NationStates Jolt Archive

“Our emphasis is on healthy marriages ~ not marriage for the sake of marriage, not marriage at any cost ~ but healthy marriages that provide a strong and stable environment for raising children. It is about helping couples who choose marriage for themselves gain access to the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain healthy marriages.”

- Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families


Why should you care about the attack on the modern day ‘so-called’ traditional family?

Let's establish some back-ground:

A societal value system is the protocol for behavior that enhances the trust, confidence and commitment of members of the community. It goes beyond the domain of legality ~ It is in essence definition of what is decent and desirable behavior. Further, it includes putting the community’s interests ahead of your own. Without which, our collective survival as a species and our progress as a society would be brought under attack and done away with entirely if we are not on our guard.

There are two pillars of the cultural value system ~ loyalty to family and loyalty to community. One should not be in isolation to the other, because, successful societies are those which combine both harmoniously.

Bishop Gracias, in an interview on a more general note about the definition and future of the family recently reminded us of the importance of Family when he said. “The family has always been regarded as the basic cell of society and the Church. Even the ancients recognized its importance. They regarded it as the nursery of civilization, the workshop where character is formed, the garden where virtues are planted to bloom in later life.”

“Very aptly,” he insisted, “the family has been described as a community of love and life, of a man and a woman open to life, the ‘crib’ of life, as the Holy Father likes to say.” For him, “it is in the family that life begins, develops itself and matures.” Therefore, “the one who attacks the family also attacks life; the one who defends the family also defends human life.”

This has all, until very recently (recently in terms of society, community and social structure is concerned anyway), been the standard role for the family but it has been challenged and is currently being uprooted in some areas of our society.

In 1960 America, for example, 9% of all children lived in single parent homes. By 1990, that number had soared to 25%. Today, 33% of all American children are born into single- parent homes, a number that is still on the rise. In the African-American community that figure is an astronomical 68% in some areas.

The critical factors that determine successful human societies hinge on maintaining close and consistent families based upon marriages that last a lifetime, or at least through the raising of children to adulthood, and is of vital importance in that it encourages and protects the mothers (or parent) in raising their children in secure home environments.

A real family is built on the union of one man and one woman in natural and moral sexual roles who provide love, nurture and protection to their children. Of primary importance is the roles of both a good father and mother in respecting the sexual nature of each other and of their children, helping boys and girls to grow up to be good men and women who treat each other with respect. To respect girls is to respect their femininity, which is synonymous with peaceful behavior, and to create opportunities for feminine expression. This in itself does not define what is female roles and what it male roles, it merely recognizes the existence of two absolute genders in the genetic makeup of mankind itself. We are not, in the end, an androgynous species whether we want to admit it individually or not.

To teach, or allow, boys to be violent, for example, or to neglect to teach them anything at all by not giving them a female role-model during their formative years to watch and learn from, will obviously not lead to less violence against females.

The results of social modification of what constitutes a ‘family’ will be the inevitable destruction of the family culture ~ the very fabric that has produced and sustained moral and peaceful human society for generations ~ to restrict or deny people the opportunity to being raised and brought up with the knowledge of both gender’s as a role model could and likely will be, catastrophic to society. The individuals raised without family nor influenced by both genders will not be able to be well-adjusted nor have a holistic view of humanity and society itself.

Perversion of natural moral sexual roles in the community, as is seen in the modern day androgynous media and textbooks, advances the acceptance of the homosexual and lesbian, or anti-masculine tolerance, but at what cost? It demeans the roles of fathers, and of mothers that choose to raise their children at the cost of their own careers or follow a more traditional family model, and give a slanted view of humanity and society. Denigrating what should be honored and hindering what should be encouraged.

Denial of opportunity for children to interact in their home environment with a loving person of the opposite gender, or likewise, denying them the opportunity to interact with someone of the same gender, will restrict and distort and withhold from them an accurate self view, worldview of humanity, and have an unforeseeable effect on human reproductive sexuality entirely.

Promoting an androgynous community will deform the society like a disease that perverts the body. Family support and role-models will disappear from public view, to the point where the Family will cease to function as a social institution and the basic support system that has served its members emotional, moral and spiritual needs will fade away. There is no other social institution in the history of mankind that has successfully replaced the need for the family structure, to abandon it’s basic principles now at the whim of this generation in the name ‘tolerance’ will be the first step backwards, back down the hill that is civilization and reverses our course and makes us less, not more humane.

The promotion, or acceptance, of immoral sexual behaviors, particularly infidelity, pervasive pornography and the degradation of loving parental sexuality, by a child’s parents and role-models will lead to many social problems which will further result in the destruction of family and the decline of behaviors that support healthy families.

Regulation of the basic family unit, IMO, is well within the power and realm of the government and community policy and doctrine to form and protect.

Do not easily give up the Family, you do so at our community's own peril. Passing a Marriage Protection Amendment now might seem like a small thing, but your grand-children will thank you for it.

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."
Pope John Paul II, referring to same-sex marriage.

Wow, a stance that manages to be insulting to gay families, secular families, divorced families, single families, foster families, and adoptive families, all while calling itself a "defense of family"! That's impressive as all hell!

Wow, a stance that manages to be insulting to gay families, secular families, divorced families, single families, foster families, and adoptive families, all while calling itself a "defense of family"! That's impressive as all hell!
Rather than Bigotry, I use a Shotgun in defense of MY family... :rolleyes: :D

Rather than Bigotry, I use a Shotgun in defense of MY family... :rolleyes: :D

:eek: :D

EDIT: You have to admit -- it tears the shit out those strawmen!

What exactly would be in a marriage protection ammendment like the one called for at the end of that long and tedious post? That's what worries me. Is government going to come into people's homes to inspect whether or not the adults own any pornography? Will gays be prevented from living together? Just how many of our rights will be trampled by such an ammendment?

:eek: :D

EDIT: You have to admit -- it tears the shit out those strawmen!
Well, when it comes to Strawmen, I prefer Torches... but the Mods have this thing about Flames... ;)

{Mod splash} :eek:
"AAAUGH! I'm Melting! Melting!" :p

Except that your entire conception of gender is shot to shit. This entire article is one grand attempt to map the concept of "gender" onto that of "sex." Sex, as a concept, is the biological difference between men and women. Gender, as a concept, are the roles assigned to individuals based the roles society assigns to a particular sex.

Most empirical evidence indicates that this conception is faulty. Many men display the gender traits assigned to women, and vice versa. So when your article declares that "male and female role models are needed," it relies on a conception of gender that assumes biology dictates psychology. Most research also denies the stereotype that women are more pacific than men.

More than just being wrong, however, this conception of gender is dangerous. It imposes a view of society where men, as the more aggressive and dominant sex, should control society due to nature's imperatives. It also allows society to isolate those who violate gender roles as deviant, thus giving it the ability to exclude and subsequently destroy them because they don't fit society's view of the way people of their sex should be and disruptions of that fantasy MUST be quelled.

Finally, I'd like to see evidence to substantiate any of the claims you make in this article.

I'm sure there will be many intelligent responses that I won't bother reading, so I'll restrict myself to:

Bollocks.

Seriously.

Two parents? Sounds like a crowd to me.

Except that your entire conception of gender is shot to shit. This entire article is one grand attempt to map the concept of "gender" onto that of "sex." Sex, as a concept, is the biological difference between men and women. Gender, as a concept, are the roles assigned to individuals based the roles society assigns to a particular sex.

Most empirical evidence indicates that this conception is faulty. Many men display the gender traits assigned to women, and vice versa. So when your article declares that "male and female role models are needed," it relies on a conception of gender that assumes biology dictates psychology. Most research also denies the stereotype that women are more pacific than men.

More than just being wrong, however, this conception of gender is dangerous. It imposes a view of society where men, as the more aggressive and dominant sex, should control society due to nature's imperatives. It also allows society to isolate those who violate gender roles as deviant, thus giving it the ability to exclude and subsequently destroy them because they don't fit society's view of the way people of their sex should be and disruptions of that fantasy MUST be quelled.

Finally, I'd like to see evidence to substantiate any of the claims you make in this article.

*claps*

Indeed. The entire basis of the thread's first post is the notion of immutable gender roles, and gender-based personality traits - a notion which bears little or no link to reality today.

What exactly would be in a marriage protection ammendment like the one called for at the end of that long and tedious post? That's what worries me. Is government going to come into people's homes to inspect whether or not the adults own any pornography? Will gays be prevented from living together? Just how many of our rights will be trampled by such an ammendment?


Oops, I left that out didn't I :D :p

Here it is, current form:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Oops, I left that out didn't I :D :p

Here it is, current form:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Marriage is a religious ceremony. If government can regulate religious ceremonies then perhaps it can decide what preachers are allowed to tell their congregations. As a religious person you should really beware of crossing the separation of church and state because the violations of that separation can go both ways.

*snips*

:rolleyes:

Ummm, okay, so you are saying that the scientific evidence is that there is no difference between men and women?

That's nice, what color is the sky in your world?

:rolleyes:

Ummm, okay, so you are saying that the scientific evidence is that there is no difference between men and women?

That's nice, what color is the sky in your world?
Of course there's a biological difference. Read the post before you say something that reveals your total ignorance of developments in modern philosophy and psychology of gender.

Oops, I left that out didn't I :D :p

Here it is, current form:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Sounds like a crock of shit to me.

Married couples? They're the scourge of all of us. Going about the place flaunting their dangerous perverted ways. Unnatural filth, that's what marriage is.

Of course there's a biological difference. Read the post before you say something that reveals your total ignorance of developments in modern philosophy and psychology of gender.


The last time I checked our brains were a part of our biology...

*snip*
Why should you care about the attack on the modern day so-called traditional family?
*snip*

Rats! He's on to our plot to destroy the family!!!! :rolleyes:

This isn't worthy of discussion.

Wow, a stance that manages to be insulting to gay families, secular families, divorced families, single families, foster families, and adoptive families, all while calling itself a "defense of family"! That's impressive as all hell!
To be fair, as a member of a traditional, hetero family with kids, I also felt pretty insulted by the stereotyping going on in the first post.

Except that your entire conception of gender is shot to shit. This entire article is one grand attempt to map the concept of "gender" onto that of "sex." Sex, as a concept, is the biological difference between men and women. Gender, as a concept, are the roles assigned to individuals based the roles society assigns to a particular sex.

Most empirical evidence indicates that this conception is faulty. Many men display the gender traits assigned to women, and vice versa. So when your article declares that "male and female role models are needed," it relies on a conception of gender that assumes biology dictates psychology. Most research also denies the stereotype that women are more pacific than men.

More than just being wrong, however, this conception of gender is dangerous. It imposes a view of society where men, as the more aggressive and dominant sex, should control society due to nature's imperatives. It also allows society to isolate those who violate gender roles as deviant, thus giving it the ability to exclude and subsequently destroy them because they don't fit society's view of the way people of their sex should be and disruptions of that fantasy MUST be quelled.

Finally, I'd like to see evidence to substantiate any of the claims you make in this article.
*Applauds* I agree with everything.

:rolleyes:

Ummm, okay, so you are saying that the scientific evidence is that there is no difference between men and women?

That's nice, what color is the sky in your world?

No, actually there is scientific evidence that there is a difference between a man and a woman, but there are often more similarities between a gay man and a heterosexual woman than there are similarities between a gay man and a straight man. This is a concept you choose to ignore.

What part of defending the family does allowing your brother to starve to death because he wasn't allowed to marry his life partner and therefore didn't receive social security and retirement benefits when that partner died before him (whew, that was long) fall under? How does offering benefits to those who don't want or care about your definition of family disturb or attack your definition of family? Is you hold on heterosexual marriage so tenuous that if you allow same-sex marriages everyone is just going to start jumping ship? Do you really believe the only thing keeping people straight and in loving relationships with the opposite gender is the law?

The argument is just so stretched that I can't believe people still make it.

The last time I checked our brains were a part of our biology...
Some Germans are Nazis, so all Germans are Nazis?

Some parts of the body are different, so all parts of the body are different?

Give me a break.

The last time I checked our brains were a part of our biology...

THere is a difference between your "sex" and your "gender". Sex is what reproductive system you have. Gender is the way you act based upon roles that people expect. You show your ignorance of this fact with every post you make.

Psychologically, the ONLY difference between men and women are those that their societal environment confers upon them. It's the same type of bigotry as the length of hair. Completely arbitrary, nothing biological about it.

:rolleyes: You guys have to make up your minds, some of you are saying that the male and female brains are not different, and then others are saying that the gay man's brain's are more like a females brain than like a heterosexual man's brain...



So? Which is it? Are men and womens brains the same or not? I think the answer is obvious, but you guys fight it out and then let me know which version you want to refute me with. :p

To be fair, as a member of a traditional, hetero family with kids, I also felt pretty insulted by the stereotyping going on in the first post.

GOOOOAAAALLLLL!!!!

He managed to stereotype and insult pretty much everyone!

:rolleyes: You guys have to make up your minds, some of you are saying that the male and female brains are not different, and then others are saying that the gay man's brain's are more like a females brain than like a heterosexual man's brain...



So? Which is it? Are men and womens brains the same or not? I think the answer is obvious, but you guys fight it out and then let me know which version you want to refute me with. :p

People have different opinions you know, even if they do oppose you. An "us and them" mentality isn't much use on this board.

:rolleyes: You guys have to make up your minds, some of you are saying that the male and female brains are not different, and then others are saying that the gay man's brain's are more like a females brain than like a heterosexual man's brain...



So? Which is it? Are men and womens brains the same or not? I think the answer is obvious, but you guys fight it out and then let me know which version you want to refute me with. :p
You know, not every answer is black or white(metaphorical term). Just wanted to let you know.

THere is a difference between your "sex" and your "gender". Sex is what reproductive system you have. Gender is the way you act based upon roles that people expect. You show your ignorance of this fact with every post you make.

Psychologically, the ONLY difference between men and women are those that their societal environment confers upon them. It's the same type of bigotry as the length of hair. Completely arbitrary, nothing biological about it.

That's actually not true. There are significant differences in the brains of men and women. During development your brain receives hormones to make it become a traditionally masculine brain, otherwise it remains feminine. In transgendered individuals, they literally are one gender trapped in a body of the opposite sex. In homosexuals (but not transgendered) they have a brain more similar to the opposite sex than their own, but not to the degree of the transgendered individual. In otherwards sexuality and gender are a spectrum of brain composition on one end you are attracted to men regardless of your genetic sex and on the other you are attracted to women regardless of your genetic sex. This also has an affect on the hormones delivered to your body during puberty which explains the prevelance of masculine looking lesbians and the effeminite (flamboyant) gay.

:rolleyes: You guys have to make up your minds, some of you are saying that the male and female brains are not different, and then others are saying that the gay man's brain's are more like a females brain than like a heterosexual man's brain...



So? Which is it? Are men and womens brains the same or not? I think the answer is obvious, but you guys fight it out and then let me know which version you want to refute me with. :p

Uhmm..who is the "you people" you are referring to? I have made my own individual arguments.

ANd you, in your abject and wilfull ignorance, place discrepencies between TWO PEOPLE saying TWO DIFFERENT THINGS in order to dodge having to answer EITHER OF THEM.

If anything, there IS a difference in brain structure, but it is not dependant on sex, it is dependant on psychology. A homosexual man doesn't have the same psychological nuances and thought processes as a heterosexual man, and vice versa. Your brain structure is mostly dependant upon how you USE your brain, not what genitalia you have.

Dolt.

:rolleyes: You guys have to make up your minds, some of you are saying that the male and female brains are not different, and then others are saying that the gay man's brain's are more like a females brain than like a heterosexual man's brain...



So? Which is it? Are men and womens brains the same or not? I think the answer is obvious, but you guys fight it out and then let me know which version you want to refute me with. :p

But what are you saying?

Please distinquish between matter and functionality.

Are you claiming male and female brains are different biologically?

But roles have to be taught? Why?

Your statements are all over the place. Thus, inviting some room for putative contradictions between different people rebutting your many assertions.

Distinquish between matter and functionality and it clears up nicely -- although the line is hard to draw with brains.

But what are you saying?

Are you claiming male and female brains are different biologically?

But roles have to be taught? Why?

Your statements are all over the place. Thus, inviting some room for putative contradictions between different people rebutting your many assertions.

So, if I was to telegram my points to you, you'd make them for me, right? :D

Hmph. I feel like I'm being ignored. I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact I'm shit-faced.

*snip*

Dolt.


Ooooh, now I'm a dolt :(


LOL :p Ninny. Go argue with the guy saying the brain develops with hormonal influences, why do I need to repeat what he says? :rolleyes:

More evidence, if any was needed, of how much of the homophobia and sexism and bigotry in society comes from people so absorbed in religious dogma that their version of "morality" is incapable of assimilating anything they didn't read in *one* book. The intellectual and 'moral' foundations of most of the major religions were laid in ignorance. A bunch of people, terrified by how little they understood of the world and the universe at large, making up stories and rules, exploiting ignorance and superstition so they could sway others to follow them, because even in less sophisticated society they understood that the best way to survive and thrive was to hoarde as much control as possible over others. That's what the vast majority of organized religion (and its dogma) in general boils down to: control. That seems to be why they're so terrified of progress and the accumulation of knowledge; they can't control it, and it undermines their control over others. And at the rate that the sum of human knowledge is growing, no wonder they seem so frustrated and angry lately.

Ooooh, now I'm a dolt :(


LOL :p Ninny. Go argue with the guy saying the brain develops with hormonal influences, why do I need to repeat what he says? :rolleyes:
Notice how he didn't respond to any of the other posts.

:rolleyes: You guys have to make up your minds, some of you are saying that the male and female brains are not different, and then others are saying that the gay man's brain's are more like a females brain than like a heterosexual man's brain...



So? Which is it? Are men and womens brains the same or not? I think the answer is obvious, but you guys fight it out and then let me know which version you want to refute me with. :p

Do the research. It's not an opinion. The fact is that in the traditional male brain the two hemispheres do not directly communicate in the same way or as complete a way as in the traditional female brain. Also the centers (areas) of the brain that focus on certain types of activities are different for the different sexes (spacial comparison, speech, et al). This is a simple but not complete explanation of the differences. As explained above in some individuals their gender is changed, their sexuality is changed or both by the fact their brain more closely resembles a different genetic sex than their own. However we all exist on a spectrum between the extreme masculine brain and the extreme feminine brain.

Personally, preliminary testing on myself suggests I fall in the middle of the spectrum (I display some traditional feminine and some traditional masculine qualities in the way I think and I find commonalities with both sexes but I am heterosexual).

Hmph. I feel like I'm being ignored. I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact I'm shit-faced.

You're not being ignored, everyone agreed with your first statement so nobody said anything...

Shitfaced on what? :D

Notice how he didn't respond to any of the other posts.

What's there to respond to or refute? Someone else is already establishing how the brains function differently...

Uhmm..who is the "you people" you are referring to? I have made my own individual arguments.

ANd you, in your abject and wilfull ignorance, place discrepencies between TWO PEOPLE saying TWO DIFFERENT THINGS in order to dodge having to answer EITHER OF THEM.

If anything, there IS a difference in brain structure, but it is not dependant on sex, it is dependant on psychology. A homosexual man doesn't have the same psychological nuances and thought processes as a heterosexual man, and vice versa. Your brain structure is mostly dependant upon how you USE your brain, not what genitalia you have.

Dolt.

Your brain structure is the cause of how you use your brain, the structure is caused by how it develops in the womb. It's caused by nature. If how you used your brain changed the structure you could just choose to heterosexual or homosexual and your brain would change to support that decision (nurture). However, neither is dependent on genetalia.

Do the research. It's not an opinion. The fact is that in the traditional male brain the two hemispheres do not directly communicate in the same way or as complete a way as in the traditional female brain. Also the centers (areas) of the brain that focus on certain types of activities are different for the different sexes (spacial comparison, speech, et al). This is a simple but not complete explanation of the differences. As explained above in some individuals their gender is changed, their sexuality is changed or both by the fact their brain more closely resembles a different genetic sex than their own. However we all exist on a spectrum between the extreme masculine brain and the extreme feminine brain.

Personally, preliminary testing on myself suggests I fall in the middle of the spectrum (I display some traditional feminine and some traditional masculine qualities in the way I think and I find commonalities with both sexes but I am heterosexual).

I had always thought that researchers themselves were conflicted as to the causes.... I note that you say that this is an "incomplete" explanation. Because they still haven't caught the precise thing that makes people transgendered or gay, or because it's a combination of all their research so far?

What's there to respond to or refute? Someone else is already establishing how the brains function differently...
Well, if you don't respond to their posts, you usually convey the image that you're an arrogant idiot and you feel the need to ignore other well-thought out posts.

