I don't see the issue, I don't see how the sexuality, or the gender pairing of the parents has any effect on the child's upbringing nor on the parenting skills of the couple.
I don't see the issue, I don't see how the sexuality, or the gender pairing of the parents has any effect on the child's upbringing nor on the parenting skills of the couple.
Homosexuality is a perversion..... and you think they aren't going to corrupt the kids? It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children.... Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.
It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children
Not actually true. Some were, some weren't, just like non homosexuals. Plus, that doesn't mean they will abuse their kids.
Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.
This isn't something people say. Wow, you came up with a new reason to hate gays. While you are at it, why not just make up other stuff. You should make up a specific lie about homosexuals that shows they are bad around kids.
This isn't something people say. Wow, you came up with a new reason to hate gays. While you are at it, why not just make up other stuff. You should make up a specific lie about homosexuals that shows they are bad around kids.
Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...
Are you this dumb? You disgust me. Where the hell do you get the idea that kids can be INFECTED with homosexuality??? It is a thought process. You are born with the preference. Just like you are born with taste buds that make you like certain foods. For you to say something as offensive as "Its a disease that innocent children can get infected with" just makes me wish I didnt live on the same planet as you. and for you to pull the abuse card when you very well know that any kid from straight or homosexual parents have the chance to be abused. You are out of line for saying that. Just because someone has a different preference from you doesnt mean you need to call it a disease. You are out of line. And I dont care how hostile my response may seem, you should be ashamed of yourself.
It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children....
All of them, or a majority of them? Because heterosexuals get abused to...
Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.
You have a study to back that up? Even if that were true, that doesn't mean the cause of their illegal activity is from them being gay, it could be from a third variable. For example, society oppresses gay people, and thus influences them towards illegal activity. As for the homosexuals are in prison, yes, a lot of men in prison fuck other men, it's not because they are particularly attracted to men, it is because they are desperate... I mean talk about being locked up in a cage for years, with no hope of female attention, and being mentally unbalanced and having... needs... to contribute to that mental unbalance.
Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.
Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.
Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.
In the name of 'democracy', many things and issues are skewed in favour of personal choice and freedom.
While homosexuality does not physically 'harm' a child, it psychologically brings about the wrong message to the child. Such relationships are not to be encouraged because it is not normal human behaviour. It is a choice that some people make. It is inappropriate and the child (while he may be loved) will be confused with the social order of things.
Your a Fuckface. Not everyone should be raised to be heterosexual. I guess raising a child with two parents is brainwashing. Just like raising a child to be Christians. Your killing their freedom of religion rights and not allowing them to discover religion and guidance in their own, which is worse than having two parents.
Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.
Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.
Just like God told Abraham to kill Isaac, and last time I checked Killing is a way worse sin than being homosexual. So what's your fucking point. And also, the assholes who written the bible were homophobes.
The debate should be framed around the child, who is clearly better off with gay parents than in some institution. Conservatives who "believe in family" or "protect family values" should be the first proponents of gay adoption, but it would seem to me that some of them they're too desperate to show the extent of their bigotry and hypocrisy.
Gays have as much rights as straigth people. Some people might say that children need a mother figure in their life but a teacher, grandma or friend can also fulfill this.
You know what- Fuck you all, the amount of times I have seen you bullshit assholes on here bitching about " Gays should rot in hell, it's a sin, immoral, sick, mental disorder" e.t.c. makes me wanna punch the fucking computer screen. At the same time, more and more of these degenerates come on the site with names such as "gaytruth" or "gaylies", obviously with one goal- to troll the site with anti-gay propaganda, and no one does a thing. Are there not site moderators? This is a debate site, not a site of decadence where people just insult each other and say obscene things for the sake of boredom.
Jesus Christ Jungel-boy! Calm down. Jc has admitted to having over 40 accounts... all of them ant-gay. So almost every single anti-gay person is really just Jc. Also.... Are there not site moderators? No, not really. Just Andy who has a full time job and kids. He doesn't have time to moderate all the shit you don't like.
Got this from Bigoats a createdebater so all credit goes to him
Latest research shows the fallacy of the widespread claims about "children raised in gay families statistically are no worse off than those raised in traditional families".
This "information" is usually backed by the corrupt APA (American Psychological Association). However, a detailed investigation has shown that out of 59 studies sited by APA in support of this claim, only 4 meet the APA's own standard:
Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751;
As documented by Lorens Marks, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children." Therefore, not one of these studies contains scientific proof of the claims made.
Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, has recently conducted a careful, rigorous, and scientifically sound study, which was free of the methodological flaws found in preceding research.
Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012).
Below are some of the most important findings:
Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
•Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
•Have lower educational attainment
•Report less safety and security in their family of origin
•Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
•Are more likely to suffer from depression
•Have been arrested more often
•If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
Children of lesbian mothers:
•Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
•Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
•Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
•Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
•Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
•Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
•Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
•Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
•Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
•Use marijuana more frequently
•Smoke more frequently
•Watch TV for long periods more frequently
•Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).
The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.
I honestly don't think this should even be a question. There is no viable argument against this.
Someone's sexual orientation has no impact on their ability to be a parent. I'm having a hard time coming up with more things to say here because it's common sense. Society already accepts single parents, infertile couples, and straight couples to adopt... how are gay couples any different from these?
Inappropriate sexual orientation will have an impact on children while it does not mean that they do not have the ability to be good parents. Providing the essential environment for the child to grow up is paramount for the overall well-being of the child. Do we want to teach the child to accept homosexuality and that it is something 'normal'? Then a male and female couple becomes 'abnormal'?
I do not agree that gay couples are similar to infertile couples. Infertile couples don't have a choice... it could be due to some biological problems but gay is a choice. They choose to have same sex relationship leading to their inability to have children. If they want to have children, choose the right partner.
Study after study after study has show that who you are sexually attracted to IS NOT A CHOICE. You're claiming that if two people love eachother, are naturally attracted to eachother, and want children, they can't be with eachother and still have kids?
Study after study after study has show that who you are sexually attracted to IS NOT A CHOICE. You're claiming that if two people love eachother, are naturally attracted to eachother, and want children, they can't be with eachother and still have kids?
...the site you are using has been classified as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center... Those articles have included lies, manipulated surveys, and so on. Also, neither of those articles, even if they were accurate, do not counteract my previous point.
I personally see no argument against gay adoption, and there is nothing wrong with saying that. If you have a specific reason for down voting, please say so. If you are just a troll, well, then, um, I have very little I can say to you.
If you make a statement that goes against the Bible or supports homosexuality this troll known as JC comes around with one of his fake accounts and just downvotes to make himself look "better." You didn't say anything bad. Right now he is the awesome1202 account.
If you make a statement that goes against the Bible or supports homosexuality this troll known as JC comes around with one of his fake accounts and just downvotes to make himself look "better." You didn't say anything bad. Right now he is the awesome1202 account.
