Tom Daley and partner expecting!!

[SnailyBoy 10]

It was much easier in the old days, when people of the opposite sex got together and made babies, only afterwards telling people that they were gay/lesbian. How that works, I haven't a clue.

 

See post #326. Societal attitudes.

[blackydog 40]

No you aren't because I never said it was. I don't even have to check. Do keep up old boy. Less of the projection please.

 

Do YOU think people can be "taught to be gay"?

 

If you don't mind me attempting to answer your question.

Maybe "influenced" would be a better description, possibly by being in that kind of environment.

However this has got nothing to do with the OP really, it has turned into a "gay" parenthood and even the origins of being "gay" discussion.

[I1L2T3 10]

It is normal

 

Have to disagree with you there. Normal is the situation where a child would be born naturally to a women after sexual activity with a man. This is how it works for thousands of different animal species.

In the case of two homosexual or lesbian parents that scenario would never arise without 3rd party intervention.

But lets not forget my gripe here. i am NOT attacking same sex parents even though, as I said I am uncomfortable with it. My argument is with the wording of the news article. A man will not ever expect to have a baby, however it is likely his female partner will.

 

I think when you have to invoke the behaviour patterns of other animals then you’re not in the greatest place. Humans are capable of complex abstract thought which can be layered over raw behaviour impulses. Even is you look at other primates that are not capable of such high level thought then there is evidence of complex social arrangements and same sex sexual activity.

[barleycorn 10]

I'm not disputing the validity of your quote as you have not provided any proof to back it up but consider this. If one of the parents who is "gay" provides an egg or sperm and it is part of that persons biological make up, that made them "gay" in the first place, wouldn't that suggest the child WOULD have a higher percentage of also being "gay" than a child where neither of the parents have that biological make up?

The evidence of a 'gay gene' is debatable but let's, for the sake of argument, assume there is one. Whether or not any offspring are more likely to be gay would depend on how the gene is inherited, how it expresses and whether or not there are any other factors which may influence the outcome.

Clearly the fact that heterosexual parents have gay offspring should tell you that it is not particularly straightforward. Then you also have to consider that sexuality is more of a spectrum than absolutes.

With that all said, why do you think it may matter if, in the scenario you presented, that the likelihood of having gay offspring is increased?

[ENG601PM 10]

 

I think when you have to invoke the behaviour patterns of other animals then you’re not in the greatest place. Humans are capable of complex abstract thought which can be layered over raw behaviour impulses. Even is you look at other primates that are not capable of such high level thought then there is evidence of complex social arrangements and same sex sexual activity.

 

I appreciate that you're only skimming the surface of your thought process (I hope) but what you seem to be saying is that evolutionary / neurological functions are essentially the same, while being totally different. I see a contradiction there.

 

We've not even touched on nature vs nurture which seems to be the heart of this thread.

[Obelix 11]

Hmm, careful. The reverse *might* be true, but you need to be careful with that particular claim without some pretty good backup.

 

Which you might have of course, do you?

 

We are still waiting for you to prove the positive....

[blackydog 40]

The evidence of a 'gay gene' is debatable but let's, for the sake of argument, assume there is one. Whether or not any offspring are more likely to be gay would depend on how the gene is inherited, how it expresses and whether or not there are any other factors which may influence the outcome.

Clearly the fact that heterosexual parents have gay offspring should tell you that it is not particularly straightforward. Then you also have to consider that sexuality is more of a spectrum than absolutes.

With that all said, why do you think it may matter if, in the scenario you presented, that the likelihood of having gay offspring is increased?

 

Sorry, not a direct answer to your question. Wouldn't most parents want their children to be heterosexual, including "gay" parents? I can't think of any advantages of wanting your children to be born "gay" with the potential challenges it would bring.

[ENG601PM 10]

We are still waiting for you to prove the positive....

 

What positive are you blabbering on about. I've not made any claim to prove. You're losing it man, have a cup of tea!

[I1L2T3 10]

I appreciate that you're only skimming the surface of your thought process (I hope) but what you seem to be saying is that evolutionary / neurological functions are essentially the same, while being totally different. I see a contradiction there.

 

We've not even touched on nature vs nurture which seems to be the heart of this thread.

 

There’s no contradiction. We have evolved to have raw impulses just like any other species. But unlike other species we are also capable of complex abstract thought which allows different human societies to develop different patterns of social organisation and behaviour, in ways that are not genetically programmed.

[ENG601PM 10]

There’s no contradiction. We have evolved to have raw impulses just like any other species. But unlike other species we are also capable of complex abstract thought which allows different human societies to develop different patterns of social organisation and behaviour, in ways that are not genetically programmed.

 

I've done a *little* bit of reading on this and I'm not so certain you're right there I1. I think you're a bit more programmed in your day to day life by evolution, genetics and nuture than you might want to believe. How much? Well there's the million dollar question.

[barleycorn 10]

Sorry, not a direct answer to your question. Wouldn't most parents want their children to be heterosexual, including "gay" parents? I can't think of any advantages of wanting your children to be born "gay" with the potential challenges it would bring.

How about just wanting them to be happy with their sexuality, regardless of what it is?

[sgtkate 10]

Good question kate. I wouldn't say an "issue" but for people like myself and I suspect many others on here, who have been around a good few years, it was not something that was generally admitted to let alone promoted. I admit it's strange to get my head around the acceptability of being openly "gay" nowadays.

 

That's a very honest reply. Thank you for that. I can understand how hard it could be to have societal 'norms' change seemingly so quickly. I think perhaps my generation and the next are more used to things changing rapidly and things becoming acceptable that weren't only a few years ago and vice versa so perhaps we can adjust more easily than older generations. That's not meant to read patronisingly or negatively.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2018 at 13:02 ----------

 

Sorry, not a direct answer to your question. Wouldn't most parents want their children to be heterosexual, including "gay" parents? I can't think of any advantages of wanting your children to be born "gay" with the potential challenges it would bring.

 

Not really. I'd want my daughter to be happy with who she is. The only issue with being gay is when other people have the issue. If everyone just got over it then being gay wouldn't be any different to being straight. It's only an issue because people make it one.