What's there to respond to or refute? Someone else is already establishing how the brains function differently...

How does that brains function differently support your point? I've asked you a bunch of very reasonable questions you haven't addressed. You pretend like my arguments support you, so can I assume you agree with them? If so, how does being a Christian jive with denying rights to a large portion of the population because of how they were born? How does giving these rights "attack the family" since a person born heterosexual can never be persuaded to become homosexual? And if you don't agree with my arguments about the brain, then how can they support your points as you suggest?

How about you clearly state your opinions instead of acting like a bull-fighter and just avoiding our arguments altogether?

What's there to respond to or refute? Someone else is already establishing how the brains function differently...
By the way, notice how he's not even responding to the post he was referring to. Children, take notes! There's going to be a test on this later!

I had always thought that researchers themselves were conflicted as to the causes.... I note that you say that this is an "incomplete" explanation. Because they still haven't caught the precise thing that makes people transgendered or gay, or because it's a combination of all their research so far?

I gave an incomplete explanation because it's not a biology course and further explanation is unnecessary for this argument. The research isn't conflicting really. Most research that refutes these discoveries was either done when the technologies didn't really support the ability to study the brain properly or done by people who are not really scientists, but instead individuals trying to prove that homosexuality is a form of crazy and generally does not stand up to peer review. One of the most important forms of research that has become relatively recently available is the ability to study the action of the brain in a living person while they are conscious. Basically, people are given tests that cause them to think in a certain way an the actions of the brain are mapped. It has resulted in huge leaps in our understanding of brain topology.

I gave an incomplete explanation because it's not a biology course and further explanation is unnecessary for this argument. The research isn't conflicting really. Most research that refutes these discoveries was either done when the technologies didn't really support the ability to study the brain properly or done by people who are not really scientists, but instead individuals trying to prove that homosexuality is a form of crazy and generally does not stand up to peer review. One of the most important forms of research that has become relatively recently available is the ability to study the action of the brain in a living person while they are conscious. Basically, people are given tests that cause them to think in a certain way an the actions of the brain are mapped. It has resulted in huge leaps in our understanding of brain topology.

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. (I wonder if it'll come in handy next time someone asks why I think like I do....)

Your brain structure is the cause of how you use your brain, the structure is caused by how it develops in the womb. It's caused by nature. If how you used your brain changed the structure you could just choose to heterosexual or homosexual and your brain would change to support that decision (nurture). However, neither is dependent on genetalia.
This isn't a question of sexual orientation. I'll conceed to you that sexual orientation is pre-determined. But that doesn't mean gender identity is. How do you explain the phenomenon of "gay-vague" and "metrosexual" fashion? These are heterosexual men who adopt traditional trappings of homosexual culture. They weren't predetermined to do that in the womb. They've broken out of the gender identities society assigned to them. Are strong female athletes also all determined to be athletes at birth?

This isn't a question of sexual orientation. I'll conceed to you that sexual orientation is pre-determined. But that doesn't mean gender identity is. How do you explain the phenomenon of "gay-vague" and "metrosexual" fashion? These are heterosexual men who adopt traditional trappings of homosexual culture. They weren't predetermined to do that in the womb. They've broken out of the gender identities society assigned to them. Are strong female athletes also all determined to be athletes at birth?

Oh, yes, there are gender roles that are taught. No question. I wasn't making that point. I was only talking about the function of the brain. Also, metrosexual fashion is not the trappings of the homosexual culture. It's a tenuous link that was recently created. It can be shown that men have been very interested and involved in fashion in the past and this is only a return to that. Hell, in this country, men used to where wigs and tights.

It looks like you guys are settling down to the "it's how the brain develops and forms with hormones etc., naturally" WE can't control it argument.

If that's the agreed upon position, then consider. IF the brain functions are 'grown' and developed like a plant in a green house or an animal in an incubator, it can be medicated and fixed if it's broken.

Like fixing a cleft lip on a newborn, or addressing a malnourishment problem with a fetus developing, medical technology WILL be able to address the developmental problems here as well. Just give it time.

They are already at boy-girl sex tests for fetuses @ week 5, what more will they be able to do in twenty more years?
(http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26775 )

Need some extra hormones in there, no problem, need a vitamin boost? No problem. Need a little genetic material so the body develops healthy, no problem.

If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?

Sorry, Greenlander, I know things are different in Missisippi but society in general has evolved away from the life-denying morality you base your "facts" on. Things have changed. The arcane laws denying two men or women a sex life are exclusive to the Judaeo-Christian misanthropy and is not found in any other culture that we know of - I actually got this from my history tacher, who is not a liberal, before you jump to conclusions. Then what makes it so "true" for all mankind, as you snidely suggests? The semetic tribe in the middle east thought so, and so did the christians (originally a sect composed of the lowliest scum of the Imperium Romanum anyway)? Your ideals are interesting, however much I despise them. But why not call it the fanaticism it actually is instead of inventing facts to look smarter/less inbred/less fanatic/etc?

It looks like you guys are settling down to the "it's how the brain develops and forms with hormones etc., naturally" WE can't control it argument.

If that's the agreed upon position, then consider. IF the brain functions are 'grown' and developed like a plant in a green house or an animal in an incubator, it can be medicated and fixed if it's broken.

Like fixing a cleft lip on a newborn, or addressing a malnourishment problem with a fetus developing, medical technology WILL be able to address the developmental problems here as well. Just give it time.

They are already at boy-girl sex tests for fetuses @ week 5, what more will they be able to do in twenty more years?
(http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26775 )

Need some extra hormones in there, no problem, need a vitamin boost? No problem. Need a little genetic material so the body develops healthy, no problem.

If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?


One would first need to consider that brain broken. If you don't recognise that, then your entire argument collapses. I don't, so it has no relevance to me.

One would first need to consider that brain broken. If you don't recognise that, then your entire argument collapses. I don't, so it has no relevance to me.

I agree, I mean if a homosexual's brain is broken, why can't a heterosexual brain be broken as well?

One would first need to consider that brain broken. If you don't recognise that, then your entire argument collapses. I don't, so it has no relevance to me.

Of course he conciders a gay brain broken; he's a rightwinger. A gay-basher. A ...oops, gotta quit that name calling.... you get the point.

If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?
And what evidence do you have that the homosexual brain is a "broken brain"?

I'll answer for you. "None. It's my opinion and God's will."

I'm sorry, I went too far there, but still, what evidence do you have to prove that statement.

Sorry, Greenlander, I know things are different in Missisippi but society in general has evolved away from the life-denying morality you base your "facts" on. Things have changed. The arcane laws denying two men or women a sex life are exclusive to the Judaeo-Christian misanthropy and is not found in any other culture that we know of - I actually got this from my history tacher, who is not a liberal, before you jump to conclusions. Then what makes it so "true" for all mankind, as you snidely suggests? The semetic tribe in the middle east thought so, and so did the christians (originally a sect composed of the lowliest scum of the Imperium Romanum anyway)? Your ideals are interesting, however much I despise them. But why not call it the fanaticism it actually is instead of inventing facts to look smarter/less inbred/less fanatic/etc?

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion...






:eek: :p

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion....

The pleasure's all mine, Greenlander. Believe me.

By the way I hope I didn't hit a weak spot :p

It looks like you guys are settling down to the "it's how the brain develops and forms with hormones etc., naturally" WE can't control it argument.

If that's the agreed upon position, then consider. IF the brain functions are 'grown' and developed like a plant in a green house or an animal in an incubator, it can be medicated and fixed if it's broken.

Like fixing a cleft lip on a newborn, or addressing a malnourishment problem with a fetus developing, medical technology WILL be able to address the developmental problems here as well. Just give it time.

They are already at boy-girl sex tests for fetuses @ week 5, what more will they be able to do in twenty more years?
(http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26775 )

Need some extra hormones in there, no problem, need a vitamin boost? No problem. Need a little genetic material so the body develops healthy, no problem.

If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?

Nice job of:

1. Still not answering anyone's points or questions.

2. Not actually taking a position, but stating "if"s.

3. Engaging in more gross generalizations, offensive assumptions, and non sequiturs.

Bravo.

By the way I hope I didn't hit a weak spot :p

I guess I kinda did, didn't I?
Btw thy did this thread smell trollish from the start?

Also, I'm still waiting for evidence that a homosexual's brain is broken.

Oh, yes, there are gender roles that are taught. No question. I wasn't making that point. I was only talking about the function of the brain. Also, metrosexual fashion is not the trappings of the homosexual culture. It's a tenuous link that was recently created. It can be shown that men have been very interested and involved in fashion in the past and this is only a return to that. Hell, in this country, men used to where wigs and tights.
So, really, we don't contradict each other. My point was that gender roles are socially constructed and someone who's biologically male can easily play the nurturing roles assigned to females by Greenlander, and that pretending that these gender roles are rigid is extremely dangerous. That's it; no disagreement.

And, strict clothing requirements is not the same thing as the metrosexual attachment to grooming and fashion.

You guys are the ones that decided the gay brain was more like a woman's brain in a man's body.... Not me.

If so, I said, why not fix it?

It's simple:
More gays and lesbians -> less children -> we die out.
More gays and lesbians ->love begins to mean only sexual intercourse( since there are no families, only homo marriages without kids) -> a world without love
and finally
More Gays and lesbians -> makes me puke

Also, I'm still waiting for evidence that a homosexual's brain is broken.

It says in the bible, or whatever passses as evidence wherever he comes from.

You guys are the ones that decided the gay brain was more like a woman's brain in a man's body.... Not me.

If so, I said, why not fix it?

and I say again "if it ain't broke. Don't fix it."

Hmph. I feel like I'm being ignored. I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact I'm shit-faced.

tell us all how (sh)it tastes... so when we say (as probably we all do once in a while) "Man, this tastes like shit!" ... we'll actually have a benchmark to go by.

hehe

It's simple:
More gays and lesbians -> less children -> we die out.

So if gays are allowed to adopt the children who heterosexuals discard, and to form stable family units that improve the chances that those children will grow up happy and healthy, that will cause MORE children to die out?


More gays and lesbians ->love begins to mean only sexual intercourse( since there are no families, only homo marriages without kids) -> a world without love
So by redefining marriage to mean "the union of one person with a penis to another person with a vagina," we will prevent marriage and love from being all about sex?


and finally
More Gays and lesbians -> makes me puke
So by making it so that gays can't marry, and therefore there are many many more single gay people around, and therefore there is a much higher likelihood that a gay person will hit on you, we will reduce your likelihood of puking?

It's simple:
More gays and lesbians -> less children -> we die out.
More gays and lesbians ->love begins to mean only sexual intercourse( since there are no families, only homo marriages without kids) -> a world without love
and finally
More Gays and lesbians -> makes me puke

gays or lesbians in hetero marriages usually break out of the family when they find out what they are anyway, leaving a broken home at best. There is always gays, and lesbians, so "more" is only correct when applied to number coming out of closet. The "love means sexual intercourse" is... bullshit, really.

and if it makes you puke, then it's your problem. you don't have to watch them.

BWAHAHAHA!!!

The only thing "defense of marrriage" acts act to solidify is dinosaurs like the Catholic Church. Hell, even the Episcopalian Church nearly split over the election of a gay bishop so you could imagine the furore and good old religious divisiveness if sufficient will built up within a church to allow same sex marriages.

I've said it before, and I will reiterate, the only thing such acts accomplish is to do the organized religions' dirty work by declaring unlawful what threatens to divide them.

Case closed.

Well. I struggled through that and you've convinced me.
I a married hetrosexual and must therefore be geneticaly superior. Yay me.

No wait. Whoops, my wife works and I stay home and look after the kids.
I don't meet the required standards. Arghhhhhh!

Oh, and I'm a Pagan and think you're talking christian shit.

Give us back our holy place you userpers.

:p

If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?

Extremely dangerous waters you are treading hear. Read "A Brave New World" before you go any further with this. The question is: What gives you the right to decide what is and isn't normal, or broken? What makes you so much more enlightened than people who are actually affected by this. What gives you the right to decide how people should live, and what is a normal life? What makes you holier than thou?

Okay, time to give you a little science lesson:

The Hypothalamus. Basically, a gland in teh brain that controls sexual behavior(Very basic hear). In females, the Hypothalamus is about 1/4 the size of a males(give or take a very small marginal amount).

Tests have been done on the hypothalamus of homosexual people. One would assume that the Hypothalamus of Homosexual males would be smaller than that of Heterosexual males, and the opposite for females. I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Guess what? It has been shown that in Homosexual Males, the Hypothalamus is about 1/3 the size of Heterosexual Males, and in females the Hypothalamus can be over twice as large and Heterosexual females. The fact is-Homosexuality has mounting evidence to being biologic. Which only makes sense.

Also, we can change simple animals into being homosexual. We have done it on fruit flies. If we were to isolate exactly what causes biologic homosexuality, we could feasibly "fix" it. But the question is: At what cost? For a "Utopian" society, which exists only because we do not accept people for who they are?

Oh oh, Maraculand, I think you pissed the bottle off.

So by redefining marriage to mean "the union of one person with a penis to another person with a vagina," we will prevent marriage and love from being all about sex?

And yes, Bottle, in the society we have today, Men leaving their wives and children to co-habitate with other men is not conducive to good family planning and raising in my book. :rolleyes:

And yes, Bottle, in the society we have today, Men leaving their wives and children to co-habitate with other men is not conducive to good family planning and raising in my book. :rolleyes:

You know what the solution is?
I'll tell you. it's so dreadfully complex I don't understand it myself.

If we don't force gay people back into the closet, they won't (in the case of a guy) start a relationship with a girl, and so won't leave a wife and children to have a relationship with a guy.


it's like the whole problem never occurs in the first place!

and if it makes you puke, then it's your problem. you don't have to watch them.

I wish. But unfortunatly it's begining to be popular to allow gay marriages and even child adoption which I'm sure you know.
Look, I'm not intolerant. I someones a gay, fine it's his choice, but stop making demonstrations, ADOPTING CHILDREN and in general making a big fuss about it.

Oh oh, Maraculand, I think you pissed the bottle off.



And yes, Bottle, in the society we have today, Men leaving their wives and children to co-habitate with other men is not conducive to good family planning and raising in my book. :rolleyes:

What about the men leaving their wives and children to co-habitate with other women?

You guys are the ones that decided the gay brain was more like a woman's brain in a man's body.... Not me.

If so, I said, why not fix it?
Again, what is your evidence that the homosexual brain is broken? Give me GOOD, non-debatable proof now. And the Bible doesn't count.

I wish. But unfortunatly it's begining to be popular to allow gay marriages and even child adoption which I'm sure you know.
Look, I'm not intolerant. I someones a gay, fine it's his choice, but stop making demonstrations, ADOPTING CHILDREN and in general making a big fuss about it.

Why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to adopt children now?

Why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to adopt children now?
Indeed. Why?

So if gays are allowed to adopt the children who heterosexuals discard, and to form stable family units that improve the chances that those children will grow up happy and healthy, that will cause MORE children to die out?



People will die out, thats simple because God will never grant you the right to MAKE babies. Besides I don't think a child can be happy in a homosexual marriage. "Tell your daddy to come to school at once!" "which one?"

Darn this thread grows fast, I'm too slow to read it all :)

And yes, Bottle, in the society we have today, Men leaving their wives and children to co-habitate with other men is not conducive to good family planning and raising in my book. :rolleyes:
But men leaving their wives for other women is okay? And men forming life-long marriages together, in which they rear children as fathers, is worse than gay male couples rearing children without the legal protections that marriage allows their families?

As a religious person, I'm sick and tired of the government trying to control my religious practices. It's pretty well agreed on the religious right that the seperation of church and state was designed to keep the state from interfering with the church while still allowing members of legislative bodies the ability to vote based on the morality that religion taught them. Some left-wingers would argue that religion should never come into a political decision, but considering that to many religion is morality (for better or worse), it's like asking many people to give up their notion of right and wrong when making a decision, which leaves very little for some people to base that decision on.

That said, there are some religious practices the state does control. If your religion requires you to sacrifice virgins, the state will not allow you to practice your religion, or at least it won't recognize it as a religious institution and will have you charged with first degree murder. That, however, is because even non-religious people tend to agree that murder is wrong. In situations where there is a less clear distinction between right and wrong, like wearing religious headgear in places where hats are not allowed, the state allows the religious freedoms of that particular congregation to come first.

I believe the decision on homosexuality and the family should be treated the same way. The state should not be dictating what we can and cannot do in our own congregation. If we want to perform religious ceremonies that are harmless by themselves, like a marriage of two people of the same-sex, it should be the decision of our congregation, not the big-wigs in Washington.

If the state wants to take a hand in marriage, it should divide marriage into two categories: the religious side and the state side. This in turn would remove the religious aspect of marriage from any state decision. Essentially, the state side of marriage would be a civil union. Any two people who want a civil union, age permitting, should be able to get one. It would simply be a service the government would provide. On the religious side, the state would be removed from the equation and churches would be free to act on the will of their congregation. If the congregation wants to affirm same-sex marriages it can, and if it doesn't want to, well it doesn't have to. By dividing marriage up into the two components, we allow religious freedoms to exist to an even greater extent than we currently do while still promoting a society of equality.

I know a lot of families that should have broken down BEFORE all their members became so unhappy, desperate and/or alcoholic/violent/nihilistic.
Families that are happy "for real" are a minority.
So yes, it's good to have some flexibility, and an exit plan.
Anyway the modern "family cell" is just one valid option among other valid options.
Just look at how a kibbutz is managed, for one example of "different human organizations".

But men leaving their wives for other women is okay? And men forming life-long marriages together, in which they rear children as fathers, is worse than gay male couples rearing children without the legal protections that marriage allows their families?


What about the men leaving their wives and children to co-habitate with other women?

The wife should have the right to sue him for breech of contract, and his children should be able to sue him as well...In other words, that's wrong too.

People will die out, thats simple because God will never grant you the right to MAKE babies.

Biology lesson: gay people are as capable of procreation as straight people. Two men or two women may not be able to create a pregnancy on their own, but neither can infertile straight people or women past menopause. To claim that marriage, love, and family are about making a biological child is an insult to every foster family and adoptive family.

Besides I don't think a child can be happy in a homosexual marriage. "Tell your daddy to come to school at once!" "which one?"

Sort of like how kids can't deal with having two grandpas or two grandmas, or having more than one aunt or uncle, because it's just so damn confusing?

As a religious person, I'm sick and tired of the government trying to control my religious practices. It's pretty well agreed on the religious right that the seperation of church and state was designed to keep the state from interfering with the church while still allowing members of legislative bodies the ability to vote based on the morality that religion taught them. Some left-wingers would argue that religion should never come into a political decision, but considering that to many religion is morality (for better or worse), it's like asking many people to give up their notion of right and wrong when making a decision, which leaves very little for some people to base that decision on.

That said, there are some religious practices the state does control. If your religion requires you to sacrifice virgins, the state will not allow you to practice your religion, or at least it won't recognize it as a religious institution and will have you charged with first degree murder. That, however, is because even non-religious people tend to agree that murder is wrong. In situations where there is a less clear distinction between right and wrong, like wearing religious headgear in places where hats are not allowed, the state allows the religious freedoms of that particular congregation to come first.

I believe the decision on homosexuality and the family should be treated the same way. The state should not be dictating what we can and cannot do in our own congregation. If we want to perform religious ceremonies that are harmless by themselves, like a marriage of two people of the same-sex, it should be the decision of our congregation, not the big-wigs in Washington.

If the state wants to take a hand in marriage, it should divide marriage into two categories: the religious side and the state side. This in turn would remove the religious aspect of marriage from any state decision. Essentially, the state side of marriage would be a civil union. Any two people who want a civil union, age permitting, should be able to get one. It would simply be a service the government would provide. On the religious side, the state would be removed from the equation and churches would be free to act on the will of their congregation. If the congregation wants to affirm same-sex marriages it can, and if it doesn't want to, well it doesn't have to. By dividing marriage up into the two components, we allow religious freedoms to exist to an even greater extent than we currently do while still promoting a society of equality.
The problem is that many Christians are trying to ban gay marriage, period. I would think the government is only enforcing you to be tolerant of others.

People will die out, thats simple because God will never grant you the right to MAKE babies. Besides I don't think a child can be happy in a homosexual marriage. "Tell your daddy to come to school at once!" "which one?"

Darn this thread grows fast, I'm too slow to read it all :)

Reality check-Homosexual Parents already exist. Just because someone is homosexual does not mean they cannot have sex with a woman, or have child. And studies have shown that children of Homosexual parents are perfectly "normal". So, basically your idea reality conflicts with actual reality.