I am spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and part of that includes homosexuality which is condemned in Romans 1:26
Ok, if you want to spread the gospel of JC... just down voting accomplishes nothing. How does going up to someone, down voting them, and then saying nothing spread any gospel of any kind? That is just spreading negativity and hate.
However, seeing as you have a need to spread the gospel, I assume you follow every rule in the Bible.
FOR EXAMPLE:
God says: "if anyone touches an unclean thing... and it is hidden from him, and he has become unclean, he shall be guilty". (Lev. 5:2) And "If anyone sins, doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty." (Lev. 5:17)
So, basically, if you have committed anything on the following list you are guilty.
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. (Deuteronomy 22)
So, why aren't you going out after anyone who has had an affair? Why focus on those who are homosexual?
12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, 13 that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction,[a] all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. (Deuteronomy)
So, I assume, that whenever you find a city or society following a different religion that the one you follow, you kill them all? The gospel of Jesus Christ commands it.
Leviticus 10:6 says: “Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.”
So, I assume that you never wear ripped jeans, or any clothes with any tears or rips or anything wrong with them. If one did, they would be dead. And there would be wrath placed upon all of the people.
The point here is that there are some outrageous things in the Bible. It's not all meant to be read or taken into extremes. In fact, some of it may even be ignored without disastrous consequences. The idea of homosexuality being an abomination is NO LONGER RELEVANT in today's society. If you want, we can have a Challenge Debate and talk about this more.
Yes, I know you are a bit of a troll(at least, according to most everyone on this site), but I'd be willing to have an actual debate with you.
So, I assume, that whenever you find a city or society following a different religion that the one you follow, you kill them all? The gospel of Jesus Christ commands it.
Not a single one of those verses comes from New Testament. Jesus was not in Old Testament.
Why are you disputing me? Are you the troll responsible? There is a user by the name Jc41218. He is pro Christianity and anti gay. He likes to downvote like crazy and make fake accounts. He is all of the crazy pro religious spammer accounts.
I believe you actually. What I meant though is that you are against the pro gay posts and will downvote them. I consider someone who thinks being gay is a sin as anti-gay, so I word it that way.
Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...
4Real what you are not getting is according to your religion being gay is a sin and if you are not following it you are probably not FOLLOWING it. That has nothing to due about no true scotsman
That again is your religious interpretation of the Biblical faith, not the faith its self. Your saying Im against the faith does not make it so, and it is the no true scotsman fallacy. If you start out with "no true such and such", you are committing the no true scotsman fallacy. Im not at all threatened by your proclaimations of my alleged unbelief, and my faith is authored and finished by Jesus who died on the cross, not someone random person like you who needs training in logical debate.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I'm interested in what the other guy said. How is it that you can be pro-gay relationships when the Bible says this? How do you interpret this clause?
There is...Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...
Are homosexuals able to natrually reproduce? If nature determined a homosexual relationship is a valid setting to raise a child it probably would have made concessions for them.
...pretty incredible that you failed to get the point of what I was saying.... Lets bring this down to typical liberal moron level... Can a man make a baby with a man? Can a woman reproduce with another woman? Get it?
I understand the point you were trying to make. You aren't exactly treading new ground in your bigotry.
And like a million angry, humorless God-botherers before you, you miss a few obvious points.
1. Sexual orientation does not determine one's ability to parent. There are countless cold, abusive, irresponsible, unattentive straight parents out there.
Everyone walks into parenthood with different experience levels. Somebody who was the oldest of 6 children, as well as baby-sitting for their nephews and neices will be more experienced in raises children and more prepared to deal with the chaos than, say, an only-child.
2. There are plenty of people who either didn't realize they were gay until adulthood, or buried it down due to social expectations and went on to have children. Every day they do the work of parent based on their own merits. Their sexual preference plays very little role in it. In fact, it plays very little role in ANY aspect of their life, aside from who they are attracted to.
How formative is sexual orientation on YOUR character? How much does being straight have any freakin' affect on ANYTHING you do aside from your romantic pursuits?
You said if nature wanted it, it would have made concessions. If nature abhorred homosexuality, there wouldn't be any gays for us to debate about, or they wouldn't have any interest in raising children anyway. I imagine there are plenty of gay men who are more willing and able to play the role of father than I am.
Sexual orientation does not determine one's ability to parent.
On the contrary, if you are a homosexual you lack the moral foundation to even control yourself, more or less other people. https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Decades after the discovery of AIDS, they still account for over half of the new aids cases even though they are only like 2% of the population.
Their sexual preference plays very little role in it
I could agree with that, but their sexual practices do.
In fact, it plays very little role in ANY aspect of their life, aside from who they are attracted to.
See the links above
How formative is sexual orientation on YOUR character?
Very little, because my faith would trump any bizarre sexual desires a may or may not have. My satisfaction from exercising self control is superior to any sexual fulfillment.
If nature abhorred homosexuality, there wouldn't be any gays for us to debate about
Decades after the discovery of AIDS, they still account for over half of the new aids cases even though they are only like 2% of the population.
1. This is much less true of lesbians. Would you be more inclined to allow them to adopt?
2. Okay, so don't allow couples with AIDS to adopt.
3. This is only concerning sexual activity. Does not say a word about other aspects of their lives. How many straight parents have had affairs or other sexual indiscretions? Should they too be banned from parenthood?
4. There are biological reasons why gays are much more likely to transmit AIDS via sexual activity. It has nothing to do with self control.
Very little, because my faith would trump any bizarre sexual desires a may or may not have.
That's pretty easy to say when you were born finding members of the opposite sex attractive.
Sexuality is only a small factor in teaching ethics. Maturity, educational attainment, experience and the like play a bigger role in teaching ethics. Would you rather have an illiterate straight couple rather than an educated homosexual couple who can provide you what you need?
Would you rather have an illiterate straight couple rather than an educated homosexual couple who can provide you what you need?
What a stupid thing to say. You know it is possible to be both educated and straight right? Do you know the two don't have anything to do with eachother? You say that as if you have to pull a kid iut of a few years of middle school to train them to be straight.
Sexuality is only a small factor in teaching ethics.
Reeeeaaaaallllyyy? So I guess I should never bother to explain to my sons that "no means no?" Any age girl is fair game? And if they get pregnant they should just run off and find someone else ASAP. I'll make sure my daughters never learn that by being irresponsible, she could be robbing her child of a chance to have a decent father and a whole family. It is better to go around tracking down 15 different men for paternity tesets just hoping for some child support.
Only a COMPLETE MORON would evere think to say what you just said. Short of murder, there is no bigger crime a man can committ than a sexual crime.
Obviously you are a narrow minded person. You said it yourself that being educated and straight does`t have to do anything with each other therefore why restrict an educated homosexual to adopt if they are worthy to do so.
