts, it could be a mutation in the DNA or some kind of psychological mutation of some sort. That is if it's true that it isn't by choice.
Hasn't there been any research as to biological differences in homosexuals?
bikkeldesnikkel wrote:Hasn't there been any research as to biological differences in homosexuals?
Yes, in my Human Sexuality class I learned that there is a part of the brain that differs in size between men (larger) and women (smaller). Scientists don't know what it does, but they do know that homosexual men have a smaller portion and vice versa.
Unfortunately, that's the extent of what I remember. I can't cite sources or tell you what it's called, but I'm sure if you dig around a bit, you may find some research online.
[quote="YourGrandpa"]I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.[/quote]
i think youre a bit off there. animal reproduction
would fit into the heterosexual instinct category.
that doesn't take away from the fact that homosexuality is not "natural".
The concept of instinct connotes a "natural" reaction to something. If homosexuals do not have this instinct then doesn't logic dictate that it is unnatural?
Just playing the devil's advocate here. Coming from an anthropology background, whenever people use the words "natural" and "instinct" my hair tends to stand on end.
i think youre a bit off there. animal reproduction
would fit into the heterosexual instinct category.
that doesn't take away from the fact that homosexuality is not "natural".
The concept of instinct connotes a "natural" reaction to something. If homosexuals do not have this instinct then doesn't logic dictate that it is unnatural?
Just playing the devil's advocate here. Coming from an anthropology background, whenever people use the words "natural" and "instinct" my hair tends to stand on end.
heh ok,
maybe homosexuality was a mutation brought about by the need for sexual release amongst groups of male animals isolated for extremely long periods(years, decades, lifetimes)from female counterparts of their respective species.
but then you could bring hermaphrodites into the equation for heteros and homos being equal in evolution.
People use the word natural to mean vague things like "right" or "the way it's supposed to be," instead of simply "occurs in nature without external interference."
Something can deviate from the norm and still be natural though.
I have a hard time understanding how people can accept that hermaphrodites occur naturally (a simple fact), and still not accept that homosexuality can.
If a person can be born with both sexual organs, then why on earth can't a male be born with female hormones and tendencies, and vice versa?
We have a very liberal hiring policy where I work, so there are a lot of gay women who work there (we're in the bible belt remember). There are a lot of "butch" women you can look at and talk to, and tell that they were born with essentially androgenous features and that they haven't developed normal sexual instincts or desires. I know two women who are completely asexual - they don't have any desire for sexual stimulation at all.
Is this really something you can persecute a person for? Don't they have it bad enough already?
As for the main question, I agree with others that children being mistreated by other children is not a valid reason for refusing gay couples the option of adoption. If you're going to think about the issue in terms of the child's well-being, why not focus on mental/personality issues that can be directly caused by less clearly-defined role models growing up?
Jackal wrote:Regardless, an anomalie is something that is unnatural too.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that heterosexuality is not natural; that nature and instinct had nothing to do with it?
Read Rook's post. That's more or less what I was talking about. Coming from an Anthro background my hair tends to stand on end when people use words like "natural" and "instinct". You've gotta be careful when using absolutist terms.
bikkeldesnikkel wrote:
And from experience I can say that this scenario is fairly easily obtainable. So do you agree that it is possible for male homosexual partnes to raise adopted children without too much hassle in the near future?
I don't agree that it is easily obtainable nor do I agree that it is possible for male homosexual partners to raise adopted children without too much hassle in the near future.
Sorry but I think it's a bit shortsighted to believe that this scenario is not (easily) obtainale, there are many locations where gays are accepted and could raise a child without extra problems.
You yourself say you would accept this, don't you think there are more people like this? You have a pessimistic view of society that I think is out of context. There ARE plenty of locations where this is possible.
I think it's more of an unfortunate realistic view than a pessimistic one, hopefully I'm wrong.
lol...u didn't say that dumbo...u said 'more' accepting u racist homophobe...
jellus?
why bring jews into this, why not say muslims or christians or budists or hindus?
tell me, why did you pick the jewish faith?
(okay so some of the spelling is fucked, its 12:03 am here, cut me some slack you cunts)
Because I was responding to this post:
werldhed wrote:Who cares? Not everyone in the US is accepting of Jews, but that doesn't prevent them from adopting, does it?
Transient wrote:
Well, I just gave a bunch of examples. Some of those examples are used already for other reasons (for instance, the kid has a deformity or something, maybe, and gets teased, so they're homeschooled). If public schools cracked down on intolerant bullying, then the problem would go away, too. All my examples can and are used for different circumstances, so your whole argument is moot. Everything you say you are worried about can be overcome.
lol, my whole argument is far from moot, considering the scenario I put forward is based upon the hypothetical circumstance of a child being in a normal school. Stop trying to win, and just discuss.
You still haven't addressed my point. I have to hand it to you, you're pretty good at steering the debate in the direction you want to take it.
Your main argument is that gay parents shouldn't be able to adopt due to the subsequent treatment of their kids in school.
My rebuttal is on page 4 and is the source of the above quote. To paraphrase myself, there are countermeasures to your concerns that are already implemented in society. Your sole reasoning for making adoption for gay couples illegal is irrelevant, thus adoption should be legal.
This thread should not have 8 pages...
And to address your point yet again, if said countermeasures can be implemented successfully for every circumstance I would have no problem with it. I've stated many times that if the trauma can be negated then I'm all for it. My argument is based on a child going to a normal school because the reality is 99% of the children in adopted situations would be attending a school of this nature.