And I bet that you think that all suicides are by homosexuals, or by children of homosexuals. Hmm... right.

You BLEED of ignorance, my friend. Get with the times, breath some air outside of your little bubble. I think it's time to pull the biggotted idiot card out.

By the way, Greenlander? I'm still waiting for proof that a homosexual's brain is broken. Please don't ignore me. Thank you. :)

She should have the right to sue him for breech of contract, and his children should be able to sue him as well...In other words, that's wrong too.
Well yeah, it's wrong, but you aren't campaigning to make it illegal for men to live with women, or for men to marry women. If your argument against gay marriage is "OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" then you've got a few flaws in your logic. For one thing, children reared by lesbian parents are less likely to become criminals, less likely to be physically abused, less likely to be sexually abused, less to abuse a romantic partner, and less likely to become pregnant before age 18. Straight men are, far and away, the most likely to sexually or physically abuse children. If you really wanted to protect children from harm and ensure they live in the safest families, you would forbid marriage to anybody other than female couples.

To claim that marriage, love, and family are about making a biological child is an insult to every foster family and adoptive family.

Sort of like how kids can't deal with having two grandpas or two grandmas, or having more than one aunt or uncle because it's just so damn confusing?
people please! I never said something like that. WHat I said is that if there were only homo partnerships WE WOULD DIE OUT. Don't try to argue with this, it's as simple as hell.

And 2 fathers can't be the same as 2 grandpas. Give me a break, everybody has or had 2 grandpas. Besides father and mother are the most important of the 2. They spend the most time with the child. The mother loves her son in a diffrent kind of way then the father and that is needed in a family I think.

I'm out for supper/ tnx for discussion

By the way, Greenlander? I'm still waiting for proof that a homosexual's brain is broken. Please don't ignore me. Thank you. :)


If it's as you stated, that a woman's brain is in a mans body, or a mans brain in a womans body... then I wouldn't call it not borken.

Of course, I'm not the one that made that proposition, but that when I said, "then fix it."

Personally, I don't know what causes it. But you can't have it both ways. It can't NOT be a choice, and then NOT be a medical condition either...

people please! I never said something like that. WHat I said is that if there were only homo partnerships WE WOULD DIE OUT. Don't try to argue with this, it's as simple as hell.
Who says that every family would be homosexual? Besides, the human population is too big anyway.

The problem is that many Christians are trying to ban gay marriage, period. I would think the government is only enforcing you to be tolerant of others.

Yes, and I'm saying this is mistake on the part of the religious right. They should not be trying to dictate what religious institutions can and cannot do, or they might find that another administration at another time will want to ban communion and the bible. It's a slippery slope to have the government dictating what goes in religion, which precisely why congregations need to decide individually on whether or not they want to practice same-sex marriage, not have the government release and edict on the issue. Same-sex marriage must be allowed in the name of religious freedoms.

Well yeah, it's wrong, but you aren't campaigning to make it illegal for men to live with women, or for men to marry women. If your argument against gay marriage is "OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" then you've got a few flaws in your logic. For one thing, children reared by lesbian parents are less likely to become criminals, less likely to be physically abused, less likely to be sexually abused, less to abuse a romantic partner, and less likely to become pregnant before age 18. Straight men are, far and away, the most likely to sexually or physically abuse children. If you really wanted to protect children from harm and ensure they live in the safest families, you would forbid marriage to anybody other than female couples.

Sure, I'm campaigning to to stop lots of bad things, things that attack the family that should be stopped.

If it's as you stated, that a woman's brain is in a mans body, or a mans brain in a womans body... then I wouldn't call it not borken.

Of course, I'm not the one that made that proposition, but that when I said, "then fix it."

Personally, I don't know what causes it. But you can't have it both ways. It can't NOT be a choice, and then NOT be a medical condition either...
So basically, you have no indisputable proof. I see... thank you for your time. :)

I believe the decision on homosexuality and the family should be treated the same way. The state should not be dictating what we can and cannot do in our own congregation. If we want to perform religious ceremonies that are harmless by themselves, like a marriage of two people of the same-sex, it should be the decision of our congregation, not the big-wigs in Washington.

If the state wants to take a hand in marriage, it should divide marriage into two categories: the religious side and the state side. This in turn would remove the religious aspect of marriage from any state decision. Essentially, the state side of marriage would be a civil union. Any two people who want a civil union, age permitting, should be able to get one. It would simply be a service the government would provide. On the religious side, the state would be removed from the equation and churches would be free to act on the will of their congregation. If the congregation wants to affirm same-sex marriages it can, and if it doesn't want to, well it doesn't have to. By dividing marriage up into the two components, we allow religious freedoms to exist to an even greater extent than we currently do while still promoting a society of equality.

I doubt that you would be able to find anyone who disagrees with this, on either side. And if you do, I would gladly give them a give slap-up to get them in line. Alot of people seem to think that allowing gay marriage would mean that a church would have to allow gay marriage, which is simply untrue. The Church would allow whomever they wanted to be married within it's congregation. However, legally anyone would be able to get married(In legal terms). No religiously-The state cannot and should not force a church to marry someone. Really, it wouldn't effect church's at all, which is a common misconception.

So basically, you have no indisputable proof. I see... thank you for your time. :)

I don't need indisputable proof for what is self-evident (oh woe little old me, "I wouldn’t 'choose' to be this way, I can't help it, it’s not a choice.)... and you're welcome.

If it's as you stated, that a woman's brain is in a mans body, or a mans brain in a womans body... then I wouldn't call it not borken.

Of course, I'm not the one that made that proposition, but that when I said, "then fix it."

Personally, I don't know what causes it. But you can't have it both ways. It can't NOT be a choice, and then NOT be a medical condition either...

Why do I get the feeling that all of my points are being ignored? Look back a few pages, and you'll find your answer to this. Really... do I just make points which are too good to dispute? Or are you just to lazy to make a good counter argument?

I don't need indisputable proof for what is self-evident (oh woe little old me, "I wouldn’t 'choose' to be this way, I can't help it, it’s not a choice.)... and you're welcome.
Ok, excuse me. But I must reply to this.

"Self-evident" you say? Guess what? That's YOUR opinion.

Also, I detect a hint of arrogance in you. You think you know more than me? You think YOUR way is better than mine just because you believe it to be so?

Fine, at least I'm not the ignorant fool that's going around saying, "Gay marriage will kill us all! BAN IT! BAN IT!!!"

Why do I get the feeling that all of my points are being ignored? Look back a few pages, and you'll find your answer to this. Really... do I just make points which are too good to dispute? Or are you just to lazy to make a good counter argument?
I personally think it's the former. He's ignored a lot of well-thought out posts. And only after several reminders(three I believe) did he respond to me.

*snip*
Also, we can change simple animals into being homosexual. We have done it on fruit flies. If we were to isolate exactly what causes biologic homosexuality, we could feasibly "fix" it. But the question is: At what cost? For a "Utopian" society, which exists only because we do not accept people for who they are?

Is this the post you want me to address?

At what cost could we NOT fix it? Who are we to NOT do our very best at treating all blind children... Or fixing all the deaf children ... and yet, there are both the communities of the Blind and the deaf communities that will be washed away from existence if we cure all of them.

NOT fixing a medical condition when it is within your ability, should be against the Hippocratic code.

“Our emphasis is on healthy marriages ~ not marriage for the sake of marriage, not marriage at any cost ~ but healthy marriages that provide a strong and stable environment for raising children. It is about helping couples who choose marriage for themselves gain access to the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain healthy marriages.”

- Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families


Wow, you've got a ministerial portfolio for something as lame as "Children and Families" down there? Isn't this really the mandate of your Minister of Health? Or has your Ministry of Health been parcelled out to more than one portfolio?

Wow, you've got a ministerial portfolio for something as lame as "Children and Families" down there? Isn't this really the mandate of your Minister of Health? Or has your Ministry of Health been parcelled out to more than one portfolio?


Yup, just like you said... Families and Children are lame... :rolleyes:

Yea homosexuality messes up children, just like eye glasses mess up survival of the fittest.

I mean we as humans have been so far removed from our natural environment. Look at caffeine. Its really unnatural. Or clothes! The social suppression of sexual urges from puberty to legal adulthood is enough to mess up children. Teenagers are at their sexual peak and yet we find teen pregnancy to be such an abomination.

Also forced monogamy is completely unnatural for men. Its in your genes best interest to sleep with as many women as possible.

Don't talk to me about unnatural.

Yea homosexuality messes up children, just like eye glasses mess up survival of the fittest.

I mean we as humans have been so far removed from our natural environment. Look at caffeine. Its really unnatural. Or clothes! The social suppression of sexual urges from puberty to legal adulthood is enough to mess up children. Teenagers are at their sexual peak and yet we find teen pregnancy to be such an abomination.

Also forced monogamy is completely unnatural for men. Its in your genes best interest to sleep with as many women as possible.

Don't talk to me about unnatural.
... uh huh... ok... whatever you say man...

Is this the post you want me to address?

At what cost could we NOT fix it? Who are we to NOT do our very best at treating all blind children... Or fixing all the deaf children ... and yet, there are both the communities of the Blind and the deaf communities that will be washed away from existence if we cure all of them.

NOT fixing a medical condition when it is within your ability, should be against the Hippocratic code.

Deafness and blindness are not, in any known way, genetic. There is no way of knowing if a child will be blind or deaf before they are born(And infact there is not way of knowing almost every other malody, even genetic).

And way to skirt the issue. You really know how to debate.

I was referring to homosexuality. Why should we change? It certainly doesn't affect ones ability to lead a normal healthy life, it doesn't have any malignant effects, it's not going to physically harm anyone. Why is it such a problem if the only reason why it is tough to be homosexual is because of bigotted idiots who can't deal with it.

The question is: Why is homosexuality so anormal? What makes a homosexual less of a person than a heterosexual person? What you suggest is straight out of "A Brave New World". By "normalizing" people, we are destroying that which makes us human: Diversity.

While we're at it, why don't we whiten black people, because you know they face a hard life with prejudice also, or make everyone Tall, Blonde, and Blue eyed? Why not make everyone the exact same as the next, that way there will never be any problem in the world at all! Good luck with your Utopia, I'll gladly take my imperfect world.

Deafness
Some cases of deafness are genetic indeed.
Canadian singer René Simard had 2 deaf kids...

It looks like you guys are settling down to the "it's how the brain develops and forms with hormones etc., naturally" WE can't control it argument.

If that's the agreed upon position, then consider. IF the brain functions are 'grown' and developed like a plant in a green house or an animal in an incubator, it can be medicated and fixed if it's broken.

Like fixing a cleft lip on a newborn, or addressing a malnourishment problem with a fetus developing, medical technology WILL be able to address the developmental problems here as well. Just give it time.

They are already at boy-girl sex tests for fetuses @ week 5, what more will they be able to do in twenty more years?
(http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26775 )

Need some extra hormones in there, no problem, need a vitamin boost? No problem. Need a little genetic material so the body develops healthy, no problem.

If the homosexual brain doesn't function right, why not just fix it?

So now to "save the family" we're going to genetically and physically alter people? It's not an abnormality, everyone exists on this spectrum somewhere. Who's to say your not too far toward the outside or the center? Who decides what is an acceptable area for a person to exist on this spectrum? You? God? I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't cover it, but you're welcome to show exactly where the Bible defines the proper function. Remember that the brain existing on this spectrum is not an abnormality. By nature, we are supposed to exist in varied areas on the spectrum as the variance (while perhaps not advancing the survival of the individual genetic code) increases the survival of the species. You aren't suggesting fixing a developmental problem. You're suggesting creating one.

Some cases of deafness are genetic indeed.
Canadian singer René Simard had 2 deaf kids...

And this is the time I reiterrate: In any known way. There is evidence, but it is hardly conclusive. Until someone can isolate the gene, or prove reasonably that it is(Testing), it shall remain unknown.

*snip*

The problem with genetic sciences IS, that they will be able to do that stuff. People already have the ability to find out what gender the fetus is while it's still legal to get an abortion...

What do you think is going to happen next?

~~~
They are already trying to test fetuses for all kinds of genetic defects now, hair color, eye color, gender and sexual tendencies will all be a part of it (eventually).

If you are the mother, you will want them to be as happy and healthy as they can be. If you want to push your political agenda by purposely forming babies to fit that agenda, then you have a problem.


As for myself, I say we treat for health and illegalize abortion so that society doesn't fall into genetic social engineering... but that's just me I guess.

And this is the time I reiterrate: In any known way. There is evidence, but it is hardly conclusive. Until someone can isolate the gene, or prove reasonably that it is(Testing), it shall remain unknown.
Both René Simard and M.J. Taillefer (the parents) were tested positive for a genetic defect afterwards. They carry a recessive gene.

So, really, we don't contradict each other. My point was that gender roles are socially constructed and someone who's biologically male can easily play the nurturing roles assigned to females by Greenlander, and that pretending that these gender roles are rigid is extremely dangerous. That's it; no disagreement.

And, strict clothing requirements is not the same thing as the metrosexual attachment to grooming and fashion.

We agree with everything but the metrosexual part. Search through history and you'll find a frequent resurgence of male grooming and fashion. In fact, this country has only had a limitation on male grooming and fashion that didn't match women's limitations in the last century. Previous to 1900 men and women generally had a matching commitment to fashion in the US.

You guys are the ones that decided the gay brain was more like a woman's brain in a man's body.... Not me.

If so, I said, why not fix it?

I love how you pretend like my making that argument supports your premise. The research supports that homosexuality is a natural function that is supposed to be a part of the human population. So what are you fixing? It's not a genetic mutation. It's a natural development encoded in humans and most other mammals. You're trying to claim your prize without running the race. I call troll. No one who's not a troll makes such an effort to avoid actually addressing any points or supporting their ideas. You only post to throw out ridiculous and unsupported 'facts' and then watch the fur fly.

Everybody, please don't feed the trolls.

The problem with genetic sciences IS, that they will be able to do that stuff. People already have the ability to find out what gender the fetus is while it's still legal to get an abortion...

What do you think is going to happen next?



It is far easier to isolate clearly visible traits than ones that are not. In the case of homosexuality, it is dificult to the isolate the genome which may or may not cause homosexuality. The only real way to know if someone is biological homosexual is after death. Unfortunately, you can't do much genetic testing after death, as DNA tends to break down extremely quickly. And no testing can be done to find the specific genome after death as well. FORTUNATELY, we can try and locate the genome in animal sexual behavior, as testing on living humans is "amoral", and as animal physiology is more or less similar to humans, it could help. But finding the "Homosexual"(Or more correctly the Sexual Behavorial) genome will be long in coming. It's far easier to do with easily visible traits than with hidden traits.

Right now I'd like to make one quick note: There is a difference between Biology and Genetics. It is unknown whether or not the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals are biologic or genetic. There is mounting evidence of Homosexuality, although not necessarily genetic, is affected by genetics. A confusing mess, I know. When arguing, you must remember that I rarely use absolutes. Basically it is know that homosexuality is more or less Biologic, but it may or may not be genetic.


~~~
They are already trying to test fetuses for all kinds of genetic defects now, hair color, eye color, gender and sexual tendencies will all be a part of it (eventually).

If you are the mother, you will want them to be as happy and healthy as they can be. If you want to push your political agenda by purposely forming babies to fit that agenda, then you have a problem.


As for myself, I say we treat for health and illegalize abortion so that society doesn't fall into genetic social engineering... but that's just me I guess.

Ah, but homosexuals lead perfectly normal and healthy lives. You seem to treat homosexuals as depressed sexual deviants, who only want sex. However, you will find that homosexuals live perfectly normal lives, and love their partners. To most homosexuals, a relationship is not about sex, but about love.

The question is: What gives somebody the right to decide what is not "normal" just because it doesn't cohere with their own beliefs? Why do we have to change those who do not fit within the correct "normal" pattern of life? I would be shocked and dismayed if a parent would change(Considering that it is possible, of course) the sexuality of a child just because it didn't cohere with what they wanted.

I'm not going to turn this into an Abortion debate, so I'll leave that alone right now.

Both René Simard and M.J. Taillefer (the parents) were tested positive for a genetic defect afterwards. They carry a recessive gene.

Ah, but the deafness was more than likely the effect, not the cause. The defect caused the deafness, but I doubt there is a deafness gene(it is possible, however, that the a gene necessary for developing any one of the hearing mechanisms would be a defect, thus resulting in deafness...).

I know, same thing mostly, but it really is a bit more difficult. Genetics is a rather complicated mess.

By the who, what was the name of the disease?

If it's as you stated, that a woman's brain is in a mans body, or a mans brain in a womans body... then I wouldn't call it not borken.

Of course, I'm not the one that made that proposition, but that when I said, "then fix it."

Personally, I don't know what causes it. But you can't have it both ways. It can't NOT be a choice, and then NOT be a medical condition either...

Was having five fingers a choice? Must be a medical condition. Doctor, would you come in here and lop off this man's fingers.

It is not a woman's brain in a man's body. There is a spectrum, one side is traditionally masculine and one side is traditionally feminine, and almost no one actually resides the all feminine or all masculine part of the scale. Are we all malformed?

Marriage is a religious ceremony. If government can regulate religious ceremonies then perhaps it can decide what preachers are allowed to tell their congregations. As a religious person you should really beware of crossing the separation of church and state because the violations of that separation can go both ways.

Well, if marriage was purely religious ceremony, the government should have no buisness granting benefits to married couples then hmmmm? So, using your logic, the government shouldn't be involved in this AT ALL.

I love how you pretend like my making that argument supports your premise. The research supports that homosexuality is a natural function that is supposed to be a part of the human population.

Supposed to be a part? And whom was it that decided that? Perhaps you believe in a supernatural God just like me, but according to your God you don’t think we are ‘supposed’ to fix it?

Is cancer and Alzheimer’s 'supposed' to be a part of it too? Maybe we shouldn't look for ways to help people not develop those things either? :rolleyes:


So what are you fixing? It's not a genetic mutation. It's a natural development encoded in humans and most other mammals.

You would rather we didn't treat ADHD and ADD nor any other genetic condition that we have developed?

I say you don't have an argument to debate... In my opinion, you nourish and treat to the best of your ability.

If you're a pregnant mother and you need more omega-3 in your diet so that your kids don't develop hyperactive syndrome or if you need more iron and calcium in your diet so that their immunity develops healthy and if you need to take some precautions against harmful things like Alcohol and illegal drugs to avoid damaging the healthy development of the fetus…

In my book you'd be a criminal if you know better and NOT do it...

The same with your genetic theory for homosexual brain development. If it's genetics, it can be fixed.



And you called me a Troll? LOL :rolleyes: :p

You know, not every answer is black or white(metaphorical term). Just wanted to let you know.
Damn it, I think you're on to something. We obviously have to outlaw black families because jesus was white!

The same with your genetic theory for homosexual brain development. If it's genetics, it can be fixed.

p

You imply that the homosexual brain is broken. I ask you why. If it does not inhibit a person from leading a perfectly healthy and normal life, then why is it broken?

Damn it, I think you're on to something. We obviously have to outlaw black families because jesus was white!

Actually, Jesus is probably kind of a brownish, Egyptian, Arab, Bedouin, Hebrew thing going on there...

Damn it, I think you're on to something. We obviously have to outlaw black families because jesus was white!

Actually, Jesus was Middle Eastern... so... the next logical step is...

If it's genetics, it can be fixed.

You might have a hard time selling that idea to the medical/psychiatric community though they might then feel compelled to seek a method of treating rabid religiosity.

To the OP:

I will NEVER defend the "traditional family". It was what made my childhood perfect hell.
My father abused me, I had to protect both my mother and my younger brothers from him. None of my grandparents were willing to help me, as they were "good Christians" and regarded the issue as something my father as the "man of the family" should handle as he sees fit.
My mother took 17 fucking years to find the courage to leave him, because everybody kept telling her "stay with him, for the childrens' sake. How can you let them grow up without a father? They need him"

LIKE A BULLET IN THE BRAIN I NEEDED THAT GODDAM BASTARD!!!

So now to "save the family" we're going to genetically and physically alter people? It's not an abnormality, everyone exists on this spectrum somewhere. Who's to say your not too far toward the outside or the center? Who decides what is an acceptable area for a person to exist on this spectrum? You? God? I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't cover it, but you're welcome to show exactly where the Bible defines the proper function. Remember that the brain existing on this spectrum is not an abnormality. By nature, we are supposed to exist in varied areas on the spectrum as the variance (while perhaps not advancing the survival of the individual genetic code) increases the survival of the species. You aren't suggesting fixing a developmental problem. You're suggesting creating one.