Let me make another example that even a person like you can understand. Who would you rather be with in a room, a straight murderer or a homosexual who has good morals? In these times gender is only a small factor in the thinking of man. Nurture plays a bigger role than a nature in the decisions of an individual in our society. Try improving your argument rather than putting stupid and moron in your arguments. You only sound like a sore loser.
I have already disputed your statements before. Therefore you clearly are`t paying attention to what my arguments are about. I was only adding additional scenarios for you to understand how little does gender play in the morality of a person.
Reeeeaaaaallllyyy? So I guess I should never bother to explain to my sons that "no means no?" Any age girl is fair game? And if they get pregnant they should just run off and find someone else ASAP. I'll make sure my daughters never learn that by being irresponsible, she could be robbing her child of a chance to have a decent father and a whole family. It is better to go around tracking down 15 different men for paternity tesets just hoping for some child support.
This statement dose`t even make sense. The topic is about homosexuals being involved in adoption not straight people letting their children be adopted. The moment for an example your child gives your grandchild to the orphanage as per your statement, there is no certainty that your grandchild would have a decent home even with straight people. As for your daughter`s case what if she is`t just ready? Would you rather risk her and her child`s future just to be a family even though they would only end up in poverty?
I don't see why not. It doesn't matter if your bisexual or what ever y'all call it. I believe its ok and there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Yes, I believe homosexuals should be able to adopt children because they can live their own lives, and if they feel that they are ready to deal with a child long-term, then absolutely. It's really the same decision as woman-man marriage, except that they have the ability to produce their own child with their DNA, but that should not discourage a couple of the same sex. All hail decisions.
Yes because just like others they are human beings we cannot just judge them on who they love. We have no right stop two people who are gay from loving each other. Just because they are gay does this mean they are not allowed to adopt a child. Every human being is equal in this world so why should we differentiate the fact that these people are gay and cannot adopt a child!!!!
There are many people in the world who are against adoption at all. There are tons of homosexual couples that could adopt and give the children a loving home. I'm not sure why some places don't allow that. Basically, they're denying that child a safe and loving home which could be an even better home than the orphanage or foster home.
Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...
If that's a statistic, then I have a number of arguments against it. Although my main counter argument to your point is that even if this were true, how does this relate to the stance against homosexuals being allowed to adopt?
Source for this statistic? And explain to me how this statistic knew that men who stayed in the closet were gay so that they could include them in this stat.
Latest research shows the fallacy of the widespread claims about "children raised in gay families statistically are no worse off than those raised in traditional families".
This "information" is usually backed by the corrupt APA (American Psychological Association). However, a detailed investigation has shown that out of 59 studies sited by APA in support of this claim, only 4 meet the APA's own standard:
Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751;
As documented by Lorens Marks, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children." Therefore, not one of these studies contains scientific proof of the claims made.
Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, has recently conducted a careful, rigorous, and scientifically sound study, which was free of the methodological flaws found in preceding research.
Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012).
Below are some of the most important findings:
Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
•Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
•Have lower educational attainment
•Report less safety and security in their family of origin
•Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
•Are more likely to suffer from depression
•Have been arrested more often
•If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
Children of lesbian mothers:
•Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
•Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
•Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
•Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
•Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
•Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
•Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
•Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
•Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
•Use marijuana more frequently
•Smoke more frequently
•Watch TV for long periods more frequently
•Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).
The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.
Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF)
This is the flaw. It is clear that children with adoptive parents are more likely to suffer than those from traditional families. Children are adopted when taken into care. They are taken into care for a reason and are often damaged by things that they have suffered at the hands of their parents.
Your source, The Family Research Council (AKA Focus on the Family) and Mark Regnerus are well known for their dishonesty and manipulation of the facts. They have actually been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people . . . that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." They don't just look for data that supports their views and ignore the counter evidence, they actually take the counter evidence and twist it to make it look like it supports their view. The people whose publications have been misrepresented by them have even contacted them telling them to stop misrepresenting their data, but they still continue to do it. Here is one of those letters.
-
"Dear Dr. Dobson:
I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.
From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.
Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.
I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.
Sincerely,
Carol Gilligan, PhD
New York University, Professor"
-
Here are a few quotes from other letters.
“The research has been hijacked for somebody’s political purposes or ideological purposes and that’s worrisome.”
“It’s a complete misrepresentation of what the research actually says,”
"It has come to my attention that my book 'The Trouble with Boys' has been seriously misrepresented in writings by James Dobson."
"You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes... There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions."
Now about the "study" by Mark Regnerus. "Mark Regnerus’ flawed paper in the journal Social Science Research claiming that gay parenting harms children has been widely criticized by major medical organizations and over 200 professors across the country, while hate groups and ex-gay ministries have defended it. There are many indications that the paper was published as a political calculation, and the University of Texas has agreed to investigate whether it constitutes scientific misconduct. Now, a member of the journal’s editorial board has completed an internal audit of the study and found it to be 'bullshit.'"
All of your sources just sound like well qualified critics who didn't like what the article said... I clicked through your links and links of links and didn't find anyone disputing the data. The only possibly valid criticism is that parents who simply had a gay relationship at some time were considered gay parents... What is so wrong with that? The results still show that they were unfit parents and the optimal situation for a child is to live with their own mother and their own father who are married... Find me a study to dispute that, instead of people upset that their own studies run contrary to their worldview.
4 real... who would you call a neutral source? From my point of view almost all medical and educational institutions have completely bought in to the gay agenda. Anyone who speaks out against the gay agenda from within those institutions are instantly purged.
Being a Christian does not inherently mean that all Christians must agree with eachother.
Also, there is a huge difference between "arguing" and "debating." Debate implies reasoning, and does not necessarily imply that you are fighting eachother. It's supposed to be an intellectual conversation.
I think that you currently are just blindly arguing, rolling out hate, avoiding questions, and using the Bible and Christianity as your defense.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Um, ok, that statement sort of disgusts me because of the ignorance behind it, but regardless of that:
How does that make it so they cannot be allowed to adopt? There are plenty of people with mental problems (I'm not saying homosexuals have a mental problem, they don't) who may adopt already...
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
So, we must follow every single teaching of the Bible, correct?
Tell me, did you ever do ANYTHING, EVER that could ever have dishonored your parents?
Ever. At all. Even if you repented. No matter what. Because if so, you must be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 says: "Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense."
I assume that you, having your need to preach the gospel, find children who have dishonored their parents and command that they are executed.
I don't have ignorance of the gospel. I understand that everything in the gospel is not meant to be taken literally and not all of it is meant to be applied to every single part of life.
Your personal disgust at homosexuality doesn't relate to the argument of gay people being allowed to adopt, whilst your view that homosexuality is a mental problem is simply wrong. I'd like to know how you define mental problems.
