Thread: Qualifications for parents

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

It meets the definition of being natural. So there is no reason to believe it's unnatural.

Nobody claimed to know why one human is homosexual and the others aren't.

You won't define unnatural and you won't even state what you'll accept as "proof". So there is no point to this discussion.

I don't need to since I made no claim on what is natural or unnatural

And you won't get proof in science. Just evidence.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

A proof is mathematical/logical where there is NO doubt (not even a reasonable doubt) as to what has been posited. Hope that helps. I did not mean to be evasive, I just thought it was obvious.

I believe you or someone was making the claim that even a birth defect is natural and therefore OK.

So for the sake of discussion, let's assume homosexualtiy is natural. Don't we still get into a bee's nest? All birth defects are then natural according to someone on this thread. I have forgotten whom. But does this make them OK? Doesn't the medical community constantly look for cures or ways to treat the defects? They certainly do.

This is all I was trying to point out. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. Just to say homosexuality is natural doesn't mean it is not to be treated like all other birth defects. Now AGAIN I am only playing the devil's advocate and not taking sides.

Sorry, I have to run but will be back this evening.

Originally Posted by frank47

I believe you or someone was making the claim that even a birth defect is natural and therefore OK.

Actually in post 119 I had a response to your 'genetic defect' argument. I didn't say it's OK or that it isn't OK, only wanted to point out that you cannot call it 'unnatural', and to warn you that you need to be much more precise when using 'genetic defect' because you are entering a zone of complete arbitrariness.

So, since you are back to it implying that it still may be something requiring a medical cure (doesn't matter if as a devil's advocate, it's still an argument you're making), let me challenge you further on the path where you seem a bit timid to go.
How would you define 'genetic defect' which would benefit from a fix. Let's say autism, or say predisposition to brain cancer - would you be comfortable with a genetic modification to get rid of it. Those very same genes are responsible to make the person 'smarter', 'more artistic', 'more sensitive', 'more stupid', etc. so you'd be engineering their psychology according to your desire. What is OK to fix and what isn't. Lobotomy was such a great thing in the 1940s that it was deemed worthy of a Nobel Prize, yet nowadays is banned in many places and extremely rarely performed wherever legal.

The point is that when you're talking about changing a non life-threatening 'abnormality' that can change the personality of the person you need to come up with a really good reason for doing so, especially if you're doing it on a child, and if you're not the child's parents you better have an ironclad case.

Finally, since there's so much speculation about what may or may not cause homosexuality in humans and it appears not even superficial familiarity with the biological evidence, here's a link that can be a starting point on the matter:

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by frank47

I don't need to since I made no claim on what is natural or unnatural

You are asking for proof that it's natural. So yes you need to define unnatural and let us know what you would consider proof.

Originally Posted by frank47

I believe you or someone was making the claim that even a birth defect is natural and therefore OK.

I don't believe anyone said that because something is natural it's OK.

Originally Posted by frank47

Doesn't the medical community constantly look for cures or ways to treat the defects? They certainly do.

Why would you label homosexuality a birth defect? Birth defects are structural or functional abnormalities present at birth that cause physical or mental disability. Neither of those apply to homosexuality.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

what should be the freedoms of parents to teach their children a certain unique way?

That's a hard question to answer. I guess I don't know

NCshaver says: Why would you label homosexuality a birth defect? Birth defects are structural or functional abnormalities present at birth that cause physical or mental disability. Neither of those apply to homosexuality.

OK, this is why I am having a tough time with the thread. I DID NOT say homosexuality was a birth defect. I was responding to now mess of posts dealing with what is natural, unnatural, birth defects, birth defects being natural, birth defects being unnatural, homosexuality being natural or unnatural. I was pointing out how the logic was getting twisted and declarative statements were being made with the assumption of being true without offering any proof.

For instance, and this is going to get me in more hot water I guess, the above quote ends with

"Neither of those apply to homosexuality"

Whether I agree with the statement or not is immaterial. Just prove to all who are viewing this post, including me, that it is a true statement. Since you made it, I assume you believe it to be true.

What is your basis for the statement. Is it not fair to ask for the reasoning behind what a person says?

"And, sir, what do you base that on?"

Originally Posted by frank47

What is your basis for the statement. Is it not fair to ask for the reasoning behind what a person says?

I've given my reasoning for my statements.

Homosexuality meets the definition of being natural.

Homosexuality doesn't meet the definition of being a physical or mental disability.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

I've given my reasoning for my statements.

Homosexuality meets the definition of being natural.

Homosexuality doesn't meet the definition of being a physical or mental disability.

I think it is best I offer my ethernet hand to shake and give up on this issue. It would be great to meet face-to-face and discuss it over a beer; but that's highly improbable. We can, however, respectfully agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that. Take care and happy shaving.

This is how I feel about most of the topics in The Conversation.

Originally Posted by markevens

This is how I feel about most of the topics in The Conversation.

I agree. Things go a lot better face-to-face. It's hard to tell where everyone is coming from by just reading words. We loose body language, tone of voice, eye language, etc. I guess that's why I haven't weighed in on the Korean post.

In any event, you and your's have a Happy Thanksgiving! I've got some good stubble going so I will have a good time shaving tomorrow morning before the festivities start.

As a parent I can tell you this much, you can teach a kid anything wether good or bad, in the end they are going to be themselves, you may influence them somewhat but not completely. Like the old saying goes, you give them the road map and they make their own way.

BTW As long as people are fallible, no one is qualified to be a parent.