Now, this is a good point, though in your making of it, I have to make a point. Humans are not a perfectly coexistable as the species that we are. We are greedy, violent, and by nature, uncivilized. On our current path we will inevitably destroy our race. So who is to say that the alteration of the human species could not be for the better? If we could eliminate prejudice, greed, and violence from our genetics, then surely would we not be better off for it?

Now, how this applies to homosexuality is definitely a matter of opinion. Conceiveably we could "normalize" everyone, but do we really want to? Homosexuality is not inherently dangerous to our society, but to many it is unacceptable. So the point you made is very valid: Who decides what is an acceptable area for a person to exist on this spectrum? There is no defined reason that homosexuality could not fit into our society, so for the sake of diversity which makes things more interesting, I think it should not be tampered with.


The problem with genetic sciences IS, that they will be able to do that stuff. People already have the ability to find out what gender the fetus is while it's still legal to get an abortion...

What do you think is going to happen next?

~~~
They are already trying to test fetuses for all kinds of genetic defects now, hair color, eye color, gender and sexual tendencies will all be a part of it (eventually).

If you are the mother, you will want them to be as happy and healthy as they can be. If you want to push your political agenda by purposely forming babies to fit that agenda, then you have a problem.


As for myself, I say we treat for health and illegalize abortion so that society doesn't fall into genetic social engineering... but that's just me I guess.

Whoa...are you talking about people aborting their kids because they find out they're gonna be gay? Yeah, that would be pretty messed up for society, and it definitely raises some signifigant ethical issues about what people should know about their fetuses. But the source of the problem from that is not homosexuality, its intolerance. If people didn't discredit the existance of others based on their own biases, then there wouldn't be any problem here.

And as a completely off topic note: does anyone else think these :fluffle: makeout smileys :fluffle: look gay? I mean, they look the same...not that there's anything wrong with having a gay smiley...

Supposed to be a part? And whom was it that decided that? Perhaps you believe in a supernatural God just like me, but according to your God you don’t think we are ‘supposed’ to fix it?

Is cancer and Alzheimer’s 'supposed' to be a part of it too? Maybe we shouldn't look for ways to help people not develop those things either? :rolleyes:

Yes, supposed to be a part. Would you like me to take you through the ins and outs of natural selection and how and why this particular trait is passed? It would be speculation to some degree but advantages can easily be shown and no true disadvantages can be shown that don't also exist for dark skin (prejudice).

I love you compare defects with things that are not defects. You have yet to show any evidence that being gay is a defect. Yes, I believe in God and that Christ was the son of God. I also believe that relationship with God is a personal one and that He is the only judge. Not you. Not anyone else. I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin or that people are damned for it, so I feel no need to 'fix it'. And even if I believed that I also believe in the seperation of Church and State. You can't bridge the gap and have Church affect the State without it going the other direction as well.


You would rather we didn't treat ADHD and ADD nor any other genetic condition that we have developed?

I say you don't have an argument to debate... In my opinion, you nourish and treat to the best of your ability.

If your a pregnant mother and you need more omega-3 in your diet so that your kids don't develop hyperactive syndrome or if you need more iron and calcium in your diet so that their immunity develops healthy and if you need to take some precautions against harmful things like Alcohol and illegal drugs to avoid damaging the healthy development of the fetus…

In my book you'd be a criminal if you know better and NOT do it...

The same with your genetic theory for homosexual brain development. If it's genetics, it can be fixed.

If it's genetics, you're saying it can be broken. It's already fixed. It's not an abnormality. It exists in every mammal population.

So who decides what is a defect if no adverse effects need be a part of it?

If you want to push your political agenda by purposely forming babies to fit that agenda, then you have a problem.

We agree that what you're proposing is disgusting.

a person born heterosexual can never be persuaded to become homosexual?

I beg to differ. Happens in prison all the time :D

You imply that the homosexual brain is broken. I ask you why. If it does not inhibit a person from leading a perfectly healthy and normal life, then why is it broken?

And the Deaf Community says it isn’t broken either (and I agree, but that doesn’t mean we can’t fix deaf baby’s ears).

And babies that might develop poor eyesight later but can be treated now, but we shouldn't treat them because people with glasses can lead perfectly good lives and they can always choose eye surgery later? Perhaps you’re Amish or something, you think technology is a bad thing for giving us choices?




EDIT: your last rant about religion. IF it is genetic and biological, then it WILL be 'addressable' in the future by default... people will choose if they want their baby's to be gay or not.

Yea homosexuality messes up children, just like eye glasses mess up survival of the fittest.

Good job that we don't all still live hand-to-mouth in jungles anymore, then isn't it? I mean, assuming we ever did.

I mean we as humans have been so far removed from our natural environment. Look at caffeine. Its really unnatural. Or clothes! The social suppression of sexual urges from puberty to legal adulthood is enough to mess up children. Teenagers are at their sexual peak and yet we find teen pregnancy to be such an abomination.

Disagree about the caffeine. Coffee isn't something you mix up in a vat of petrochemicals. It's natural enough. And tasty, too. Clothes? Yeah, clothes are pretty messed up. Keeps the mud out of your crotch, though. And shoes are definitely a double-edged proposition. Not everybody is as concerned about teen pregnancy as they let on to be. They know their future itinerant labourers have to come from somewhere, after all. Personally, I find the whole child-rearing pasttime rather tedious.

Also forced monogamy is completely unnatural for men. Its in your genes best interest to sleep with as many women as possible.

Do you suppose it's any less unnatural for women?

Don't talk to me about unnatural.

Sorry, just did! :)

And the Deaf Community says it isn’t broken either (and I agree, but that doesn’t mean we can’t fix deaf baby’s ears).

And babies that might develop poor eyesight later but can be treated now, but we shouldn't treat them because people with glasses can lead perfectly good lives and they can always choose eye surgery later? Perhaps you’re Amish or something, you think technology is a bad thing for giving us choices?

Actually, I'm about as pro-tech as it gets. However, I think that we need to take a step back and really consider what we are doing before we apply some parts of technology. I'm asking you why Homosexuality is "broken", which you haven't explained. You have repeatedly implied that it is broken, without giving good reason as to why it is broken. Leave blindness and deafness out of it. Why is homosexuality broken? What problem does it incur to the individual? What makes them less of a person than you?

Ever wonder why defects exist? Perhaps there is a natural need for homosexuality? Perhaps there is a reason. A niche. Nature is mysterious. We can't even begin to understand a small part of it. Ever wonder why Alzeimer's occurs late in life? Perhaps man was not meant to live to be 80, 90, or even 100. Alzeimer's could very easily be a safeguard against getting to old. It's possible.

So, tell me, why is homosexuality broken? What problems does it incur to the individual that are so devastating?

Do you suppose it's any less unnatural for women?

Actually, if you use the oft-used sex is about procreation then... There is little advantage to a woman having sex with multiple males (she can only carry one child at a time) though there is advantage to her experimenting until she finds a verile male. There is great advantage to men having multiple partners as they can impregnate multiple women simultaneously (the most children, shortest time). Thus the most verile men should be impregnating as many women as possible and everyone else should be working to support those familial units.

(NOT REALLY MY ARGUMENT - I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THE FLAW IN THE SEX FOR PROCREATION LOGIC)

So, tell me, why is homosexuality broken? What problems does it incur to the individual that are so devastating?

I'll give you a cookie if you get an actual response to this. Chocolate chip.

Actually, if you use the oft-used sex is about procreation then... There is little advantage to a woman having sex with multiple males (she can only carry one child at a time) though there is advantage to her experimenting until she finds a verile male.

Ahh, but there IS an advantage to a woman carrying the children of multiple males, even if she is constrained to carrying them one at a time. Of course, sampling what the various men have on offer can give her a better idea as to the virility of each man in her circle of lovers.

I'll give you a cookie if you get an actual response to this. Chocolate chip.

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?

Perhaps I should look up the percentage of gay-inclined people that say they 'don't' want to be that way?

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?

Perhaps I should look up the percentage of gay-inclined people that say they 'don't' want to be that way?

None of that. Just a good reason. Not skirting around the issue. Not flawed logic. Just a good reason.

Or how about in your opinion? And please remember-Children of homosexual parents turn out quite normal, and that homosexual people live quite happy, normal, productive lives.

So tell me, in your opinion, why is Homosexuality "broken"?

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?

Perhaps I should look up the percentage of gay-inclined people that say they 'don't' want to be that way?

That has nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but is a response to the intolerant and hateful views of a society that, frankly, would often rather see gay people dead and miserable than to see them live full and happy lives. If you went through the suffering homosexuals are forced into at the hands most of society, you would consider suicde and drugs as well.

*snip*

A niche. Nature is mysterious. We can't even begin to understand a small part of it. Ever wonder why Alzeimer's occurs late in life? Perhaps man was not meant to live to be 80, 90, or even 100. Alzeimer's could very easily be a safeguard against getting to old. It's possible.
*snip*?


Are you really going to suggest that we shouldn't treat Alzheimer’s disease because it's how old people are supposed to die?


LMAO :p :p You say some of the silliest stuff.

That has nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but is a response to the intolerant and hateful views of a society that, frankly, would often rather see gay people dead and miserable than to see them live full and happy lives. If you went through the suffering homosexuals are forced into at the hands most of society, you would consider suicde and drugs as well.


You don't know that. You don't know that the inclination to cure depression and the addictive genetics of a person didn't lead to homosexual experimentation...

Yours is a theory ~ So is mine.

Are you really going to suggest that we shouldn't treat Alzheimer’s disease because it's how old people are supposed to die?


LMAO :p :p You say some of the silliest stuff.

Funny, that's what I think about what I've read from you.

What s/he was saying is that maybe Alzheimer's has a purpose in nature. Just because the purpose isn't obvious or one that we might like doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That also doesn't mean that we as a race don't try to change things that cause us harm and pain. Shoes certainly aren't natural, but they do a great job at protecting the feet.

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?



OMG we should be curing teenagers! :(

You don't know that. You don't know that the inclination to cure depression and the addictive genetics of a person didn't lead to homosexual experimentation...

Yours is a theory ~ So is mine.

I know that there are many, many, many homosexuals out there living a full and happy life, despite their "addictive genetics." I also know that there is plenty of evidence that depression is easily influenced by outside factors--people who are constantly harassed are far more likely to be depressed. Is hiding from obvious conclusions your MO when it comes to realities you don't like?

None of that. Just a good reason. Not skirting around the issue. Not flawed logic. Just a good reason.

Or how about in your opinion? And please remember-Children of homosexual parents turn out quite normal, and that homosexual people live quite happy, normal, productive lives.

So tell me, in your opinion, why is Homosexuality "broken"?


If you can prove that ADD and ADHD in children is broken, then I will prove it too. Besides, I'll say it again, IF it is genetics, it WILL be addressable in the future. Parents will be able to decide if their children will be Gay or not.

However, I think it's more likely to be genetic WITH other stuff, but we'll see. IF we live long enough, we'll see.

If you can prove that ADD and ADHD in children is broken, then I will prove it to. Besides, I'll say it again, IF it is genetics, it WILL be addressable in the future. Parents will be able to decide if their children will be Gay or not.

However, I think it's more likely to be genetic WITH other stuff, but we'll see. IF we live long enough, we'll see.


ADD/ADHD has been shown to affect the quality of life and performance of those who suffer from it. That's why its considered a disorder and why homosexuality is not.

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?

Perhaps I should look up the percentage of gay-inclined people that say they 'don't' want to be that way?

If you can show that any of these are caused by the 'flaw' itself and not by the reactions of people like you who say they need to be 'fixed', then I will accept all of the evidence. Take your time, it's going to be a difficult task to not show that you're causing great damage to people who are different than you by biology. It's okay. I'm patient.

Are you really going to suggest that we shouldn't treat Alzheimer’s disease because it's how old people are supposed to die?


LMAO :p :p You say some of the silliest stuff.

No. I'm suggesting that it may be needed. You're skirting the issue again. You're avoiding any actual debate by taken bits and pieces and running wild with them to get out of actually giving something of substance. I was suggesting the possibility that Alzeimer's is necessary, not that it shouldn't be treated.

If you can prove that ADD and ADHD in children is broken, then I will prove it about hmosexuality too. Besides, I'll say it again, IF it is genetics, it WILL be addressable in the future. Parents will be able to decide if their children will be Gay or not.

However, I think it's more likely to be genetic WITH other stuff, but we'll see. IF we live long enough, we'll see.

It is generally regarded by religious and non-religious alike as highly unethical to genetically alter your children based on preferences rather than proven malady.

ADD/ADHD has been shown to affect the quality of life and performance of those who suffer from it. That's why its considered a disorder and why homosexuality is not.


ADD and ADHD are only problems because teachers and other adults give them problems and force them to act like they arn't ADD and ADHD, and that all of their problems are really just big people who don't like children with good healthy energy levels..

(it's as good an argument as your 'public pressure on gays causes their drug and depression rates...)

The difference is, people with ADD and ADHD children KNOW that they can be treated and that while they are in the throes of an attack, they can't help themselves. It's not the teachers fault that they act like that. But it is not a choice, but it can be treated.

ADD and ADHD are only problems because teachers and other adults give them problems and force them to act like they arn't ADD and ADHD, and that all of their problems are really just big people who don't like children with good healthy energy levels..

(it's as good an argument as your 'public pressure on gays causes their drug and depression rates...)

The difference is, people with ADD and ADHD children KNOW that they can be treated and that while they are in the throes of an attack, they can't help themselves. It's not the teachers fault that they act like that.


Keep grasping, eventually one of those straws might stay in your hand.

In the meantime, I'm off to relax. I refuse to spend my entire day off here :) It was good seeing some of you folks again.

After reading all that I have one feeling. Greenlander is just being a ****-wad and just baiting us into getting all angry. S/He's given us nothing of substance, s/he acts arrogant and all knowing, and s/he continually reiterates what he says so as to avoid saying anything. I still think s/he is just a jerk and screwing with us.

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?

Perhaps I should look up the percentage of gay-inclined people that say they 'don't' want to be that way?

When I was just starting to be a teenager, I got all depressed. I hated myself. I tried smoking, and drugs. I've even considered suicide. It was making me sick. I 'didn't' want to be that way. I hated it. Now, when I grew up my horomones stabilized and I returned to normalcy, though still effected strongly. My emotions were stable now. I know a few people that have yet to experience this stabilization, I know a few that never got over it. I may just be an isolated case. From your point of view, you would agree to Prozac-ing every teenager, as to 'cure' or 'treat' this debilitating syndrome that is growing up. We have the 'ability' to treat it. Why don't we?

I'll leave that up to you.

No. I'm suggesting that it may be needed. You're skirting the issue again. You're avoiding any actual debate by taken bits and pieces and running wild with them to get out of actually giving something of substance. I was suggesting the possibility that Alzeimer's is necessary, not that it shouldn't be treated.


I'm not skirting any issue. I disagree with your position. Lots of things get treated... As it should be. And when some future parent decides to take advantage of some medical breakthrough and treat their infant before developing homosexual tendancies, I won't call it wrong.

You don't know that. You don't know that the inclination to cure depression and the addictive genetics of a person didn't lead to homosexual experimentation...

Yours is a theory ~ So is mine.

Except your theory violates the lessons of biology. The 'experimentation' you're referring to is caused by biology. This biology is not related to a tendency toward addiction or depression. What you're suggesting is like saying the higher prevelence of heart disease among black people suggests that heart disease can cause you to be black. Just as you would want to cure heart disease among the black population and explore its causes, you have to try to address addiction and depression (assuming they are more prevelent in homosexuals) and explore the causes, not suggest its just because the entire group is a blight.

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?

You know why homosexuals have a higher rate of depression and a higher suicide rate (along with higher instances of exscapism)?

Come on, I think you know



Nah?



People like you.


Perhaps I should look up the percentage of gay-inclined people that say they 'don't' want to be that way?
Perhaps you should look up the percentage of homosexuals who can change their sexual preferences.

I'm not skirting any issue. I disagree with your position. Lots of things get treated... As it should be. And when some future parent decides to take advantage of some medical breakthrough and treat their infant before developing homosexual tendancies, I won't call it wrong.

You already did!

If you want to push your political agenda by purposely forming babies to fit that agenda, then you have a problem.

It is generally regarded by religious and non-religious alike as highly unethical to genetically alter your children based on preferences rather than proven malady.


That's a double edged sword. If I want grandchildren, AND I'm religious so I want my offspring to only have one sexual partner (their spouse), and I find out that while developing they might become homosexual unless I give them a medical treatment now...


Treatment it is.

(it's as good an argument as your 'public pressure on gays causes their drug and depression rates...)

The difference is, people with ADD and ADHD children KNOW that they can be treated and that while they are in the throes of an attack, they can't help themselves. It's not the teachers fault that they act like that. But it is not a choice, but it can be treated.

No it is not. Homosexuality and Bisexuality, are a product of both nature and nuture. How we are raised in society and what genes we got are both responsible. Now ADD and ADHD are both problems in childhood development that occur from nature and nuture. Perhaps you were born with the gene for it, perhaps you fell on your head and your brain screws up. They are treated only because it is harmful to their development if they go untreated. ADD and ADHD is the direct cause of depression about it. I live in NYC, rather liberal climate here, and I'm rather surprised there is a Republican Mayor that we all like. I know homosexuals that are absolutely happy with their lot, and their parents are accepting. They have little to no societal pressure so they don't use drugs or are depressed. I know someone with ADHD, he doesn't really like himself when he goes crazy. We start to lose him. The difference here is that homosexuality isn't a 'disease' or 'syndrome' like ADHD and ADD is. Homosexuals can be happy, and not use drugs. The only reason they do is because their parents and/or society doesn't accept them so they seek escape. Like I sought escape from being a teenager by trying drugs and considering suicide.

I'm not skirting any issue. I disagree with your position. Lots of things get treated... As it should be. And when some future parent decides to take advantage of some medical breakthrough and treat their infant before developing homosexual tendancies, I won't call it wrong.

You know, you still haven't answered my question as to why homosexuality is broken. Don't bring up other disorders, as they have no relevance. Why is homosexuality so broken? How many more times am I going to have to ask this before I get an actual answer. Hell, I don't need a good answer, just not one which completely ignores hard evidence. I don't even need something completely factual, give me an opinion. ANYTHING. But this skirting around without actually addressing anything is getting annoying. You have yet to tell me why you think homosexuality is broken.

And so, I will leave you. This thread is a pointless exorcise in how not to debate. I have wasted enough time with you.

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?


Circular argument. People get depressed, suicidal, or turn to drugs and alcohol because of the stresses inflicted upon them by systemic intolerance and the lack of social support networks.

Unless you happen to think living with systemic intolerance is somehow good for society, and that social support networks are the Devil's playground, or some sanctimonious shit like that.

That's a double edged sword. If I want grandchildren, AND I'm religious so I want my offspring to only have one sexual partner (their spouse), and I find out that while developing they might become homosexual unless I give them a medical treatment now...


Treatment it is.

It's not a treatment. It's an alteration. What if you discover that will have a genetic predisposition to become clergy and you want grandchildren unless you give them 'medical treatment' now? Do you still go for the 'treatment' option. You're arguments are unfounded.

You know, you still haven't answered my question as to why homosexuality is broken.

I noticed that. Still worse, he didn't even bother directing his nonresponsive response to you - sorry to have stuck my nose in, my guess is he can only handle infidels one at a time.

How about it? You gonna answer Seangolia's question, or just try taking the piss out of me again?

I noticed that. Still worse, he didn't even bother directing his nonresponsive response to you - sorry to have stuck my nose in, my guess is he can only handle infidels one at a time.

How about it? You gonna answer Seangolia's question, or just try taking the piss out of me again?

I still see no reason to define homosexual as anything other than what I did or did not state in the very first post... Everything I needed to say was/is there, in it.

What causes it in individuals is irrelevant, my position is that same-sex marriage and unions are not conducive to community and family raising. Neither is adultery, divorces and a lot of other things. Historically speaking (civilization historically, not just America's historical) maintaining and supporting the 'so-called' traditional family unit is the best and strongest way for a community to survive and pass on it’s heritage from one age to the next. Every society that has abandoned the family unit was replaced by a new society.

And with that in mind, it is fully within the rights of the government to take some say in what is and what is not, acceptable and legal marriage unions even in secular societies.




However, I'm off for the weekend now, hope you all have fun and be nice, I'll check back in after the holiday! :D

Originally posted by Greenlander The last time I checked our brains were a part of our biology...


Well, if we have to explain the difference between "brain" and "mind", we'll be here all day.

I still see no reason to define homosexual as anything other than what I did or did not state in the very first post... Everything I needed to say was/is there, in it.

What causes it in individuals is irrelevant, my position is that same-sex marriage and unions are not conducive to community and family raising. Neither is adultery, divorces and a lot of other things. Historically speaking (civilization historically, not just America's historical) maintaining and supporting the 'so-called' traditional family unit is the best and strongest way for a community to survive and pass on it’s heritage from one age to the next. Every society that has abandoned the family unit was replaced by a new society.

And with that in mind, it is fully within the rights of the government to take some say in what is and what is not, acceptable and legal marriage unions even in secular societies.




However, I'm off for the weekend now, hope you all have fun and be nice, I'll check back in after the holiday! :D