1) the world is created for a male and a female to become a couple. From there, they will procreate and extends the existence of the humankind. Gays cannot procreate unless they receive the help of Science. Thus, by allowing adoption, are we encouraging such relationships?
2) The child(ren) will not grow up in a wholesome family to understand straight human relationships. While I am not against homosexuality, it is a matter of choice, I do not encourage it. How should the child(ren) be taught to address the parents; as father or mother or simply fathers / mothers? The child(ren) will likely grow up to face social pressures. While we cannot for sure say that gays will bring up gays, I am not confident to say that the child(ren) will not be influenced by his / their gay parents towards their own sexual orientation.
3) Adoption should be an option for couples who have failed to have children. This is entirely different from people who simply cannot because of their sexual orientation.
Very true.Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...
Homosexuality is a sin per the bible and Leviticus and Romans and other verses so to allow it is wrong. The bible clearly states homosexuals are to be put to death.
This is a list of everyone who the Bible commands must be put to death:
1. People who don't listen to Priests.
2. Witches
3. Homosexuals
4. Fortune-tellers
5. Anyone who hits their father or mother
6. Anyone who curses at their father or mother
7. Anyone who cheats on a spouse
8. Anyone who commits fornication
9. ANYONE WHO IS NOT CHRISTIAN
10. Atheists
11. False Prophets
12. The entire population of any town if one person within the town worships
another god.
13. Anyone who is not a virgin before marriage.
14. Anyone who commits Blasphemy.
15. Anyone who works on the Sabbath
God Himself also killed many, and I assume you would believe that the crimes they committed are wrong:
16. Any child of a sinner
17. The death of all the first born in Egypt
There are more and more, check out the link at the end of this page. The source is truly the Bible, so I believe you will find this an acceptable argument.
Even though this arguement has nothing to do with your ability to be a parent, I don't think they should. I have nothing against them, I'm fine with it because it isn't my business, but, if they adopt think about the impact happening on the child thing adopt. That child may face bullying because of this and may be treated differently, I have heard of cases that the child is treated as dirt by both kids and PARENTS, particularly in high school and college when the child is more independent and alone in the world. This may lead to suicide for the child.
We shouldn't allow women in the military because THEY DO get raped. One in three females in the military have been sexually assaulted. If your worldview breaks down whenever it is challenged you should change it.
What the fuck are you talking about? YOU ARE ON A FUCKING DEBATING WEBSITE. Thats what people COME ON HERE TO DO. If you don't like debating people then you don't belong on this website you. Why don't you go to www.godhatesfags.com where you can express your opinion without intelligent conversion.
I usually debate, but in this debate I just wanted my opinion to be known and I know this is the kind of debate with two totally different mind sets and I don't feel like debating with you.
Well I'm not looking for opinions that consist of 3 words. I joined this website after leaving another debate website because I was looking for intelligent conversion. Not just random 3 word answers followed by insults (cunt? seriously? Who the fuck still uses that word?) and why did you even get so angry in the first place? All I did was say you didn't post an argument on a DEBATE website, therefor it should have been deleted (hence the 50 character or more rule). And you got so angry.
I usually debate
Bullshit. What I'm responding to is the longest post in your last 10 most recent post. So fuck you.
2. In about 30% of child molestation cases, the victim is a boy.
You may be interested to know the majority of people that sexually abuse boys are heterosexual in terms of their sexual relationships with children. Being that its often the father that sexual abuses children, it is not surprising that he is straight.
You are probably the most intelligent anti-gay person I've encountered and sometimes I find your arguments quite convincing. However when I read how you twist statistics to your own end I find it disappointing. You're intelligent enough to realise that they don't support your arguments which leads me to believe they're your deliberately misrepresenting statistics.
You may be interested to know the majority of people that sexually abuse boys are heterosexual in terms of their sexual relationships with children.
Yes, this is the best defense LGBT activists have been able to put up on this subject: That men who molest boys are heterosexual. If you look closely at this pseudo-theoretical claim, you will soon see just how absurd it is. Of course they are homosexual, or at least bisexual. The victim's age does not change that fact at all.
You are probably the most intelligent anti-gay person I've encountered and sometimes I find your arguments quite convincing.
Thank you. I feel I must treat this subject seriously, because for me this is more about being pro-human rights than anti-gay. In my view, the LGBT movement is discrediting the very concept of human rights. This is very bad for my country, because it gives a green light to political nutcases who disrespect that concept in principle.
However when I read how you twist statistics to your own end I find it disappointing
I was not trying to twist statistics. If you have arguments in favor of the idea that some of the men who molest boys are straight, I am ready to listen and I can change my point of view if I see the truth is on your side.
Yes, this is the best defense LGBT activists have been able to put up on this subject: That men who molest boys are heterosexual. If you look closely at this pseudo-theoretical claim, you will soon see just how absurd it is. Of course they are homosexual, or at least bisexual. The victim's age does not change that fact at all.
You have a point that of course people that abuse male children are homosexual by definition. However, my point was that you can't say that those that we know are sexually attracted to men are more likely to sexually abuse male children. It is the case that the people that appear to us as heterosexual (in terms of the adult relationships they form) are more likely to abuse. Therefore, there is not a basis for banning people from adopting that seem to us to be homosexual.
However, my point was that you can't say that those that we know are sexually attracted to men are more likely to sexually abuse male children. It is the case that the people that appear to us as heterosexual (in terms of the adult relationships they form) are more likely to abuse.
You are right, many of them are married and appear to be heterosexual.
However, in my view the main factors here are:
1. These people just have easier access to children.
2. There is a higher chance of their crime eventually being discovered.
But the fact remains: among these offenders, the rate of male homosexuals is very disproportional.
You're username should probably ditch the "a" and the "s".
So what if I'm a Bigot?
97% of child molestation is committed by men? Last I knew there were men in heterosexual couples to, and single fathers.
How is the second sentence related to the first one?
In about 30% of molestation cases, the victim is a boy? That contradicts your argument because 70% are females or unreported....
Are you dorked? In 30% cases, the VICTIM is a boy, in the remaining 70% the victim is a GIRL. What's so hard to understand here?
And what does gays being 3% of the population have to do with anything? So they are made to be the minority?
It has to do with the essense of the question. Only 3% of male population accounts for 28% of all man-boy molestation. That means gay men are several times likely to be pedophiles.
Are fucking stupid? If you were born gay I'm sure you'd think differently... can you list any study that shows being gay is wrong in anyway. Not from the bible (;
There is hardly any measure of right or wrong the two sides of this debate would agree on. Your question is invalid.
The same scientific communities that have so heavily invested into the idea that you are born gay are finding that pedophiles have a similar drive towards sex with children. If so, are you willing to fight all social mores against pedophilia? Are you willing to not only legalize pedophilia, but advocate it? I am guessing not.