You, of course, have proof of this irrepairable damage same sex marriage causes, right?

I still see no reason to define homosexual as anything other than what I did or did not state in the very first post... Everything I needed to say was/is there, in it.

What causes it in individuals is irrelevant, my position is that same-sex marriage and unions are not conducive to community and family raising. Neither is adultery, divorces and a lot of other things. Historically speaking (civilization historically, not just America's historical) maintaining and supporting the 'so-called' traditional family unit is the best and strongest way for a community to survive and pass on it’s heritage from one age to the next. Every society that has abandoned the family unit was replaced by a new society.

And with that in mind, it is fully within the rights of the government to take some say in what is and what is not, acceptable and legal marriage unions even in secular societies.




However, I'm off for the weekend now, hope you all have fun and be nice, I'll check back in after the holiday! :D

And when you get back maybe you can offer up the historical and anthropological evidence that the destruction of the family unit caused the fall of every past society. So far, you've really offered no evidence that anything that you claim is true in any emperical way.

Anyone notice that he ignored almost every question I asked? "Whoops, answering that question would expose that my position is based on my hate for homosexuals and not on protecting the family, better not answer!"

Let's repeat them shall we?

How does being a Christian jive with denying rights to a large portion of the population because of how they were born? How does giving these rights "attack the family" since a person born heterosexual can never be persuaded to become homosexual?

What part of defending the family does allowing your brother to starve to death because he wasn't allowed to marry his life partner and therefore didn't receive social security and retirement benefits when that partner died before him (whew, that was long) fall under? How does offering benefits to those who don't want or care about your definition of family disturb or attack your definition of family? Is you hold on heterosexual marriage so tenuous that if you allow same-sex marriages everyone is just going to start jumping ship? Do you really believe the only thing keeping people straight and in loving relationships with the opposite gender is the law?

Who's to say your not too far toward the outside or the center? Who decides what is an acceptable area for a person to exist on this spectrum?

Was having five fingers a choice? Must be a medical condition. Doctor, would you come in here and lop off this man's fingers./sarcasm :to the claim that it's either a choice of a medical condition


It is not a woman's brain in a man's body. There is a spectrum, one side is traditionally masculine and one side is traditionally feminine, and almost no one actually resides the all feminine or all masculine part of the scale. Are we all malformed?

It's not a treatment. It's an alteration. What if you discover that will have a genetic predisposition to become clergy and you want grandchildren unless you give them 'medical treatment' now? Do you still go for the 'treatment' option.

A bunch of ill-considered crap.
Watch a Showtime movie called "We Are Dad." Then, since families that close are the cut-off think about how few marriges there would be if "better than them" were the benchmark. Then tell me about how threatening to destroy happy families is part of family values, and healthy. Out of sight out of mind. What a small world for such a small people with such a tragically finite God.

Marrige isn't even a religious institution, the sacrement of marrige particular to a specific religion might be, but marrige itself isn't. If it were a religious institution, there wouldn't be states with common-law marrige, judges wouldn't have the power to marry people, and neither would sea captains.

Anyone notice that he ignored almost every question I asked? "Whoops, answering that question would expose that my position is based on my hate for homosexuals and not on protecting the family, better not answer!"

Let's repeat them shall we?

How does being a Christian jive with denying rights to a large portion of the population because of how they were born? How does giving these rights "attack the family" since a person born heterosexual can never be persuaded to become homosexual?

The original post/stance doesn’t mention Christianity, not even once, because the traditional ‘family’ is not religion specific. Denying individual rights is not the objective, raising an entire community’s children is the objective of the government.


What part of defending the family does allowing your brother to starve to death because he wasn't allowed to marry his life partner and therefore didn't receive social security and retirement benefits when that partner died before him (whew, that was long) fall under? How does offering benefits to those who don't want or care about your definition of family disturb or attack your definition of family? Is you hold on heterosexual marriage so tenuous that if you allow same-sex marriages everyone is just going to start jumping ship? Do you really believe the only thing keeping people straight and in loving relationships with the opposite gender is the law?

Who’s starving to death? Who’s the stay-at-home ‘Dad’ that doesn’t get social security checks on his own? Retirement policies and IRA’s etc., are the responsibility of the individuals and not related to the topic of raising children and families (original post). However, we could discuss this in another thread about changing inheritance and benefit laws and policies, but they do not need to be addressed through marriage laws…

Who's to say your not too far toward the outside or the center? Who decides what is an acceptable area for a person to exist on this spectrum?

The community/society I live in gets to say who is in and who is too far out.

Was having five fingers a choice? Must be a medical condition. Doctor, would you come in here and lop off this man's fingers./sarcasm :to the claim that it's either a choice of a medical condition

I think you are addressing the idea that being born ‘homosexual’ is a bodily function, like being born with five fingers. I don’t need to address this. We only have theories about why someone is born ‘Gay’ or not. If it is entirely biological or if there is some societal and behavior or developmental factors that cause it, we simply do not have enough data yet to confirm or deny all the different theories.

However, we ‘can’ prove that having an unwanted sexual ‘desire’ is not in itself proof that something should be acceptable behavior. Many perversions are harmful, and many rapists (for example) say that it’s something they can’t control. Sexual urges and desires may be addictions themselves, including heterosexual ones, such as pornography and sexual over-indulgences. Society does not, in my opinion, need to accommodate them by legalizing nor accepting them.


It is not a woman's brain in a man's body. There is a spectrum, one side is traditionally masculine and one side is traditionally feminine, and almost no one actually resides the all feminine or all masculine part of the scale. Are we all malformed?

That’s an oversimplification and in fact, I think in error. The brains functions are not so easily defined. Our brains develop and learn to accomplish various tasks, our genetics help determine what they are capable of being, our nutrition and health allow us to do it unhindered. But to say that women and men’s brains are interchangeable is taking a step of assumption that I do not share.


It's not a treatment. It's an alteration. What if you discover that will have a genetic predisposition to become clergy and you want grandchildren unless you give them 'medical treatment' now? Do you still go for the 'treatment' option.

Alteration for the sake of healthy development is a good thing, I don’t see how you can argue against it. It is well within the rights of parents to choose medical assistance if their child’s development needs help or correction. Once we can figure out what causes problems, if it’s a DNA/RNA copying flaws or if it’s genetic development flaw from nutrition needs or if it’s damage caused by toxins in the child’s environment, or any other combination thereof, we do not yet know.

Of course, this stance also ignores that there are plenty of adults who wish to be married to their mate of choice, same sex or different, who simply do not wish to have children. Are we going to have to get some idiotic "union" certificate and told we can't be married because we don't want kids?

The original post/stance doesn’t mention Christianity, not even once, because the traditional ‘family’ is not religion specific. Denying individual rights is not the objective, raising an entire community’s children is the objective of the government.

Fine. Establish how allowing same-sex couples the same rights as the couples protected by current law has any effect on that. If two men have together for twenty years and wish to establish their union for legal benefits, please show how this would in any way affect your abilty to raise your children the abilty of the community to help you.

Who’s starving to death? Who’s the stay-at-home ‘Dad’ that doesn’t get social security checks on his own? Retirement policies and IRA’s etc., are the responsibility of the individuals and not related to the topic of raising children and families (original post). However, we could discuss this in another thread about changing inheritance and benefit laws and policies, but they do not need to be addressed through marriage laws…

As long as opposite-sex couples get granted priveleges because they happy to be of opposite sexes, then all couples with the same commitment deserve the same priveleges. Those priveleges have nothing to do with family, as you are not required to have children to get those benefits. Those benefits include tax shelters and breaks, not being required to testify against your mate, being recognized as a spouse by insurance companies, being recognized as a spouse by hospitals, being recognized as next-of-kin, et al. How do offering these benefits to same-sex couples deny you any rights whatsoever? It doesn't, so your premise is ridiculous.

The community/society I live in gets to say who is in and who is too far out.

No, actually, they don't. We don't live in a democracy for the specific reason of protecting people from tyranny from majority. If the majority of society thinks that worshipping some other God is damaging to society should we create a State-sponsered religion? Nearly everyone suffers in that scenario.

If moral behavior were simply following rules, we could program a
computer to be moral. -Samuel P. Ginder, US navy captain

I think you are addressing the idea that being born ‘homosexual’ is a bodily function, like being born with five fingers. I don’t need to address this. We only have theories about why someone is born ‘Gay’ or not. If it is entirely biological or if there is some societal and behavior or developmental factors that cause it, we simply do not have enough data yet to confirm or deny all the different theories.

I haven't seen you offer up any data, actually.

However, we ‘can’ prove that having an unwanted sexual ‘desire’ is not in itself proof that something should be acceptable behavior. Many perversions are harmful, and many rapists (for example) say that it’s something they can’t control. Sexual urges and desires may be addictions themselves, including heterosexual ones, such as pornography and sexual over-indulgences. Society does not, in my opinion, need to accommodate them by legalizing nor accepting them.

I like how you compare sexual behavior that injures people and sexual behavior that is a personal choice (and by like, I'm amused by the ignorance of it). If homosexuality suddenly becomes the majority behavior perhaps they'll be kind enough to not enact laws that deny us rights for not being like them or outlaw heterosexual behavior.

That’s an oversimplification and in fact, I think in error. The brains functions are not so easily defined. Our brains develop and learn to accomplish various tasks, our genetics help determine what they are capable of being, our nutrition and health allow us to do it unhindered. But to say that women and men’s brains are interchangeable is taking a step of assumption that I do not share.

Where did I say they were interchangeable? I said they are defined by development in the room and that a specific brain-type while more common in one sex than another is not specifically a result of being that sex as study after study proves. Women's and men's brains are on average very different. That's the opposite of interchangeable.

I also like that you suggest it's an oversimplification but you use it as an argument against other people. Make up your mind. Can you offer any studies that actually support your claims? Studies have already been posted that show that this type of development of the brain (relating to the spectrum) occurs during gestation. None of those studies have found nutrition of the mother to be a factor. Care to show a study that disputes this?

Alteration for the sake of healthy development is a good thing, I don’t see how you can argue against it. It is well within the rights of parents to choose medical assistance if their child’s development needs help or correction. Once we can figure out what causes problems, if it’s a DNA/RNA copying flaws or if it’s genetic development flaw from nutrition needs or if it’s damage caused by toxins in the child’s environment, or any other combination thereof, we do not yet know.

You make all of the assumptions but do none of the work. You suggested that people alter their children because they would like to have grandchildren. Altering them to prevent them from being priests would be no different from altering them to prevent them from being homosexual if that reason is acceptable. That has nothing to do with something that anyone has established is a 'flaw' or 'damage' or a 'problem'. You can't reasonably prove that homosexuality is a genetic problem anymore than you can prove that becoming a priest is.

Moreover, you've done nothing to show that homosexuality is an attack on the family or the children. You've done nothing to show that denying rights to a large portion of the population has done anything to make the 'healthy family' more successful. You've done nothing to show that any of the claims you are making have any basis in reality.

Who’s starving to death? Who’s the stay-at-home ‘Dad’ that doesn’t get social security checks on his own? Retirement policies and IRA’s etc., are the responsibility of the individuals and not related to the topic of raising children and families (original post). However, we could discuss this in another thread about changing inheritance and benefit laws and policies, but they do not need to be addressed through marriage laws…


Actually they do. A story from a fellow I know.

He had a lover a long time ago. His good Christian family disowned him when he announced he was gay. He went on to make a nice some of money. He went into surgery one day and got HIV(it was the early days). It eventually went to AIDS. My friend was not allowed in the hospitol room since he was not family. After his lover died, the good Christian family that disowned him, swooped in like vultures and took his assets.

So yes, they do need the protection.

The original post/stance doesn’t mention Christianity, not even once, because the traditional ‘family’ is not religion specific. Denying individual rights is not the objective, raising an entire community’s children is the objective of the government.

Of course, what most people refer to as the "traditional family" isn't even traditional. Most people think that a family should be man, woman, 2.5 children, and a pet - living on their own. In truth, this is a relatively new concept which came into being around the 1950's. Before that, family referred to parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, children, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. all living in the same house or at least on the same land. Every adult was involved in the raising of all of the children - not just the parents. There were multiple male and female role models.

Interestingly enough, when people started moving towards the "nuclear family", we heard the same cries of "destroying the family" and "think of the children!" we hear today regarding homosexual couples. In truth, I think those people actually had more of a point. Children do need more than one male and more than one female role model, and any parents - homosexual or herterosexual - who don't provide that are bad parents.

The community/society I live in gets to say who is in and who is too far out.

So, if they decided that you were "too far out", you would calmly agree and leave?

Alteration for the sake of healthy development is a good thing, I don’t see how you can argue against it. It is well within the rights of parents to choose medical assistance if their child’s development needs help or correction. Once we can figure out what causes problems, if it’s a DNA/RNA copying flaws or if it’s genetic development flaw from nutrition needs or if it’s damage caused by toxins in the child’s environment, or any other combination thereof, we do not yet know.

By your logic, "blonde hair" can be considered a defect and alteration would be necessary for healthy development.

[i]The promotion, or acceptance, of immoral sexual behaviors,

What the article fails to indicate to people is whether homosexuality and bisexuality are indeed immoral and if they are, answers what makes them immoral.

Religion is not the source of morality, for both atheists and agnostics are moral in most cases to the same extent as the religeous. Why is it then that the religeous tend to be the only people decrying homosexuality as immoral while the non-religeous tend to have no problem with it, generally.

By merely citing the rantings of religeous figures (who gain their ideas solely from the bible) as evidence of homosexual immorality, this 'Defense of the Family' organisation fails to convince me.

Hmph. I feel like I'm being ignored. I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact I'm shit-faced.
I thought your 2nd post(at least I think it was the 2nd) was pretty funny. I'm surprised nobody responded...

Of course, this stance also ignores that there are plenty of adults who wish to be married to their mate of choice, same sex or different, who simply do not wish to have children. Are we going to have to get some idiotic "union" certificate and told we can't be married because we don't want kids?

Actually, yes, society has a right to request that they resolve their financial bonding in some other fashion than marriage laws. See next answer for why.

As long as opposite-sex couples get granted priveleges because they happy to be of opposite sexes, then all couples with the same commitment deserve the same priveleges. Those priveleges have nothing to do with family, as you are not required to have children to get those benefits. Those benefits include tax shelters and breaks, not being required to testify against your mate, being recognized as a spouse by insurance companies, being recognized as a spouse by hospitals, being recognized as next-of-kin, et al. How do offering these benefits to same-sex couples deny you any rights whatsoever? It doesn't, so your premise is ridiculous.

The marriage benefits you mention, and especially the tax shelters and breaks, are benefits being given for household expenses of a ‘family.’ They exist entirely because it is ‘assumed’ and argued in the legislatures that the tax breaks should be give because the ‘family’ funds are being used to support and raise and pay for the next generation of tax-payers. You aren’t being rewarded for being ‘married’ you are being granted special acknowledgement for the fact that you are continuing the community with your hard earn cash and funds, that instead of buy luxury items and personal rewards (that would be taxed at a higher level), you are paying for medical bills, education expenses, household expenses and transportation, etc., etc., etc., for the rearing of children.

And before you say it, YES, I recognize that infertile couples and couples that choose not to have children are reaping the benefits of ‘marriage’ benefits unfairly. However, society has chosen to allow these loop-holes because they are not overly painful, yet. Society ‘should’ do more about rewarding ‘good’ parenting practices, i.e., encourage people to raise their children together by rewarding the behavior, because it is good for society. Rewarding child bearing is in the interest of society, rewarding ‘coupling’ outside of child rearing is irrelevant. Everyone should be individuals and there should be no marriage laws nor marriage benefits at all if children are removed from the equation.


Fine. Establish how allowing same-sex couples the same rights as the couples protected by current law has any effect on that. If two men have together for twenty years and wish to establish their union for legal benefits, please show how this would in any way affect your abilty to raise your children the abilty of the community to help you.

Given what I said above, how does forcing them to remain individuals in the eye’s of the government harm them? If they are granted the right to join their financial identities, binding them together for inheritance, legal properties etc., what gain do they get from a ‘marriage license.’


No, actually, they don't. We don't live in a democracy for the specific reason of protecting people from tyranny from majority. If the majority of society thinks that worshipping some other God is damaging to society should we create a State-sponsered religion? Nearly everyone suffers in that scenario.

If moral behavior were simply following rules, we could program a
computer to be moral. -Samuel P. Ginder, US navy captain

You presuppose too much. Are women allowed to walk around topless? Do we have pornography, gambling, cigarette purchasing and liquor licenses rules? Of course society has the right to mandate a level of behavior. It always has and it always will. I freely admit that these lines move, where they are drawn is determined by the various communities. It’s not really the topic here though.


I like how you compare sexual behavior that injures people and sexual behavior that is a personal choice (and by like, I'm amused by the ignorance of it). If homosexuality suddenly becomes the majority behavior perhaps they'll be kind enough to not enact laws that deny us rights for not being like them or outlaw heterosexual behavior.

I compare ‘sexual’ desire. Harming others only proves my point that sexual desire ‘can’ be broken. Once we admit it might be broken, society has a right to regulate acceptable public behavior.



*Snipped* the brain functioning elements*

I’m not positioning my argument on what causes or does not cause homosexuality, it wasn’t a part of the thesis. The ‘cause’ is irrelevant. The argument I made is that society has a ‘right’ to reward family making behaviors via marriage laws that do no recognize non-child bearing activities.

Moreover, you've done nothing to show that homosexuality is an attack on the family or the children. You've done nothing to show that denying rights to a large portion of the population has done anything to make the 'healthy family' more successful. You've done nothing to show that any of the claims you are making have any basis in reality .

My argument isn’t for outlawing homosexuality, my argument is for societies ‘right’ to have and create laws that establish and benefit families and child rearing. Meaning, restricting pornography, outlawing prostitution, illegalizing narcotic drugs, forcing education requirements and mandating that marriage benefits are for a man and a woman marriages only. Thus, by default, restricting polygamy and homosexual relationships from marriage laws because they are a different topic, they aren’t related issues. Society would eliminate the marriage benefits in tax law (for example) IF there are no children involved. That’s why they have the benefits, because legislature recognize that raising children is expensive. If more than half the marriage couples aren’t producing children but they are reaping the benefits of marriage rewards, they are using ‘loop-holes’ they don’t deserve and the legislature will stop them, it only logical.

A Child-rearing society has every right to demand that same-sex unions be recognized as a financial bonding, different and with different expectations than marriage bonding, they serve two entirely different purposes as far as the community is concerned.

Of course, what most people refer to as the "traditional family" isn't even traditional. Most people think that a family should be man, woman, 2.5 children, and a pet - living on their own. In truth, this is a relatively new concept which came into being around the 1950's. Before that, family referred to parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, children, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. all living in the same house or at least on the same land. Every adult was involved in the raising of all of the children - not just the parents. There were multiple male and female role models.

Interestingly enough, when people started moving towards the "nuclear family", we heard the same cries of "destroying the family" and "think of the children!" we hear today regarding homosexual couples. In truth, I think those people actually had more of a point. Children do need more than one male and more than one female role model, and any parents - homosexual or herterosexual - who don't provide that are bad parents.

I agree with the people that did, and still do, argue that the 'American' traditional family should be more than just parents. Grand-parents etc., ARE a part of a healthy society.

I don't see how they were wrong? It could easily be argued that their warnings turned out to be true and that we ARE suffering from letting the 'traditional' family die. How is letting things go even further (allowing same-sex marriages and polygamy etc.,) going to improve things? It’s not.

The community, via the government, has a right to stop it and draw a line about what is, and what is not, marriage, for the sake of protecting itself.

The marriage benefits you mention, and especially the tax shelters and breaks, are benefits being given for household expenses of a ‘family.’ They exist entirely because it is ‘assumed’ and argued in the legislatures that the tax breaks should be give because the ‘family’ funds are being used to support and raise and pay for the next generation of tax-payers. You aren’t being rewarded for being ‘married’ you are being granted special acknowledgement for the fact that you are continuing the community with your hard earn cash and funds, that instead of buy luxury items and personal rewards (that would be taxed at a higher level), you are paying for medical bills, education expenses, household expenses and transportation, etc., etc., etc., for the rearing of children.

And before you say it, YES, I recognize that infertile couples and couples that choose not to have children are reaping the benefits of ‘marriage’ benefits unfairly. However, society has chosen to allow these loop-holes because they are not overly painful, yet. Society ‘should’ do more about rewarding ‘good’ parenting practices, i.e., encourage people to raise their children together by rewarding the behavior, because it is good for society. Rewarding child bearing is in the interest of society, rewarding ‘coupling’ outside of child rearing is irrelevant. Everyone should be individuals and there should be no marriage laws nor marriage benefits at all if children are removed from the equation.

Really? Let's look at the benefits I listed that are specifically to benefit child-rearing, shall we?

Those benefits include tax shelters and breaks, not being required to testify against your mate, being recognized as a spouse by insurance companies, being recognized as a spouse by hospitals, being recognized as next-of-kin, et al.

How is not being required to testify against your partner related to child-rearing? Insurance? Being recognized as a spouse by hospitals? Next-of-kin rights? You completely ignored the point.

Actually, the tax benefits for marriage recognize the creation of a single fiscal entity from two entities (and that this new entity does not really resemble the entities it was created from fiscally). It makes no assumptions about the use of your income or 'future tax-payers'. It is the same way that a corporation is treated as a single entity and not a collection of smaller entities (the owners). I believe you are referring to benefits related to dependents, and sometimes specifically children. Perhaps you can support your assertions that marriage benefits are related to children and not the union itself. Links? Sources? Anything?

Given what I said above, how does forcing them to remain individuals in the eye’s of the government harm them? If they are granted the right to join their financial identities, binding them together for inheritance, legal properties etc., what gain do they get from a ‘marriage license.’

You need a list. Fair enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriage

You get no next-of-kin benefits unless you are legally married. You can't file a wrongful death suit. In many situations you cannot visit your partner in a hospital. You are not permitted to make decisions for your parter in the event of a medical disaster. You have no rights relating to any children your partner does have. That's just a few.

Name what rights it denies you if they are permitted to have a marriage license.

You presuppose too much. Are women allowed to walk around topless? Do we have pornography, gambling, cigarette purchasing and liquor licenses rules? Of course society has the right to mandate a level of behavior. It always has and it always will. I freely admit that these lines move, where they are drawn is determined by the various communities. It’s not really the topic here though.

In some places, it is perfectly legal for women to walk around topless. New York City, for one. You chose another issue that violates individual rights. It violates the Constitution. If I can take my shirt off in public so can women.

19th amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

We have restrictions on pornography, cigarettes and liquor to protect minors (hardly comparable to denying rights to adults). Gambling laws are ridiculous, like drug laws, in that they violate the rights of the individual in order to 'protect them' while they can poison themselves with tobacco and alcohol that has been intentionally modified to be more addictive.

I compare ‘sexual’ desire. Harming others only proves my point that sexual desire ‘can’ be broken. Once we admit it might be broken, society has a right to regulate acceptable public behavior.

I can drive over a man with a car. However, until you can prove that I create some danger to others by driving, you have no right to deny me that 'privelege'. However, who and how I choose to love is not a privelege, it's a right. Rights are protected unless they harm others (like pedophelia or rape). Also, rape and pedophelia rarely have anything to do with sex and usually are more about power and control. Your examples are very poor and your goals by equating homosexuality with abuse are clear.

I’m not positioning my argument on what causes or does not cause homosexuality, it wasn’t a part of the thesis. The ‘cause’ is irrelevant. The argument I made is that society has a ‘right’ to reward family making behaviors via marriage laws that do no recognize non-child bearing activities.

Reward family making behaviors? Good. So gay couples should be allowed to adopt because this creates families? Well, we found some common ground there.

And now, you wouldn't just deny rights to homosexuals. You'd deny rights to my mother (she's past menopause - no babymaking for her). You'd deny rights to the infertile or infirm. No more elderly women and men getting together and remarrying after the death of their spouse, because they can't make a family. My aunt kept having miscarriages, maybe they should have taken away her marital rights as well. Society has no such recognized 'right' that I have ever heard of.

My argument isn’t for outlawing homosexuality, my argument is for societies ‘right’ to have and create laws that establish and benefit families and child rearing. Meaning, restricting pornography, outlawing prostitution, illegalizing narcotic drugs, forcing education requirements and mandating that marriage benefits are for a man and a woman marriages only. Thus, by default, restricting polygamy and homosexual relationships from marriage laws because they are a different topic, they aren’t related issues. Society would eliminate the marriage benefits in tax law (for example) IF there are no children involved. That’s why they have the benefits, because legislature recognize that raising children is expensive. If more than half the marriage couples aren’t producing children but they are reaping the benefits of marriage rewards, they are using ‘loop-holes’ they don’t deserve and the legislature will stop them, it only logical.

Again, can you show that this was EVER the intent of the law?

A Child-rearing society has every right to demand that same-sex unions be recognized as a financial bonding, different and with different expectations than marriage bonding, they serve two entirely different purposes as far as the community is concerned.
As far as YOU are concerned. I am part of the community and recognize the benefits of ALL unions between adults as beneficial to society so long as they are beneficial to the two people.

I agree with the people that did, and still do, argue that the 'American' traditional family should be more than just parents. Grand-parents etc., ARE a part of a healthy society.

I don't see how they were wrong? It could easily be argued that their warnings turned out to be true and that we ARE suffering from letting the 'traditional' family die. How is letting things go even further (allowing same-sex marriages and polygamy etc.,) going to improve things? It’s not.

The community, via the government, has a right to stop it and draw a line about what is, and what is not, marriage, for the sake of protecting itself.

You missed the point.

I do think that many are suffering from sticking to the idea that children need a single male and a single female role model and that is it. I think there is a problem when parents do not provide other role models for their children.

However, this can be done regardless of whether the parents are opposite or same-sexed. Other role models can be found in grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, family friends, etc. There is absolutely no reason that a homosexual couple cannot raise children just as well as a heterosexual couple, so long as they recognize that a child needs multiple role models.

On top of that, your assertion that marriage is based on children is blatantly false. At its beginning, marriage was little more than a way for a man to own a woman. Because the woman was not allowed to have a job and provide her own sustenance, he was to do it. The tax laws were modified to deal with two or more people living off of the wages of one. Inheritance laws, etc. were put in place to take care of a woman who was assumed to be incapable of taking care of herself. Over time, the laws have changed somewhat with a changing society. The protections now work both ways. Of course, these days, most families have at least two incomes -and the marriage tax brackets end up making them pay more taxes than they would if unmarried.

There are completely separate tax laws relating to children as dependents, which allow the breaks only if children are part of the family. These tax laws should apply equally, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Hmm. Doesn't sound like the anti-gay-marriage-protect-traditional-marriage side has much of a leg to stand on here.

Parents will be able to decide if their children will be Gay or not.


If that ever became true, I would make sure that at least one of my children was gay. Just to keep the 'gay gene' alive :D

Hmm. Doesn't sound like the anti-gay-marriage-protect-traditional-marriage side has much of a leg to stand on here.

Can we send them to you? :p

Hmm. Doesn't sound like the anti-gay-marriage-protect-traditional-marriage side has much of a leg to stand on here.
While I, on the other hand, have recently grown 3 more legs and terrrible claws of rending to go with them.

See, supporting gay marriage furthered evolution!

Can we send them to you? :p
Na...we got enough of those in Canada as it is:).

Actually, yes, society has a right to request that they resolve their financial bonding in some other fashion than marriage laws. See next answer for why.

Wrong.

Marriage is one of the most "basic civil rights of man," since at least 1888.

Under the Equal Protection Clause, you should no more be able to deny this right on the basis of gender than you do on the basis of race.

It is simply invidious discrimination.


The marriage benefits you mention, and especially the tax shelters and breaks, are benefits being given for household expenses of a ‘family.’ They exist entirely because it is ‘assumed’ and argued in the legislatures that the tax breaks should be give because the ‘family’ funds are being used to support and raise and pay for the next generation of tax-payers. You aren’t being rewarded for being ‘married’ you are being granted special acknowledgement for the fact that you are continuing the community with your hard earn cash and funds, that instead of buy luxury items and personal rewards (that would be taxed at a higher level), you are paying for medical bills, education expenses, household expenses and transportation, etc., etc., etc., for the rearing of children.

LOL. You have no clue what you are talking about.

According to the GAO, because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. This is in addition to the copious state rights, protections, and responsibilities automaticaly granted to married heterosexual couples.

Only some of these rights, protections, and responsibilities are financial and many have no relation to child-rearing whatsoever.

And before you say it, YES, I recognize that infertile couples and couples that choose not to have children are reaping the benefits of ‘marriage’ benefits unfairly. However, society has chosen to allow these loop-holes because they are not overly painful, yet. Society ‘should’ do more about rewarding ‘good’ parenting practices, i.e., encourage people to raise their children together by rewarding the behavior, because it is good for society. Rewarding child bearing is in the interest of society, rewarding ‘coupling’ outside of child rearing is irrelevant. Everyone should be individuals and there should be no marriage laws nor marriage benefits at all if children are removed from the equation.

Cute. In order to further your warped little agenda, you would deny everyone one of the most fundamental rights of man.

If it were not for the fact that you mean this only hypothetically, at least your totalitarian social engineering would be equally applied.

But, no, non-breeders are second-class citizens whom society merely tolerates. :rolleyes: Disgusting.

Given what I said above, how does forcing them to remain individuals in the eye’s of the government harm them? If they are granted the right to join their financial identities, binding them together for inheritance, legal properties etc., what gain do they get from a ‘marriage license.’

Separate but equal is not really equal. I thought we established that long ago.

You cannot deny a basic civil right to some on the grounds of their gender any more than you can deny it on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, disability, ethnicity, etc.

The harm is self-evident. Both to the victim of discrimination and the society that discriminates. That you would even suggest otherwise is baffling.

You presuppose too much. Are women allowed to walk around topless? Do we have pornography, gambling, cigarette purchasing and liquor licenses rules? Of course society has the right to mandate a level of behavior. It always has and it always will. I freely admit that these lines move, where they are drawn is determined by the various communities. It’s not really the topic here though.

Ahh, the classic Greenlander "I'm just saying there is a line somewhere argument."

Essentially a gussied-up slippery slope fallacy.

My argument isn’t for outlawing homosexuality, my argument is for societies ‘right’ to have and create laws that establish and benefit families and child rearing. Meaning, restricting pornography, outlawing prostitution, illegalizing narcotic drugs, forcing education requirements and mandating that marriage benefits are for a man and a woman marriages only. Thus, by default, restricting polygamy and homosexual relationships from marriage laws because they are a different topic, they aren’t related issues. Society would eliminate the marriage benefits in tax law (for example) IF there are no children involved. That’s why they have the benefits, because legislature recognize that raising children is expensive. If more than half the marriage couples aren’t producing children but they are reaping the benefits of marriage rewards, they are using ‘loop-holes’ they don’t deserve and the legislature will stop them, it only logical.

Beyond the fact that you are ignoring the fact we are dealing with a basic civil right and you are denying equal protection under the law, you keep assuming, but not proving that allowing same-gender marriage does anything whatsoever to harm different-gender marriages or child-rearing.

And, btw, same-gender couples can and do raise children. And the research is rather clear they do as well, if not better, at it than different-gender couples. You have again assumed, but not proven, otherwise.

What you call "logical" others call bizarre and sickening.

A Child-rearing society has every right to demand that same-sex unions be recognized as a financial bonding, different and with different expectations than marriage bonding, they serve two entirely different purposes as far as the community is concerned.

Meh. Begging the question.

Moreoever, as explained marriage is a fundamental right, as is equal protection under the law.

You have yet to point to any compelling state interest that requires the denial of same-gender marriages and, even if you did, your view is quite clearly not narrowly tailored to further your ends with the least discrimination necessary.

I agree with the people that did, and still do, argue that the 'American' traditional family should be more than just parents. Grand-parents etc., ARE a part of a healthy society.

I don't see how they were wrong? It could easily be argued that their warnings turned out to be true and that we ARE suffering from letting the 'traditional' family die. How is letting things go even further (allowing same-sex marriages and polygamy etc.,) going to improve things? It’s not.

The community, via the government, has a right to stop it and draw a line about what is, and what is not, marriage, for the sake of protecting itself.

I love how you pay lip-service to the fact that there is no such thing as the "traditional" family -- at least not as you define it -- by putting "traditional" in quotes, but then you argue as if such a thing really exists and is traditional.

Even your above quote is an attempt to squirm around the flaw in your concept of family. There never was this "norm" that you imply we are moving away from.

And, btw, same-gender couples can and do raise children. And the research is rather clear they do as well, if not better, at it than different-gender couples. You have again assumed, but not proven, otherwise.

I've seen same-gender couples raise children. They seem to be no better or worse than the traditional model.

Same-gender couples may also abuse each other and their children, just like the traditional parents may abuse each other and their children.

They're all humans - that's why. I can scarcely see why it should make a difference to a child, as long as they are raised in a loving and responsible environment.

I've seen same-gender couples raise children. They seem to be no better or worse than the traditional model.

Same-gender couples may also abuse each other and their children, just like the traditional parents may abuse each other and their children.

They're all humans - that's why. I can scarcely see why it should make a difference to a child, as long as they are raised in a loving and responsible environment.
And the cup of human kindness doth floweth over and drench me in the sweet mead of compassion....*snaps out of it*

Good job everyone...I only wish it would actually get through to these bigots.

Yes, I said BIGOTS. People who are intolerantly devoted to their own beliefs, despite the fact that the FACTS don't back them up. The fact that their beliefs are based on other beliefs (religious or otherwise) that also have no objective basis. The true definition of a BIGOT...why they bother to even discuss the issue when they are clearly unable to truly analyse their bigotry, or work to change it, is beyond me.

They're all humans - that's why. I can scarcely see why it should make a difference to a child, as long as they are raised in a loving and responsible environment.

You get a brownie! :D

That is what makes the differnce. I wish I could provide the source but I remember reading or hearing about these two gay fellows that adopt AID/HIV children. Nobody wants them so they try to give them a decent loving home for what life they have left.

You get a brownie! :D


Don't let anyone know you agree with me - they'll say you're a nutter...

Le Grand Snip

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."
Pope John Paul II, referring to same-sex marriage.

Wow. An impressive piece of persuasive writing to be sure, but still does not prove the bedrock you claim to lay it on. You say that the family unit is the warp to the woof of community in the fabric of society, and yet you fail to show how homosexuality or gay marriage actually disrupts the family. In fact it seems that gay marriage would help the family by opening up the family road to a whole new group of people.
You claim that the "traditional family" has been the bedrock of civilization and has allowed humanity to advance to where we are today, so I challenge you to explain the historical evidence. The ancient Greeks, who achieved, invented and thought up so much, were entirely tolerant of both homosexuality and infidelity. Prostitution was not only legal, but not seen as a vice. Free men(as like all ancient societies, slaves and women did not have the same rights) would often consort with both male and female prostitutes, while married. Greeks in general were entirely comfortable with the fact that it it natural for straigt individuals to have homosexual fantasies, and their society prospered under these values. One might remember the Sacred Band of Thebes - a group of fifty pairs of male lovers, were repsected warriors, and in general upright and prominent members of the Theban society. Homosexuality and infidelity aside, sex itself was a norm among the Greeks, not a sin or a vice. Two dieties were even extremely sexual in nature - Aphrodite and Dionysus. Yet, their families survived, their culture did not self-destruct. In fact, it spread across the Near East and into Rome. What you see today as a threat to family, was to them an acceptable part of society. Let me remind you again that the Greeks are, along with the Chinese, probably one of the most influential and important civilizations in human history.
Now, what about the Arabs, who kept alive classical civilization as Europe wallowed in the Dark Ages. In Arab culture, a man can have up to four wives if he can care for them. That does not at all fit into your one man one woman ideal of a traditonal family, yet again, this civilization spread from Spain to India, and prospered economically militarily and culturally while Europe, under strict Christain rule, wallowed in darkness.
Those are just two I know well, but there are more I am sure. There is no historical "traditional family." In every culture, family is a little different. Some cultures were/are more accepting, some more restrictive, but no one definition fueled civilization, and no definition(save the extreme Christian Shakers, perhaps) has ever destroyed a civilization.

It will not destroy society to allow Gays and Lesbians the same rights. It is honestly, just silly to think so. If you beleive homosexuality is a sin, go ahead and don't be gay. But don't claim history supports you, or that civilization will collapse because of this. I'm still waiting on the collapse of the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada. Oh, and Massachusets and Vermont too. Besides, the most likely threat to civilization is Peak Oil (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/), not gayness.

Oh and I used to love JPII, until that damn quote. Yes... human rights are the devil's work, and Goody Proctor is a Witch!!!

Religion is much more unnatural than Homosexuality. We should make a constitutional amendment to ban teaching children religion, until they are eighteen. Then we can talk about unnatural homosexuality.

Wow. An impressive piece of persuasive writing to be sure, but still does not prove the bedrock you claim to lay it on. You say that the family unit is the warp to the woof of community in the fabric of society, and yet you fail to show how homosexuality or gay marriage actually disrupts the family. In fact it seems that gay marriage would help the family by opening up the family road to a whole new group of people.
You claim that the "traditional family" has been the bedrock of civilization and has allowed humanity to advance to where we are today, so I challenge you to explain the historical evidence. The ancient Greeks, who achieved, invented and thought up so much, were entirely tolerant of both homosexuality and infidelity. Prostitution was not only legal, but not seen as a vice. Free men(as like all ancient societies, slaves and women did not have the same rights) would often consort with both male and female prostitutes, while married. Greeks in general were entirely comfortable with the fact that it it natural for straigt individuals to have homosexual fantasies, and their society prospered under these values. One might remember the Sacred Band of Thebes - a group of fifty pairs of male lovers, were repsected warriors, and in general upright and prominent members of the Theban society. Homosexuality and infidelity aside, sex itself was a norm among the Greeks, not a sin or a vice. Two dieties were even extremely sexual in nature - Aphrodite and Dionysus. Yet, their families survived, their culture did not self-destruct. In fact, it spread across the Near East and into Rome. What you see today as a threat to family, was to them an acceptable part of society. Let me remind you again that the Greeks are, along with the Chinese, probably one of the most influential and important civilizations in human history.
Now, what about the Arabs, who kept alive classical civilization as Europe wallowed in the Dark Ages. In Arab culture, a man can have up to four wives if he can care for them. That does not at all fit into your one man one woman ideal of a traditonal family, yet again, this civilization spread from Spain to India, and prospered economically militarily and culturally while Europe, under strict Christain rule, wallowed in darkness.
Those are just two I know well, but there are more I am sure. There is no historical "traditional family." In every culture, family is a little different. Some cultures were/are more accepting, some more restrictive, but no one definition fueled civilization, and no definition(save the extreme Christian Shakers, perhaps) has ever destroyed a civilization.

It will not destroy society to allow Gays and Lesbians the same rights. It is honestly, just silly to think so. If you beleive homosexuality is a sin, go ahead and don't be gay. But don't claim history supports you, or that civilization will collapse because of this. I'm still waiting on the collapse of the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada. Oh, and Massachusets and Vermont too. Besides, the most likely threat to civilization is Peak Oil (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/), not gayness.

Oh and I used to love JPII, until that damn quote. Yes... human rights are the devil's work, and Goody Proctor is a Witch!!!

Goody proctor is a witch!

I've been asked for statistics...That show how children grow up differently in same-sex parent households v. heterosexual households

http://banap.net/article.php3?id_article=8

The optimal environment for raising a child is one in which the child's mother and father are married to each other. Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest and is never compassionate. But this is what every same-sex family does for the sole purpose of fulfilling adult desire. On average, when compared with children raised by both parents, children deprived of mothers or fathers fare worse in virtually every measure of well-being. The sparse research regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in well-being to those in single-parent households. In addition, children raised by homosexuals are significantly more likely to develop a homosexual orientation themselves.

Men and women are distinctly different. Each gender brings vitally important ~ and unique - elements to a child's development. Thousands of academic studies reveal that the presence of a father in the home increases children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health. Our hearts and a wealth of research tell us of the power and importance of the mother-child bond.


(p.s., mind you, this has, predictably to be sure, turned into same-sex marriage discussion only, but really, I'm advocating for harder to achieve divorces and more restrictions on public morality laws, more restrictions on pornography and prostitution and child consent laws, I'm advocating against the general trend towards less and less rules overall, not just against same-sex marriages)

Hey...family defense people! Come take a look at the Polygamy/Polyandry thread! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430131)

*snip*
Look. Of course children raised in single families or in homosexual pairings are going to be 'weird'. Because society looks down on them and treat these children and families like dirt. Just like you could have proven kids in interracial relationships would have been more screwed up fifty years ago than those with single-race parents. Because people were bigots, openly racist, and loved spewing their hatred into the faces of those who didn't fit into their 'societal norms'. So guess what? The problem is not the homosexuals, or the single parents...it's the bigots out there that think this sort of thing is somehow WRONG. Get over it. Don't marry a gay man. Don't get divorced...but don't think you can force others to 'be like Mike' just because you think you know what is best for everyone.