Pedophilia causes medical harm, so do homosexual males.
Pedophilia is not conducive towards reproduction, homosexuality certainly is not.
Pedophilia is corrosive to the family, so is homosexuality.
A male can certainly try to imitate a female or vice versa, such an imitation is not a positive influence on a child. If a child is female, she should be proud of that fact and embrace it. She should not be confused between what nature says and what her flamboyant second dad acts like.
A male can certainly try to imitate a female or vice versa
To start off, most people who act feminine/masculine, usually ARE feminine/masculine. Not all men are perfectly masculine and not all women are perfectly feminine.
such an imitation is not a positive influence on a child.
See above, also, men with feminine qualities rarely behave in a completely feminine manner.
If a child is female, she should be proud of that fact and embrace it.
Sure, but a person shouldn't be forced to alter their personality or tastes solely because of biology.
She should not be confused between what nature says and what her flamboyant second dad acts like.
To start off, not all gays act in an effeminate manner. While many certainly do, that's more of a comedic stereotype than reality.
The optimal, and only parental situation that should be encouraged, is a child being raised with their own mother and their own father who are married. Here are just a few statistics to back that up....
How do you know that having 2 parents is the reason, and not just having man and women like you claim? You are comparing single parent homes to gay homes. How do you know they will be the same?
No, a single parent necessarily lacks a fully functioning adult to help take care of a family. There is no way to correlate a lack of gender in the parent to the data.
I don't read links from you people because it almost never supports you guys. But, it looks like you found a source about gay parents. Well, guess what. I am still right. I said your other source doesn't prove anything, and I am still correct that your other source was worthless.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, I figured when you started talking about data you were interested in seeing some. Why don't you try showing me some data that you don't consider worthless and I'll show you enough respect to actually look at it.
Someone else asked you for data to back up your claim. I came to tell you that your first choice didn't support you at all. If you thought your second choice was so great, how come you didn't use it as your first choice?
Why don't you try showing me some data that you don't consider worthless and I'll show you enough respect to actually look at it.
My point was not refuted by your second choice of data. My point was that your first choice was worthless.
Most definitely they should not. Fags/Dykes are not a normal part of society, as their very makeup is an abomination of humanity. Children should NEVER be exposed to such a sickness. We wish our children to experience a normal, healthy upbringing.
I'm going to pay devils advocate a little because I don't think anyone else who isn't a completely homophobe will post on this side... homosexuality is, by definition, a sexual perversion. Its a sexual interest that goes against sexual taboos. I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome. Would they find some children sexually attractive?
Homosexuality is not a perversion, it is just a different mindset. Finding children sexually attractive is pedophiles, and that happens with straight people.
Homosexuality is not a perversion, it is just a different mindset. Finding children sexually attractive is pedophiles, and that happens with straight people.
That's not how the real world works. You need to demonstrate how it is true before I attempt to show it is false. But, the world is way older than the Bible says, boom Bible disproven.
I am glad you agreed that I was right about the other 3 points.
That's not how the real world works. You need to demonstrate how it is true before I attempt to show it is false. But, the world is way older than the Bible says, boom Bible disproven.
I am glad you agreed that I was right about the other 3 points.
Read Answersingenesis by Ken Ham I hope that they answer some questions from you and I never did agree with your other 3 points.
The burden of proof is mainly on you here. You are using the Bible as a source, you need to back up the validity of that source.
However, here's some information on some of the logical fallacies and things in the Bible that cannot be proven true.
"
Many are familiar with Occam’s Razor, which states that, all things being equal, one should not seek complex explanations when more simple ones are available. No one disputes that these other stories predate the Judeo-Christian Bible, so we really only have two options:
1. The religious explanation is that while the other stories were very much the same as those in the Bible, they are all false. But when they occur in the Bible (despite it being much the same content), this time the stories are true. One explanation of the resemblances to the earlier myths is that Satan created them to lead people astray from the true Messiah that would come much later. So essentially, an ultra-powerful and evil being (Created by God) influenced humanity to create deceptive stories — thousands of years before the real version — so that people wouldn’t believe the real thing when they saw it.
2. The alternative explanation is that the nature of storytelling during the period was such that central themes propagated through time. This combined with the natural tendency to have certain repeating elements in human stories, and the fact that the Bible stories came after the other ones, explains the similarities to previous myths. And since the stories of worldwide floods, virgin births, and people rising from the dead that the Bible is based on were false to begin with (which everyone agrees on) — they are also false in the Bible. In short, the Bible is simply another iteration of the same themes that came long before it.
"
Yes, I know I'm copy-pasting here, just trying to provide some proof against the Bible's factuality and using other people's research already.
home | blog | popular | study | writing | projects | about | connect
The Bible Is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence
May 13th, 2007 | Atheism | History | Mythology
[ Check out my latest post on the HP Security Blog: “The Secure Web Series, Part 1: Securing The Password Reset Mechanism” ]
myth_logo
The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme the extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information.
In this short piece I’ll attempt to show blatant similarities with regard to two of the most important Biblical narratives: the Genesis story and the character of Jesus Christ.
The Book of Genesis’s Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier
Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:
God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
The arc would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
A great rain covered the land with water.
The arc landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.
Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It’s not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc.
Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon — hundreds of years before the Bible was even written. Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story?
And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible? '
A simple explanation is assuming the flood was real that it would be passed on for generations.
Jesus’s Story Is An Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous Characters
Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.
Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.
Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, “Don’t cry, I’m going to heaven.” when he died. As he passed he said, “It is finished.“
Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.
Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.
Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross.
Mithra‘s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.
Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.
Buddha‘s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.
Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.
The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did.
I couldn't find any info on Asklepios that says he was called that. I also looked up Hercules and no where does he say 'It is finished'. For Dionysus here is what Wikipedia states about his birth.......
Dionysus had a strange birth that evokes the difficulty in fitting him into the Olympian pantheon. His mother was a mortal woman, Semele, the daughter of king Cadmus of Thebes, and his father was Zeus, the king of the gods. Zeus' wife, Hera, discovered the affair while Semele was pregnant. Appearing as an old crone (in other stories a nurse), Hera befriended Semele, who confided in her that Zeus was the actual father of the baby in her womb. Hera pretended not to believe her, and planted seeds of doubt in Semele's mind. Curious, Semele demanded of Zeus that he reveal himself in all his glory as proof of his godhood.
Though Zeus begged her not to ask this, she persisted and he agreed. Therefore he came to her wreathed in bolts of lightning; mortals, however, could not look upon an undisguised god without dying, and she perished in the ensuing blaze. Zeus rescued the fetal Dionysus by sewing him into his thigh. A few months later, Dionysus was born on Mount Pramnos in the island of Ikaria, where Zeus went to release the now-fully-grown baby from his thigh. In this version, Dionysus is born by two "mothers" (Semele and Zeus) before his birth, hence the epithet dimētōr (of two mothers) associated with his being "twice-born."