And that is the fundamental difference on our positions. You want to take choice away, and we want people to HAVE choice. No one will ever force you to marry multiple wives, or a gay person, or get divorced...but should those be things you need or desire, the options are there for you. (well, not for the multiple wives thing yet...just wait for that:))

I've been asked for statistics...That show how children grow up differently in same-sex parent households v. heterosexual households

http://banap.net/article.php3?id_article=8

The optimal environment for raising a child is one in which the child's mother and father are married to each other. Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest and is never compassionate. But this is what every same-sex family does for the sole purpose of fulfilling adult desire. On average, when compared with children raised by both parents, children deprived of mothers or fathers fare worse in virtually every measure of well-being. The sparse research regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in well-being to those in single-parent households. In addition, children raised by homosexuals are significantly more likely to develop a homosexual orientation themselves.

Men and women are distinctly different. Each gender brings vitally important ~ and unique - elements to a child's development. Thousands of academic studies reveal that the presence of a father in the home increases children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health. Our hearts and a wealth of research tell us of the power and importance of the mother-child bond.


(p.s., mind you, this has, predictably to be sure, turned into same-sex marriage discussion only, but really, I'm advocating for harder to achieve divorces and more restrictions on public morality laws, more restrictions on pornography and prostitution and child consent laws, I'm advocating against the general trend towards less and less rules overall, not just against same-sex marriages)

I love how you post a source claiming that it backs your claim. It does no such thing. It attempts to debunk studies that support the claim the children fare equally well in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. It gives no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that children do better in heterosexual marriages. Also your source is a little more than biased. I suspect you wouldn't trust a source where the website was called "Gays and Lesbians for Same-Sex Marriage". In fact, your source suggests that if you believe in same-sex marriage that it makes your results automatically suspect.

trollbait-bait

The ancient Greeks, who achieved, invented and thought up so much, were entirely tolerant of both homosexuality and infidelity. Prostitution was not only legal, but not seen as a vice. Free men(as like all ancient societies, slaves and women did not have the same rights) would often consort with both male and female prostitutes, while married. Greeks in general were entirely comfortable with the fact that it it natural for straigt individuals to have homosexual fantasies, and their society prospered under these values. One might remember the Sacred Band of Thebes - a group of fifty pairs of male lovers, were repsected warriors, and in general upright and prominent members of the Theban society. Homosexuality and infidelity aside, sex itself was a norm among the Greeks, not a sin or a vice. Two dieties were even extremely sexual in nature - Aphrodite and Dionysus. Yet, their families survived, their culture did not self-destruct. In fact, it spread across the Near East and into Rome. What you see today as a threat to family, was to them an acceptable part of society. Let me remind you again that the Greeks are, along with the Chinese, probably one of the most influential and important civilizations in human history.

The Greeks were the Greeks worst enemies. The Greeks were, segregates, they believed ‘might-makes-right’ they believed in fortune telling by disemboweling sheep. They believed in lots of things, but even they did not have same-sex marriages and they believed that both sexes were role models for raising children and they believed that the family unit was paramount to community and society.


Now, what about the Arabs, who kept alive classical civilization as Europe wallowed in the Dark Ages. In Arab culture, a man can have up to four wives if he can care for them. That does not at all fit into your one man one woman ideal of a traditonal family, yet again, this civilization spread from Spain to India, and prospered economically militarily and culturally while Europe, under strict Christain rule, wallowed in darkness.

I am not a Muslim, but I have read the Qur’an and the Islamic fundamentalisms. Having multiple wives is allowed, as you say, but a ‘financial’ ability and equal distribution for the four families is vital. If one wife receives more financial resources than another, or has a better house, or better food or clothes etc., she can ‘sue’ her husband for equal treatment. Societal dependant (Arab, Asian, European and African Islamic societies differ to some degrees) the rules for punishing a bad provider differ but do exist. The argument that the very rich can afford multiple wives could be made, but divorce laws and inheritance laws and property division would not be solved just because there was a lot of property to be divided between 1 wife leaving 1 husband who had 3 other wives… It is best to not legalize polygamy, but to punish those that try.

They believed in lots of things, but even they did not have same-sex marriages and they believed that both sexes were role models for raising children and they believed that the family unit was paramount to community and society.


Yes, but if you read your ancient-greek history and philosophy then marriage in their society served no other purpose than to produce children. Most men in ancient Greece married a woman to have children, and shared eros with their male lovers.

This debate (like so many others here) is simply about how you define morality.

If you accept the Christian bible as the authority on morality - then one man, one woman seems to be the thinking.

If you accept the Quran - then perhaps multiple wives is cool.

If, like me, you accept no moral code as "divine" - then you should be free to express your urges as you see fit.

A moral code does not have to apply to a whole nation or society in order for that society to function (even at a high level). Diversity, in all things, is great.

To boil it down - don't tell me how to live - I won't tell you how to live - and we'll all get along great.

I've been asked for statistics...That show how children grow up differently in same-sex parent households v. heterosexual households

http://banap.net/article.php3?id_article=8

<snip>

That's not a very helpful link. First it doesn't actually present any statistics or statistical results. Second, it's to a web-site that looks, from a cursory skim, pretty hostile generally to homosexuality. Let's leave these to one side for now.

What the article does do is challenge various studies of same-sex parenting. Nothing wrong with that as such, though there's not really enough detail to know whether reporting bias is a factor here or not. However, that doesn't support your case, which remains based on unsubstantiated assertions. All the article does, at best, is undermine the scientific basis of the opposing case, and that only holds only if the site is a reliable source. To me it smacks of creationists making their case solely on the basis of attacking the details of evolutionary theory. Me, I'd take it with some salt.

The only positive results I can see reported in the article are variations on the following:

“What is possible, given the collective limitations of these three studies, is to conclude that there appears to be some significant differences between children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers in their family relationships, gender identity, and gender behavior.” (Belcastro et al. “A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children’s Sexual and Social Functioning.” p.119.)

Well, d'uh! Damn, I wish I had the front to ask for research money to find such earth-shattering conclusions!

Most importantly, what none of the reported results establish is why this effect should be considered a bad thing.

Edit:
Beaten to it by Jocabia. Meh, I've done the typing, I'll leave the post.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

The tag line "Defending Family, Faith, and Freedom" doesn't fill me with confidence. You can't really claim that any of this is objective evidence.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

Another clearly biased source.

Peer-reviewed scientific sources would be much better.

*Waits*

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3


Ewww somebody with a PhD in Religion talking about Psychology and the fact the studies were flawed. :rolleyes:

Never mind the fact FRC wouldn't have an agenda now would they?

Ewww somebody with a PhD in Religion talking about Psychology and the fact the studies were flawed. :rolleyes:

Never mind the fact FRC wouldn't have an agenda now would they?

Not to mention that the author - one Timothy J. Dailey - can't tell the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.

edit: found that out through a quick google

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

The Family Research Council (FRC) is a right-wing Christian non-profit lobbying organization, formed in the USA by James Dobson in 1981 and incorporated 1983. The group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of Dobson's main organization Focus on the Family, but in 1992 IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation. Is function is to promote what it considers to be traditional family values. The current president is Tony Perkins.
The FRC has been publicly involved in promoting socially conservative views on many issues, including divorce, homosexuality, and abortion.

Ah yes...the infamous FRC...the ones who said Sponge Bob Square Pants was a gay icon, corrupting the minds of the young...

The truth is that it's difficult to find any statistics on homosexuality at all which aren't from an obviously biased source.

Not to mention that the author - one Timothy J. Dailey - can't tell the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.

edit: found that out through a quick google
And some info about their leader, Tony Perkins:

Perkins' problems with race, while disgusting, are just the tip of the iceberg. This is the same religious-right leader who, among other things:

* blamed MTV for the Abu Ghraib scandal

* compared Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation of church and state to the communists' Berlin Wall

* believes federal judges who disagree with him pose "a greater threat to representative government" than "terrorist groups"

...the ones who said Sponge Bob Square Pants was a gay icon, corrupting the minds of the young...

Woo-hoo! Go Spongebob!

...So I'm guessing it's okay to grave-dig your own threads, then...

The truth is that it's difficult to find any statistics on homosexuality at all which aren't from an obviously biased source.
Absolutely. On both sides. This can never be a truly objective issue. Just as race can not be. Yet we allow interracial marriages, and things seem to be working fine...

The truth is that it's difficult to find any statistics on homosexuality at all which aren't from an obviously biased source.

Now that's the truth... All of it seems to be tainted by either one side or the other.

Someone called for peer review... okay, in this field, what does that mean?

:p


http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html

I've been asked for statistics...That show how children grow up differently in same-sex parent households v. heterosexual households

http://banap.net/article.php3?id_article=8

1. Sorry no statistics reported in that article.

2. Third-hand reporting from a highly biased source. Couldn't find anything better, huh?

The optimal environment for raising a child is one in which the child's mother and father are married to each other. Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest and is never compassionate. But this is what every same-sex family does for the sole purpose of fulfilling adult desire. On average, when compared with children raised by both parents, children deprived of mothers or fathers fare worse in virtually every measure of well-being. The sparse research regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in well-being to those in single-parent households. In addition, children raised by homosexuals are significantly more likely to develop a homosexual orientation themselves.

Men and women are distinctly different. Each gender brings vitally important ~ and unique - elements to a child's development. Thousands of academic studies reveal that the presence of a father in the home increases children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health. Our hearts and a wealth of research tell us of the power and importance of the mother-child bond.

Too bad you couldn't find any of this "research" to actually. Even your pathetic source doesn't actually say any of this garbage. Nor is half of what you are talking about a legitimate comparison between families with two parents.


(p.s., mind you, this has, predictably to be sure, turned into same-sex marriage discussion only, but really, I'm advocating for harder to achieve divorces and more restrictions on public morality laws, more restrictions on pornography and prostitution and child consent laws, I'm advocating against the general trend towards less and less rules overall, not just against same-sex marriages)

Um, you started it about same-sex marriage -- remember the express call for the marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Which, btw, you have actually inadvertently argued against in suggesting the recognition of civil unions with some of the legal benefits of marriage. Your precious amendment expressly forbids such a thing.)

As to your other authoritarian tendencies, they are also erroneous. You have yet to show divorce is worse than forcing couples to stay together. You haven't shown anything relevant about pornography or prostitution (which is generally illegal already. I have no idea what "child consent laws" you are babbling about.

No, just because it wasn't written by an american, it still doesn't count.

In this field peer review means exactly the same as in any other scientific discipline. The paper is reviewed by the peers of the author who have something to contribute, it is then revised and revised again untill the majority accept it or it dies.

Now that's the truth... All of it seems to be tainted by either one side or the other.

Someone called for peer review... okay, in this field, what does that mean?

:p


http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html

Well, that settles it. You are incapable of finding an even remotely reliable or vaguely unbiased source.

And, given that you don't understand what peer-review is, you aren't going to produce any peer-reviewed research.

Typical.

No, just because it wasn't written by an american, it still doesn't count.

In this field peer review means exactly the same as in any other scientific discipline. The paper is reviewed by the peers of the author who have something to contribute, it is then revised and revised again untill the majority accept it or it dies.

That won't work in his FRC example. The authors peers would be theologians so what would they say? :p

No, just because it wasn't written by an american, it still doesn't count.

In this field peer review means exactly the same as in any other scientific discipline. The paper is reviewed by the peers of the author who have something to contribute, it is then revised and revised again untill the majority accept it or it dies.

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

January 22, 2004
American College of Pediatricians

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

Ok to everyone here this is what i think.

Family=Dad+Mum+Child+
Just a simple equation is what a family is, children what a father and a mother, they don't want two dadies or two mumies. Spain and Canada have become far tooooooooo liberalised, that's not how it works. Mankind has reproduced his species by uniting males with females, this is not a tradition, it is a fact of life that has survived through the ages, it survived modernism (the 60s) and it will not die. man and woman become one "flesh" to create another Flesh (children). Same sex marriages are an insult to life (and i'm not a catholic, i'm an atheist), so is stem cell research and on this topics most religons are right, ver right indeed, we cannot play with life. How can two men or two women reproduce? it is impossible. These Community say that their Human rights are being violated by not allowing them to marry and adopt children, but are the rights of the child not being violated? the child is human too. if there are any members form the homosexual community please forgive me, i am not a homophobic and i don't have anything against homosexual people, but on this issue i have to say they have got it all twisted. Modernity is really shocking me, there will be more to come like designer babies.

These are not peer-reviewed, but at least they are more reliable and more actually substantive than the garbage we've seen so far.

Do kids raised by lesbians turn out different? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/stacey3.php)
Does It Make a Difference Whether Children Have Gay or Straight Parents? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/stacey2.php)
Gay and Lesbian Families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/fact3.php)
Growing up with gay parents (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change45.htm)

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

January 22, 2004
American College of Pediatricians

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

Paedeatrics strictly speaking isn't a science and doesn't have full peer review, but it'll do.

The statistics quoted in that article may be true for the US (if they are I'm worried) but certainly not for the UK.

If you take the stats for all self-identified homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians in the UK (age 11 up, not only couples, not only with children in the house, including those living with parents) then you get close. I'm guessing that there won't be that much variation in proportions accross the western world, so it doesn't look like a terribly accurate study.

Oh wait, it's not a study but a policy document.

And the conclusion is:

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

So in other words, they don't know but they're playing it safe.

Good attempt, but I don't think that one amounts to too much either.

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

January 22, 2004
American College of Pediatricians

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

Nice try.

Lest anyone be fooled the "American College of Pediatrics" is a rogue organization founded in 2002 specifically for the purpose of advocating for "the inherent value of both a father and a mother, united in marriage, rearing the child."

The above quotation is statement of purpose, not a scientific statement.

It is not the mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics, which denounces this view.

The ones I link to taints you say, but your side is innocent of all shams? The links I posted claimed to discredited the very studies your links report... LOL :rolleyes:

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

January 22, 2004
American College of Pediatricians

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

Ewww yet another conservative group. That's probably religious as well. Hmm for a bunch of pediatricians they don't seem to have a stand on medical issues. Primarily "moral" issues.

Nice try. You might try

The American Academy of Pediatrics
http://www.aap.org/

They have been doing it for 75 years vs your group which was founded what a year ago.

Ok to everyone here this is what i think.

Family=Dad+Mum+Child+
Just a simple equation is what a family is, children what a father and a mother, they don't want two dadies or two mumies. Spain and Canada have become far tooooooooo liberalised, that's not how it works. Mankind has reproduced his species by uniting males with females, this is not a tradition, it is a fact of life that has survived through the ages, it survived modernism (the 60s) and it will not die. man and woman become one "flesh" to create another Flesh (children). Same sex marriages are an insult to life (and i'm not a catholic, i'm an atheist), so is stem cell research and on this topics most religons are right, ver right indeed, we cannot play with life. How can two men or two women reproduce? it is impossible. These Community say that their Human rights are being violated by not allowing them to marry and adopt children, but are the rights of the child not being violated? the child is human too. if there are any members form the homosexual community please forgive me, i am not a homophobic and i don't have anything against homosexual people, but on this issue i have to say they have got it all twisted. Modernity is really shocking me, there will be more to come like designer babies.

You're forgiven.

Regardless of what you may consider preferable, isn't it better for a child who is up for adoption to place him or her into any home where they will be loved an appreciated (even with a same-sex couple), than not at all?

Oh, and it's not impossible for two men to have a child that is genetically decended from both, just difficult and the technology isn't yet legal.

Lest anyone be fooled the "American College of Pediatrics" is a rogue organization founded in 2002 specifically for the purpose of advocating for "the inherent value of both a father and a mother, united in marriage, rearing the child."

They are? I actually read that page, it definately hedges it's bets.

Worrying when even the conservatives won't commit to being nasty.

Nice try.

Lest anyone be fooled the "American College of Pediatrics" is a rogue organization founded in 2002 specifically for the purpose of advocating for "the inherent value of both a father and a mother, united in marriage, rearing the child."

The above quotation is statement of purpose, not a scientific statement.

It is not the mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics, which denounces this view.

Yup they are funny.

1. Recognizes that there are absolutes and scientific truths that transcend relative social considerations of the day.

2. Recognizes that good medical science cannot exist in a moral vacuum and pledges to promote such science.

3. Recognizes the fundamental mother-father family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for the development and nurturing of children and pledges to promote this unit.

4. Recognizes the unique value of every human life from the time of conception to natural death and pledges to promote research and clinical practice that provides for the healthiest outcome of the child from conception to adulthood.

5. Recognizes the essential role parents play in encouraging and correcting the child and pledges to protect and promote this role.

6. Recognizes the physical and emotional benefits of sexual abstinence until marriage and pledges to promote this behavior as the ideal for adolescence.

7. Recognizes that health professionals caring for children must maintain high ethical and scientific standards and pledges to promote such practice.

8. Recognizes the vital role the College has in promoting quality education for parents, physicians, and other health professionals.

-----

Nah they wouldn't make up things now would they?

Ok to everyone here this is what i think.

Family=Dad+Mum+Child+
Just a simple equation is what a family is, children what a father and a mother, they don't want two dadies or two mumies. Spain and Canada have become far tooooooooo liberalised, that's not how it works. Mankind has reproduced his species by uniting males with females, this is not a tradition, it is a fact of life that has survived through the ages, it survived modernism (the 60s) and it will not die. man and woman become one "flesh" to create another Flesh (children).
Once we get further along in our research, it may be entirely possible for two individuals of the same sex to breed together and create a child. I believe I read somewhere about doing this with two egg cells, but I cannot seem to find it. Perhaps someone else has more information on this subject than do I?
Same sex marriages are an insult to life (and i'm not a catholic, i'm an atheist),
Marriage is not all about children.
so is stem cell research and on this topics most religons are right, ver right indeed, we cannot play with life.
Why not?
From my point of view, 'playing with life' would be one of the highest callings in science! At least, if I am interpreting your term correctly.
I don't see how improving the human condition through biotechnology is so wrong and perverse.
How can two men or two women reproduce? it is impossible.
Now, but perhaps not later.
These Community say that their Human rights are being violated by not allowing them to marry and adopt children, but are the rights of the child not being violated? the child is human too.
Well, if the parents love the child and care for it well, what makes it such a bg deal whether they are gay or straight?
Modernity is really shocking me, there will be more to come like designer babies.
I, personally, can't wait til this 'more' comes. But that's just me.

The ones I link to taints you say, but your side is innocent of all shams? The links I posted claimed to discredited the very studies your links report... LOL :rolleyes:


Well you see your links "research" is probably based on the fact they define an answer and then go about proving it.

Ok to everyone here this is what i think.

Family=Dad+Mum+Child+
Just a simple equation is what a family is, children what a father and a mother, they don't want two dadies or two mumies. Spain and Canada have become far tooooooooo liberalised, that's not how it works. Mankind has reproduced his species by uniting males with females, this is not a tradition, it is a fact of life that has survived through the ages, it survived modernism (the 60s) and it will not die. man and woman become one "flesh" to create another Flesh (children). Same sex marriages are an insult to life (and i'm not a catholic, i'm an atheist), so is stem cell research and on this topics most religons are right, ver right indeed, we cannot play with life. How can two men or two women reproduce? it is impossible. These Community say that their Human rights are being violated by not allowing them to marry and adopt children, but are the rights of the child not being violated? the child is human too. if there are any members form the homosexual community please forgive me, i am not a homophobic and i don't have anything against homosexual people, but on this issue i have to say they have got it all twisted. Modernity is really shocking me, there will be more to come like designer babies.

Ah, and the "Family" which you describe is always functional... spouses don't beat each other, don't cheat on each other, don't get divorced every year only to be married ten more times. OF COURSE. Such "Functional" families are far less disturbing to children than have two same-sex parents whom love them and cherish their existance.