In the Cretan version of the same story, which Diodorus Siculus follows,[35] Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Persephone, the queen of the Greek underworld. Diodorus' sources equivocally identified the mother as Demeter.[36] A jealous Hera again attempted to kill the child, this time by sending Titans to rip Dionysus to pieces after luring the baby with toys. It is said that he was mocked by the Titans who gave him a thyrsus (a fennel stalk) in place of his rightful sceptre.[37] Zeus turned the Titans into dust with his thunderbolts, but only after the Titans ate everything but the heart, which was saved, variously, by Athena, Rhea, or Demeter. Zeus used the heart to recreate him in his thigh, hence he was again "the twice-born." Other versions claim that Zeus recreated him in the womb of Semele, or gave Semele the heart to eat to impregnate her.
The rebirth in both versions of the story is the primary reason why Dionysus was worshipped in mystery religions, as his death and rebirth were events of mystical reverence. This narrative was apparently used in several Greek and Roman cults, and variants of it are found in Callimachus and Nonnus, who refer to this Dionysus with the title Zagreus, and also in several fragmentary poems attributed to Orpheus.[citation needed]
The myth of the dismemberment of Dionysus by the Titans, is alluded to by Plato in his Phaedo (69d) in which Socrates claims that the initiations of the Dionysian Mysteries are similar to those of the philosophic path. Late Neo-Platonists such as Damascius explore the implications of this at length.[38]
I would hardly call that a virgin birth as it claims. For him turning the water into wine there is no historical evidence that I could find that he did this. There is no evidence for him being crucified. Osiris wasn't born of a virgin as that link claims. Horus sign was not a cross and he was not born of a virgin it went actually like this.......
Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[7][8] or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[9] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving).
Once Isis knew she was pregnant with Horus, she fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[10] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus.
-Wikipedia
Also Horus was never called The Way, The Truth and the Life. The bible never claims Jesus Christ was born on December 25. The bible never has a "holiday" if you want to call the Sabbath it is on Friday night to Saturday night not on Sunday.
You think that thousands of homosexuals are having sex and not enjoying it? The prostate can be reached through the anus causing sexual pleasure. Apparently, it was intended/designed for intercourse. Plus, lesbians rub their vaginas together. Vaginas were designed for intercourse. Is it only gay men you have a problem with?
You can enjoy many things that are harmful; drugs, alcohol, jumping off a tall building.
Are you saying that drugs, alcohol, and base jumping weren't designed for fun? There is harm from heterosexual relationships, too.
I have a problem with perversion of gender in general.
Ok, but you have demonstrated that your problem with perversion of gender is unfounded and you have no reason for it. Unless you want to actually address my argument.
You are getting off track. Is doing something that is harmful more acceptable if the person is having fun doing it? And I didn't say "base jumping" I said just jumping.
On the contrary, I have lots of reasons. Just try to point out an aspect of the sexual revolution that you think was positive and we can get this rolling. Unless you would just like me to give you some books to read on the topic.
You are getting off track. Is doing something that is harmful more acceptable if the person is having fun doing it? And I didn't say "base jumping" I said just jumping.
If something is harmful does that mean it shouldn't be allowed? What are you implying? You are implying that if something might be harmful, it is a perversion. That doesn't even make sense. Your example makes no difference. Everything has the potential to be harmful. Heterosexual sex is also harmful. You are way off track and you haven't thought about the implications of your examples. No one gets pleasure from jumping from a building. They get pleasure from jumping and surviving. That's base jumping.
On the contrary, I have lots of reasons.
But the one you listed is ridiculous.
Just try to point out an aspect of the sexual revolution that you think was positive and we can get this rolling.
Gays don't have to pretend to be straight, then marry the opposite sex while not enjoying it, then have a family they secretly hate, and go around having gay sex behind their spouses back. That's a pretty big positive.
Unless you would just like me to give you some books to read on the topic.
If something is harmful, especially if it is harmful to society, it should be discouraged.
I would think the free fall from jumping off a building would be fairly fun, until you land.
The reason I listed makes perfect sense to half the country.
Gays never had to marry the opposite sex, hate anyone, or go around having gay sex behind anyone's back. Believe it or not, you can actually have a desire to have sex and not fulfill it. Sexual perversion inundating society is not a positive, it is a negative. The entire basis of saying it is something positive depends on homosexuality being immutable (something that an individual does not or can not change). Being an African american is immutable, you can not reasonably stop being so black. So any advancement to the African american community is positive. Saying the advancement of homosexuality is positive before there is consensus on weather or not it is immutable, and grounds to be considered a suspect class is immature and requires you to ignore all the other affects that advancement has had on society.
If something is harmful, especially if it is harmful to society, it should be discouraged.
Not always, mind your own business. Homosexuality isn't more harmful, and isn't harmful to society.
I would think the free fall from jumping off a building would be fairly fun, until you land.
So, you don't actually feel that jumping from a building would be fun.
The reason I listed makes perfect sense to half the country.
One of the items on your list was a perfectly legal item. So, no, your list was bad to the whole country.
Gays never had to marry the opposite sex, hate anyone, or go around having gay sex behind anyone's back.
That's what they were doing.
Believe it or not, you can actually have a desire to have sex and not fulfill it.
How generous of you. That is a truly great option you have presented.
Sexual perversion inundating society is not a positive, it is a negative. The entire basis of saying it is something positive depends on homosexuality being immutable (something that an individual does not or can not change).
You haven't demonstrated how it is negative. There are lots of choices people make in their lives. I am sure you do stuff that some people wouldn't like. Maybe we should use that as a reason to ban you from something.
Being an African american is immutable, you can not reasonably stop being so black. So any advancement to the African american community is positive.
That isn't true. Advancing blacks to an unreasonable status would be negative. Like if you made a special committee of black people that were allowed to enforce their own laws and weren't governed at all. That is advancement, but it isn't positive.
Saying the advancement of homosexuality is positive before there is consensus on weather or not it is immutable, and grounds to be considered a suspect class is immature and requires you to ignore all the other affects that advancement has had on society.
We are trying to decide if what they do is a reason to stop them from certain rights. We can decide that without determining if they will stop doing the action in the future.
Not always, mind your own business. Homosexuality isn't more harmful, and isn't harmful to society.
When something is harmful to my society isn't it my business?
You haven't demonstrated how it is negative.
I have not, because homosexuality is only part of the problem and is related to the breakdown of the family, the emasculation of men, the rise of feminism, and sexual liberation. Most people out there can pretty obviously see the degradation of our culture, just go surf peopleofwalmart.com for a couple minutes. Of course what you would say is that homosexuality is not related.