Want to know the only reason why children may be disturbed because they have homosexual parent(s)? Because of bigotted idiots who can't deal with diversity ragging on them because of their parents choice.

Contrary to popular belief, homosexual are perfectly capable of raising perfectly normal and functional children.

But then why is it that disfunctional families are allowed to adopt? Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does. We should ban all adoption, because you know what: We need to have the Children in mind. It's possible for any family to have skeletons in the closet, and this may be harmful to the children! BAN ADOPTIONS! It's the only logical step.

Bullocks. Pure and utter bullocks.

... they define an answer and then go about proving it.

Well, you have to admit that it's an inventive approach. Not terribly scientific, but definitely inventive.

A couple of reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Don't know how much of this you guys'll be able to access, but you should at least be able to get the abstracts.

http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw2/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8c4cb0e1de3812889037c2ea939efbf114b3ae0920d30080ce629a6012c1feae148cdc 56e3e1de3a067ced167536c166fb8e804669b8aae4e9b543ae0da78ed8342b8a97be75cf9c0bee1e28bad8064a5bdf176a97 91e0de01f9b5586948009390613de2cf001d1506aad9882a4a4597bfe07353be48a592f25d53b1f5874d3df58982c476268a 0258aee37df094dd014376ad687d79a7b5ce7a3d7c53086c07567ad9736ba2e5e9827551babebe1eeaa2b8840c70bfe136df 446cc105ea719a973cfb71c7adfe5aa89f200571e8b6691820dc305b2d5ea4dd9fa4c17608431c03c5d55d3b3261dd3f

http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw2/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8ceddfcafb50d60f1111beab897ae921f41465ecedd8b0238d48ff01cb2157a0889448 3adc40228b2be429cb0c0d9f9046389bd6d2134de1cba2d451a4727e300b5ced66f191ac8042baf394e8a277595c71d93557 fb0c0a0048f562efaeb1177aa8ddec095d518fe7258d03392c6fcf942a869ba2b0325050ee7902d9a241e758bac5db011223 5a3647fd4423de60bd320504d3afaab5a2de0f4d2368f276f4a5d100341c438fb6b592de4fa51dd193cd56ad8aae99342a10 b6650e5f82097c23523ef4f2f6cf985b1ced43f0e24ef913e59c75f59379f87ff1511613349334f4

A statement by the American Academy of Parents on the need for both parents in a homosexual relationship to be legally recognized:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/109/2/339?ijkey=fcc8e4af35c3ab787a923e39e810dcbe4faf180d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

A couple of reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Don't know how much of this you guys'll be able to access, but you should at least be able to get the abstracts.

http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw2/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8c4cb0e1de3812889037c2ea939efbf114b3ae0920d30080ce629a6012c1feae148cdc 56e3e1de3a067ced167536c166fb8e804669b8aae4e9b543ae0da78ed8342b8a97be75cf9c0bee1e28bad8064a5bdf176a97 91e0de01f9b5586948009390613de2cf001d1506aad9882a4a4597bfe07353be48a592f25d53b1f5874d3df58982c476268a 0258aee37df094dd014376ad687d79a7b5ce7a3d7c53086c07567ad9736ba2e5e9827551babebe1eeaa2b8840c70bfe136df 446cc105ea719a973cfb71c7adfe5aa89f200571e8b6691820dc305b2d5ea4dd9fa4c17608431c03c5d55d3b3261dd3f

http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw2/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8ceddfcafb50d60f1111beab897ae921f41465ecedd8b0238d48ff01cb2157a0889448 3adc40228b2be429cb0c0d9f9046389bd6d2134de1cba2d451a4727e300b5ced66f191ac8042baf394e8a277595c71d93557 fb0c0a0048f562efaeb1177aa8ddec095d518fe7258d03392c6fcf942a869ba2b0325050ee7902d9a241e758bac5db011223 5a3647fd4423de60bd320504d3afaab5a2de0f4d2368f276f4a5d100341c438fb6b592de4fa51dd193cd56ad8aae99342a10 b6650e5f82097c23523ef4f2f6cf985b1ced43f0e24ef913e59c75f59379f87ff1511613349334f4

A statement by the American Academy of Parents on the need for both parents in a homosexual relationship to be legally recognized:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/109/2/339?ijkey=fcc8e4af35c3ab787a923e39e810dcbe4faf180d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Can't get at any of it. Can you summarise for us?

Once we get further along in our research, it may be entirely possible for two individuals of the same sex to breed together and create a child. I believe I read somewhere about doing this with two egg cells, but I cannot seem to find it. Perhaps someone else has more information on this subject than do I?

Last I heard, this had been done in lower-order animals with egg cells. Mice, I believe, were the closest to humans that had yet been accomplished. However, even in mice, the process is very, very inefficient.

Some have attempted it with sperm as well, but that has yielded even less results.

I, personally, can't wait til this 'more' comes. But that's just me.

Are you honestly in favor of "designer babies"?

School Performance — Academic Outcomes
Language Skills
In language skills, “the average score of the children of homosexual couples in all items of assessment was lower than the average of the children of the other two groups, and it was more pronounced in the areas of verbal skills, vocabulary and composition” (Sarantakos, p. 24). On a 9 point scale the children of marrieds scored 7.7, the children of cohabiting heterosexuals 6.8, and the children of homosexuals 5.5.

Mathematics
In mathematics “the children of homosexual couples in the area of problem solving was satisfactory (6.9), their score in basic mathematical skills was 5.6 (which is below the average score of all students of 7.1); and their ability in doing operations was lower still, their score being 4.9, while the average score of all students was 6.5” (p. 25). As with language skills, the overall scores were 7.9, 7.0, and 5.5 respectively.

Social Studies
In social studies, the children “of homosexual couples tend to perform slightly better than the children of the other two groups. The teachers reported that their interest in social issues and their involvement in projects related to social studies were very strong, their knowledge and comprehension of relevant issues above average, and the quality of their work relatively high... their average scores [were] 7.6, 7.3, and 7.0 for the children of homosexual couples, married couples and cohabiting couples respectively.... the differences between the scores of the three groups of children are not as pronounced as in previous measures” (p. 25).

Assessment: Two of three academic measures substantially favored the married couples’ children over the children of homosexuals. One of the three — social studies — less strongly favored homosexuals’ children. This portion of the Sarantakos evidence lends support to the notion that there is an important social difference between homosexuals’ children and more conventionally reared children.

School Performance — Other Sport
The interest and involvement in sport activities... with the children of heterosexual cohabiting couples following closely the children of married couples, and with children of homosexual couples far behind [scores were 8.9, 8.3, & 5.9 respectively].... children of homosexual couples did not express an interest in group sport to the same degree as other children; secondly, because of their ‘rather passive’ orientation to sport; and, thirdly, because of the type of sport interests they chose to pursue — when they did so.... the teachers added that many children avoided involvement in group activities of any kind, including group work in class and project work in teams, preferring to work alone; they were considered by their teachers to be ‘introverts’ and ‘loners.’ Experiences in their personal and family life were thought to have motivated them to avoid working with and relying on others, and to mistrust other children — in the case of children of lesbians, males in particular (p. 25).
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html


I fail to see how making a bunch of links to studys that the other side are not going to accept are going to prove anything useful.

My thesis still stands, a proposition for laws favoring family and children and a warning against what will happen if the proposition is ignored.

I'm being entirely fair I believe.

Last I heard, this had been done in lower-order animals with egg cells. Mice, I believe, were the closest to humans that had yet been accomplished. However, even in mice, the process is very, very inefficient.

Some have attempted it with sperm as well, but that has yielded even less results.

Are you honestly in favor of "designer babies"?

They transplanted the nucleus from a X-bearing sperm into an egg and then fertilised it with sperm from another mouse. Zygote not viable because of something to do with the mitchondrial DNA, but there's been research since which managed to create a whole egg from one male and fertilise it with sperm from another successfully.

Designer Babies as in genetically enhanced- no.

Designer babies as in biologically engineered by a process like making an egg from my dna and then fertilising it using my partners sperm so that we can have a baby - yes.

Can't get at any of it. Can you summarise for us?

Ok, I'll quote the abstracts.

Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review.
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005 Jun;26(3):224-40.

There is a variety of families headed by a lesbian or gay male parent or same-sex couple. Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families. Some special considerations apply to the context of lesbian and gay parenting: variation in family forms, children's awareness of lesbian and gay relationships, heterosexism, and homophobia. These issues have important implications for managing clinical work with children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers.

Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;17(3):309-12.
Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development.

URPOSE OF REVIEW: Same sex couples are steadily becoming more open about their relationships. One consequence of this growing openness is that more couples of the same sex are choosing to have children and infertility treatment centers are increasingly faced with requests for assistance in creating these families. The aim of this review is to address new trends in reproduction in same sex couples, to consider the quality of parenting in lesbian mother and gay father households, and to review the literature on the development of children raised by same sex couples. RECENT FINDINGS: The current literature on these families is limited by small sample sizes and a predominance of studies of lesbian mothers and their children, with few studies of gay fathers and their children. A recent study of adolescents living with same sex parents recruited from a large national sample supports the notion that adolescents raised by same sex couples are doing well psychologically and are not more likely to be homosexual. The authors concluded that it was the quality of parenting, not parental sexual orientation that accounted for developmental differences. SUMMARY: The literature supports the notion that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not more likely to become homosexual and are not measurably different from children raised by heterosexual parents in terms of personality development, psychological development, and gender identity. Larger longitudinal studies of same sex parents, particularly gay men, are needed, including those who choose to become parents through the use of assisted reproduction.

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.

Note: These are just the first few I pulled off of a pubmed search. In other words, Green - they are peer-reviewed journal references.

As you persist in perpetuating this myth, let us debunk it:

In Search Of A Golden Age: A look at families throughout U.S. history reveals there has never been an "ideal form" (http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/Coontz.htm)
Does the American Family Have a History? Family Images and Realities (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/mintz1.php)
Marriage a Malleable Institution Throughout History (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4426.html)
Conservative moralists, alarmed by the divorce rate, want us to return to a Golden Age of Marriage. Too bad it never existed. (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change31.htm)
How We Live and How We Used to Live -- Myths and Misconceptions
about America's Changing Families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/education.php#howwelive)
Social and Cultural History of Marriage (http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html)
Did Cradles Always Rock? Or Did Mom Once Not Care? (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change13.htm)
On Marriage in "Recorded History" (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html)
Nostalgia as Ideology (http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/7/coontz-s.html)
The Nuclear Family Takes a Hit: Census data deals a blow to an American icon -- and the conservative groups that promote it (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change4.htm)
The History of Marriage as an Institution (http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html)
A Brief History of Marriage (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsactivism/fean-041011-marriage.xml)

And you should read this:
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation (http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html)

I fail to see how making a bunch of links to studys that the other side are not going to accept are going to prove anything useful.

The problem is that you haven't linked any studies. Studies would be good. Then, we could look at their methods as would any peer-reviewer.

However, all you have actually linked are propoganda websites.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html


I fail to see how making a bunch of links to studys that the other side are not going to accept are going to prove anything useful.

My thesis still stands, a proposition for laws favoring family and children and a warning against what will happen if the proposition is ignored.

I'm being entirely fair I believe.

Demonstrate your thesis then. Without linking to any right-wing, morality policing or religious group if you please.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3


HAHAHAHA!!! Let's just look at your source objectively, shall we? I happened to read the entire page. In my short skim of the source, I found this. What a great leap of logic! Lump homosexual and lesbian relationships with all other non-married relationships and then make a classification (that violence is worse for the non-married) and then make an assumption that homosexual and lesbian relationships without actually looking at the statistics for the group. The fact is, that this statistic doesn't address whether it would still hold true if gay and lesbians were permitted to marry.

Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:

· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[46]

· A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred:

It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.[47]

For a better understanding of what is wrong with this type of assumption. Four people are take a test, two men and two women, one blonde and one brunette in each group. The blonde man gets a 90, the brunette man gets an 85, the blonde woman gets a 100 and the brunette woman gets a 50.

Theory - Analyzing the results says that men in the group as a whole did better than the women.

However, if I make the assumption from the theory that blonde women do worse on average than men I would clearly be wrong as blonde women got the highest score. That site is guilty of a misuse of statistics in the worst way.

Even better, the site points out that many homosexuals have pursued counseling for long-term depression or sadness. Hmmmm... could this sadness be caused by people who are trying to deny them equal rights and suggest they are broken and should be bread out using genetic cleansing?

Reduced Life Span? Well, great then maybe black people should be allowed to have children either. Or maybe we could address the problem. Much like depression. Or any of these other problems. You can't deny rights to a group because of a greater likelihood of certain types of problems, like alcoholism, depression, low life-expectancy. Gays and Lesbians have many of the same problems that have plagued minorities. They are treated like second-class citizens and, SHOCKER, it affects them.

Now as far as the children raised in homosexual couples, these statistics are only useful if you only include the couples raising children and not you're general person who identifies as a homosexual. How does Michael Jackson, who claims to be heterosexual, have any bearing on a heterosexual couples ability to raise children? Certainly including him in any statistic that is meant to analyze families is misleading.

However, to be fair some studies are focused on homosexual families raising children. Unfortunately, generally, due to the bias of the researcher they ignore the difference between raised by a single parent and married parents, considering this is supposed to be analysis of homosexual couples raising children.

Incest in Homosexual Parent Families. A study in Adolescence found:

A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.[60]

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE

Ok, want to know what this 'study' really was? Let's look, shall we?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8970651&dopt=Abstract

Homosexual parents.

Cameron P, Cameron K.

Family Research Institute, Inc., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80962, USA.

Does the homosexuality of parents affect the sexual orientation or experiences of their children? Seventeen of 5,182 randomly obtained adults from six U.S. cities answered questionnaires indicating that they had a homosexual parent. Parental homosexuality may be related to findings that: (1) 5 of the 17 reported sexual relations with their parents; (2) a disproportionate fraction reported sexual relations with other caretakers and relatives; and (3) a disproportionate fraction: (a) claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (47%); (b) indicated gender dissatisfaction; and (c) reported that their first sexual experience was homosexual. Of 1,388 consecutive obituaries in a major homosexual newspaper, 87 of the gays who died had children and registered a median age of death of 47 (the 1,267 without children had a median age of death of 38); 10 lesbians did and 24 did not have children. We estimate that less than 1% of parents are bisexual or homosexual and that < 7% of gays and about a third of lesbians are parents.

Ok, in case you weren't paying attention, this very reliable study of the affect on homosexual parents on their children was a study of 17 respondants. SEVENTEEN!!! Wow, that's really suggestive of a trend. Then these very reliable researchers did a study on the life-expectancy of gays and lesbians by looking at obituaries in a 'major homosexual newspaper'. Now, if that's not science...

That was fun, Greenlander. Post some more sources. They're very convincing... that the anti-same-sex couple camp is desperate to find something to support their claims.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html


I fail to see how making a bunch of links to studys that the other side are not going to accept are going to prove anything useful.

My thesis still stands, a proposition for laws favoring family and children and a warning against what will happen if the proposition is ignored.

I'm being entirely fair I believe.

For one thing such "research" is bullocks. Even in this latest example:

"FRI has contended that common sense ‘predicts’ what should happen to children with homosexual parents. Since homosexual parents tend to be deficient in character"

I know or have known many hetro and or Christians I would not trust to wipe my dogs ass(who can name the movie that was used from? ;) )


and more self-centered than most,

The hetros have their share as well.


their kids should 1) be underattended or neglected by their parent(s),

Bullshit. How come in the news you always hear about children from hetro families? Oh yea the liberal media. :rolleyes:


2) be provided poorer role models,

Not science.


3) be discriminated against by other kids and their parents,

That is true. Christians tend to do that to them.


4) encounter a higher risk of sexual molestation,

Ahhh homosexual = pedophile. :rolleyes:


5) be pressured to adopt the homosexual lifestyle, and generally 6) have a ‘harder life.’"


You are not defending your stance too well.

Ok, I'll quote the abstracts.

Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review.
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005 Jun;26(3):224-40.



Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;17(3):309-12.
Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development.





Note: These are just the first few I pulled off of a pubmed search. In other words, Green - they are peer-reviewed journal references.

NOW WE'RE USING THE SAME SOURCES. *tries not to be sick*

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html


I fail to see how making a bunch of links to studys that the other side are not going to accept are going to prove anything useful.

My thesis still stands, a proposition for laws favoring family and children and a warning against what will happen if the proposition is ignored.

I'm being entirely fair I believe.

THe problem with the report that you provided that it was highly unscientific, not accounting for any other social influences or other factors. Also, the rating scale was rather subjective, and relied on a teacher's personal opinion more than on hard evidence. Not to mention, it happened in Australia...

Also, the study was done with personal bias in mind, and how they thought a family should function. Thus, the evidence can easily be conformed to fit their hypothesis, instead of using the evidence to prove anything.

Basically, the study was horribly done, and proved nothing.

What you say "will happen" is purely speculative, and infact is just as likely to be damaging to the children as having them adopted out to a "normal" family. Problem with the children occur due to many factors, and your parents gender has not been taken into account in any serious study. There are children whom have homosexual parents, in America infact. We should look and see what affect this has before making any rash speculations.

To just speculate, without any evidence whatsoever, is just irresponsible, period. It gives the impression that instead of having the best intentions for the children in mind, you have the best intentions of your personal politics in mind.

NOW WE'RE USING THE SAME SOURCES. *tries not to be sick*

tee hee

:fluffle:

You two will be married next

tee hee

:fluffle:

It was more fun arguing with you, but I have to say it's fun have you, me and Cat on the same side against this kind of theology thinly-veiled as science. How about we just let him keep putting up sources and we can all take turns examining the authors and publishing their original studies or the fundamental flaws in the conclusions drawn from the studies?

NOTE: Anyone else also arguing the same points as Cat, Dem and I, I left you out because a few months ago you could often find a thread were Cat, Dem and I appeared to each be thoroughly convinced the other two were brain-damaged. Mostly we just disagreed on how to deal with certain social issues. We were not generally accusing each other of lacking support. For example, we argued ways to accomplish equal treatment of men and women.

You two will be married next

;-) I'll bet Dem is a wildcat. Uh, I mean, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

I'll never get tired of this argument...oh wait, yes I will, and have. Look, I know NONE can resist the might and power and draw to argue, but face it: No one will be changing opinions on the subjects of politics and religion. If you don't think that gay marriage falls under these two subjects, you're just ignorant. *sighs* But hey, since so many links and "pieces of evidence" have been put forward already, I'll just stick to the childish notion of spouting my opinion with nothing to back it up. Gay = OK. Gay marriage = OK also. DERR! :P :)

I find it absurd that as they attack research they don't like, they all equally cite research that has been dismissed and discredited.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainb...ron_survey.html

Even pro gay stuff says so...

However, there are links all day long for both sides:
http://************/caqo4


EDIT: had to tiny url

I find it absurd that as they attack research they don't like, they all equally cite research that has been dismissed and discredited.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html

Even pro gay stuff says so...

Where is your proof.

Even of the examples you have provided; the gentleman above has a Ph.D. in social psychology. The examples you provided for your argument were theologians talking about psychology.

Proof for the pro gay stuff please.....

Where is your proof.

Even of the examples you have provided; the gentleman above has a Ph.D. in social psychology. The examples you provided for your argument were theologians talking about psychology.

Proof for the pro gay stuff please.....

Proof:

It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and

relatively scarce. Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed.

Now, just before this admissionm mind you, they said...

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents.

Excuse me? It's illogical to say, we need more data, but data supports what we say. :rolleyes:
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Proof:

It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and

relatively scarce. Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed.

Now, just before this admissionm mind you, they said...

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents.

Excuse me? It's illogical to say, we need more data, but data supports what we say. :rolleyes:
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.htmlThe quotes you posted didn't contradict each other. One said that there's not enough information to be sure, the other said that the current evidence doesn't support the idea that lesbians or gay men are unfit to be parents. No contradiction there. It contains no logic flaws.

Excuse me? It's illogical to say, we need more data, but data supports what we say. :rolleyes:

*blink blink*

How on EARTH is it contradictory to claim that existing evidence supports one's position but that one would like to see more evidence as well? That's...how...science...works...

The quotes you posted didn't contradict each other. One said that there's not enough information to be sure, the other said that the current evidence doesn't support the idea that lesbians or gay men are unfit to be parents. No contradiction there. It contains no logic flaws.


Sure. It makes sense... We dont' have the data to support our claims, but you can't prove us wrong! :rolleyes:

Sure. It makes sense... We dont' have the data to support our claims, but you can't prove us wrong! :rolleyes:
Pot, kettle.

Sure. It makes sense... We dont' have the data to support our claims, but you can't prove us wrong! :rolleyes:

Um...noooo. More like "we have data that supports our claim, but additional data could theoretically prove us wrong." Again, that's how science works.