Open homosexuality is the end game of turning away from the traditional Christian nation we used to be. While the argument today is over homosexuality, it is still representative of the whole road that has led us to this point. Proponents of the homosexual agenda need to be made to defend the entirety of the sexual revolution before being granted further reforms of our culture. We need to be going in the opposite direction.
Advancing blacks to an unreasonable status would be negative.
I didn't bring up methods. The black community is unwilling to address problems within, and have been sold a false narrative by liberals blaming their problems on white racists. What I was trying to say the goal of rising blacks to an equal standing with everyone else is honorable, because being black qualifies as a suspect class.
We can decide that without determining if they will stop doing the action in the future.
If sexual orientation is mutable. "Discriminating" against those who chose to be homosexual is perfectly valid. So the methods liberals typically use to get their way (supreme court rulings), because they can not get their way through the democratic process, would just be a gross violation of the people's right to govern themselves as they want.
Of course if the people of the United States overwhelmingly decide homosexuality is ok then fine, that is the way it is. It doesn't matter if it is someone's choice or not. But unfortunately these issues are going to be forced into the supreme court by liberals. In there, the question of immutability is important...
(of course what should be more important should be weather or not the constitution addresses homosexuals, which it doesn't... but unless Antonin Scalia is cloned 4 times and Scalia 2, 3, 4, and 5 are given seats on the court, that isn't going to happen. )
Tell me, how many lawsuits have there been to try to re-ban gay marriage in the couple of states that actually voted to allow same sex marriage?
So if a court can make same sex marriage legal, but never makes it illegal, how is it remotely fair for that decision to be made in court?
When something is harmful to my society isn't it my business?
You said if it is just harmful. You added especially harmful to society. But, homosexuality isn't harmful to society and you didn't refute that point, so it still isn't your business.
I have not, because homosexuality is only part of the problem and is related to the breakdown of the family, the emasculation of men, the rise of feminism, and sexual liberation. Most people out there can pretty obviously see the degradation of our culture, just go surf peopleofwalmart.com for a couple minutes. Of course what you would say is that homosexuality is not related.
You wouldn't be the first person to claim that society is falling about because of a change in values. Everyone complains about change, and our society is still going. These arguments are worthless.
Open homosexuality is the end game of turning away from the traditional Christian nation we used to be. While the argument today is over homosexuality, it is still representative of the whole road that has led us to this point. Proponents of the homosexual agenda need to be made to defend the entirety of the sexual revolution before being granted further reforms of our culture. We need to be going in the opposite direction.
What is so great about a Christian nation? Before all these changes that you complain about we didn't have internet. We didn't use to have planes. We didn't use to have cars. What is so great about the living conditions of the past?
I didn't bring up methods.
Neither did I. Apparently my example was too much for you, but I will listen to your rebuttal.
The black community is unwilling to address problems within, and have been sold a false narrative by liberals blaming their problems on white racists. What I was trying to say the goal of rising blacks to an equal standing with everyone else is honorable, because being black qualifies as a suspect class.
Blacks do not need to be elevated to an equal standing. Society needs to stop treating them differently.
If sexual orientation is mutable. "Discriminating" against those who chose to be homosexual is perfectly valid. So the methods liberals typically use to get their way (supreme court rulings), because they can not get their way through the democratic process, would just be a gross violation of the people's right to govern themselves as they want.
Of course if the people of the United States overwhelmingly decide homosexuality is ok then fine, that is the way it is. It doesn't matter if it is someone's choice or not. But unfortunately these issues are going to be forced into the supreme court by liberals. In there, the question of immutability is important...
(of course what should be more important should be weather or not the constitution addresses homosexuals, which it doesn't... but unless Antonin Scalia is cloned 4 times and Scalia 2, 3, 4, and 5 are given seats on the court, that isn't going to happen. )
Tell me, how many lawsuits have there been to try to re-ban gay marriage in the couple of states that actually voted to allow same sex marriage?
So if a court can make same sex marriage legal, but never makes it illegal, how is it remotely fair for that decision to be made in court?
We shouldn't ban gay marriage because one of the people was born a man instead of a woman. Under your logic it is ok to ban interracial marriage because you can choose to be sexually attracted to your race if you want. Someones gender is immutable. If the constitution doesn't spell out homosexual marriage, it is up to the court to decide how the constitutional would apply, so I am not sure what your problem is there. The court should be making everything it finds illegal illegal, and everything it finds legal legal. We don't want it any other way. If the court could make 2 different decisions on a topic there is something wrong. So, saying the court will always find it illegal doesn't make any sense.
So, basically, while homosexuality may have been considered a sexual perversion by Freud, it certainly is very different from all other sexual perversions. It is completely separate. Also, sexual perversion is not necessarily something that should restrict adoption rights.
Homosexuality would in no way inhibit someone's parental capacity. It's not a sexual perversion, if it even is that, that would affect parenthood.
Its a sexual interest that goes against sexual taboos. I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome.
...So you're basically saying that because someone is different in one way, they'd be ok with being different in more ways?
You've claimed that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, which is genetic. If you have one genetic disorder (again, not saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder) it doesn't mean you are just like "Well, I've got one, lets pick another one." There is no evidence of people who are homosexual developing more sexual perversions than anyone who is straight.
Would they find some children sexually attractive?
Of your arguments, this one seems the least-well thought out.
Are straight mothers sexually attracted to their sons? Are straight fathers sexually attracted to their daughters? Of course not! Well, unless they have a very odd sexual perversion, which has no relation to being gay.
So, basically, while homosexuality may have been considered a sexual perversion by Freud, it certainly is very different from all other sexual perversions. It is completely separate. Also, sexual perversion is not necessarily something that should restrict adoption rights.
Okay it is a sexual perversion different from some others.
So you're basically saying that because someone is different in one way, they'd be ok with being different in more ways?
I'm saying that it takes a lot of strength to go against a social taboo. Although some people may find the same sex attractive, because the taboo exists through our conditioning that causes repulsion to the idea of same sex relationships.
My last question was poorly worded. What I meant to say was: if an individual can overcome the social taboo of same sex relations, then are they able to overcome the taboo of adult-child relations? The fact is there are a lot of men that would find young teenagers (or even children) attractive but it is due to a taboo, and repulsion, that they don't allow that idea to come to the forefront of their minds. If a gay person, had those feelings, they would be more likely for it to become a overt sexual feeling.
So its not that pedophilic feelings are more prevalent in homosexuals it is more that if those feelings were there, they'd be more liking to go along with them, allowing themselves to feel an overt sexual feeling, and ultimately act on that feeling.
Well that response makes very much logical sense, suggesting that you are most certainly not a troll... (sarcasm)
Seriously. If you are making claims, provide viable sources. I have now provided evidence that the Bible is not an acceptable source. You are the only one here trolling right now.
Ok. You just made that claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Prove that. That is not a well-known fact, except maybe well-known among the ignorant zealots.
However, if you want me to provide some credible sources against your claim, here you are:
Slippery slope fallacy was made up by liberals to discredit conservatives.
Even if that were true, it wouldn't make sense because in NO instance is it EVER logical to say, "A -> B -> C -> ... Z, therefore A should not happen."
It is well known fact that gays become that way due to them being abused as young children.
For this to be true, you are assuming that EVERY homosexual has been abused as a child, without exception. Irrefutably, I can say that this is not true. I have gay siblings, and I know they were never abused.
For future reference, if your going to make that kind of claim you should at least source where you are getting that information. Saying, "It is a well known fact" proves nothing, and delegitimize your argument.
Slippery slope fallacy was made up by liberals to discredit conservatives. That is your biased opinion, not fact. I dont care about left verses right and even if I did, that would still be a new low of irrationality. Saying something is wrong does not make it so. I prefer logic and truth to religious delusion.
Look, can you stop quoting these logical fallacies. You clearly don't understand them. I didn't suggest that society allowing one thing would lead to society allowing another.
I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome. Would they find some children sexually attractive? Yes you did, sweetie.
Have a good day? You mean have a good day a month ago when I posted it?
Yeah it is my opinion that is based on the fact that you keep accusing people incorrectly of using them. Its pretty clear to anyone reading that you don't have a clue about most of the fallacies you talk about.
The not true Scotsman fallacy is a false appeal to purity. Its like saying no true American would vote for this is that candidate or not true Christian is gay or bisexual. The appeal to emotion fallacy is kind of like if you such and such, God kills a kitten. You do like kittens dont you. The strawman is kind of like misrespresenting someonesn statement to the point of lying. That would be like me saying you called me a retard in your statement when you did not. The slippery slope fallacy is like when the antiwoman movement said that allowing women to vote would lead to hampsters voting. From yourlogicalfallcyis.com: Example: The false cause fallacy is like saying: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax. Aslo from yourlogicalfallacyis.com: The fallacy fallacy is like saying: You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. This is the ad hom: Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it. Loaded question: Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot. Burden of proof: The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. Genetic: This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. Apeall to authority: It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not. Middle ground: You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth. Ambiguity: You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
The slippery slope at work for you. Women are banned in the bible from being pastors or bishops. In fact, they are banned from being in any position where they teach or have authority over men in the church. Of course this regulation does not apply to the business world or education etc. etc, just in the church.
Such a rule does not fit in with our egalitarian world, so many major protestant denominations changed the rules in the 1960's and 1970's. Essentially all of those denominations embrace homosexuality today. The argument was made at the time that allowing female pastors would lead to other things, arguments that were probably dismissed by people like you.
Have you signed the petition to legalize zophilia yet? ...................................................................................................
Not a whole lot, except they are using the exact same argument as homosexuals to de-criminalize their actions. Goodmale has even gone so far as to tell me it is an "orientation"
Aside from the person arguing for Zoophilia being an orientation, does it have anything to do same-sex couples being allowed to adopt?
except they are using the exact same argument as homosexuals to de-criminalize their actions. Goodmale has even gone so far as to tell me it is an "orientation
And I certainly will not support Goodmale's argument on it, he is in the wrong and I could refute his arguments if necessary. I absolutely disagree with his opinion on the subject.
Isn't it a little hypocritical to support homosexuality but not bestiality... As he says his partners consent just like gay partners? Why are you judging his lifestyle, he isn't hurting anyone.
Isn't it a little hypocritical to support homosexuality but not bestiality...
Nope. Not even in the slightest.
As he says his partners consent just like gay partners? Why are you judging his lifestyle, he isn't hurting anyone.
His desired partners, being non-human animals, cannot give consent. Hypothetically, let's pretend that objectively, the non-human animals wants to consent to sex. Humans have no way of verifying this. They are not able to tell us whether or not they give consent. Consensual sex is all about ethical law and non-human animals cannot contribute to that.
Do you support neutering and spaying because they can't give consent to that but we do it anyway but let me guss you will say there is a difference because "neutering is not as bad as rape" so before you say that, there are still both wrong and until you take action at banning neutering and spaying your just a hypocritical.
And anyway animals can give consent and your are getting yourself into a argument that you don't even know much about like I do.
Do you support neutering and spaying because they can't give consent to that but we do it anyway
I support the owner in legally neutering or spaying their animals. It does not require consent in a court of law to do so. Where as, if the issues were to arise about rape or consensual sex between humans and animals, that cannot be established in a court of law.
but let me guss you will say there is a difference because "neutering is not as bad as rape"
No actually, it's not as bad, but that is definitely not my reason. Don't get me wrong, I don't like neutering, but I realize if I want to have animals and they have territorial issues, I just might have to.
so before you say that
Yeah I wasn't going to.
there are still both wrong and until you take action at banning neutering and spaying
Way to convince me. They're wrong, so believe it.
your just a hypocritical.
Again, I didn't argue for that reason, you assumed. But even if I did, it's not hypocritical.
And anyway animals can give consent
Prove it.
and your are getting yourself into a argument that you don't even know much about like I do.
His desired partners, being non-human animals, cannot give consent. How would you know, don't you have any conception of privacy? What are we going to start spying on everyone who is "different" now, just to find out what they are doing? Sounds like you have some kind of personal conflict with this, are you sure you have never though about it?
They are not able to tell us whether or not they give consent so you admit there are no "victims" going out and reporting a crime? Why do you even defend laws you can't enforce without breaking his constitutional right to privacy. It's called the Constitution, read it some time. Just think of all the soldiers in all the wars fighting for our freedom. They gave all they had so we could have a country where bigots like you don't go out and judge people when they aren't even hurting anyone.
Consensual sex is all about ethical law and non-human animals cannot contribute to that. Says who? your stupid bible? Maybe someone doesn't want to live under what you call "ethics." Did you ever think of that?
What I believe is the exact same oversimplified arguments homosexuals use to justify their behavior can be used by a lot of other groups we all agree are immoral. A victory for homosexuality is an indirect victory for feminism, transsexuals, bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, and perverts of every kind.
Dont tell me what i can and cannot believe. I will do what I want. Being gay or bisexual is not wrong because people do not choose to be gay or bisexual. Im bisexual and Im not sorry. Homosexuality and bisexuality involve consenting adultsa and have nothing to do with pedophilia or zoophilia.
If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference. -thousandand1
Gay activists has been working for decades to make everyone believe in principals that favor their side. "They aren't hurting anyone." "Love is love." "Just because the bible says it is wrong doesn't make it so." "They were born that way." There is nothing that says those principals can only be applied to homosexuals.
