Discussion: Gay Rights II

[The Senator]

They already had the children. The children are THEIR offspring, not someone else's. If a woman's husband dies, and she's now alone, should the government take her child from her? Of course not. Comparing keeping your own biological offspring with adopting children to whom you are not biologically related is comparing apples to kumquats.

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

[lazur]

I think it is pretty inconsistent for you to say that children raised by homosexual parents aren't getting the best childhood experience based on the one mother-one-father model, and that you think that homosexuals should be given second preference in the adoption process, but you are perfectly fine with allowing single mothers to take care of their children on their own without a father figure... even though there isn't any influence from the other gender...

That is not only inconsistent, but a huge double standard.

Sorry, but a parent's inalienable right to raise his or her own children FAR outweighs the wants and desires of a gay couple to adopt a stranger's child. There are, after all, laws in EVERY country which protect the rights of biological parents, single or otherwise. And there are also laws in just about every country which PREVENT gay couples from adopting.

This means that the opinion I have, whether you agree or disagree, is the majority opinion. Don't let the overabundance of people on this board who share your very liberal view damage the reality that you are representing a minority opinion here on this subject.

Not that it's a bad thing, because I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't agree with yours.

[ForestAflame]

Actually, yes you did. :nono:



This was posted in the J. Man Spice for President thread on 06.10.08 at 12:34 pm.

What were you saying ForestAflame?

I never said he was unqualified, as Jmanspice is implying.

I said that the blue-collar voters wouldn't vote for him based on that. I never said it had anything to do with his qualifications. :whatever:

[The Senator]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

[SuBe]

My 2 cents, we have too many kids that need adoption, if 2 parents of the same sex can offer then a life out of a foster home, then so be it.

[ForestAflame]

Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?



It isn't. But we're not going to say single parents can't raise their biological children because of it.

That's idiotic.

[jaguarr]

Perhaps I shouldn't have put ForestAflame on ignore. Marx stole what was rightfully my ownage! :cmad: :csad:

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

[ForestAflame]

I guess that means Marx owned you, too, while he was at it. :hehe:

jag

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

You're not going to be able to pull the blue collar demographic.

[Tron5000]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

[SuBe]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:
You still never answered my question.

[lazur]

But here's the problem:

If people believe that a homosexual couple is not best suited to raise children because that childhood experience is missing influence from the opposite gender, then how can those same people believe that a single mother, whose husband has abandoned her and her child, is equipped to raise a child on her own?

Yes, I understand the difference between adoption and biological birth. But essentially, those here who believe gays should be given second-dibs in child adoption, use an all-encompassing argument that there needs to be a man and woman raising the child. But they conveniently toss that argument aside when an external circumstance comes up in a different scenario.

To me, that is a double standard. They believe that for X, it has to be one way; but for Y, it can be another way. That doesn't make any sense to me. Looking at adoption: If you're going to say that children need to be raised by a heterosexual couple in order to have the best childhood, and that rationale is because the child needs to be influenced equally by the male and female parents, then how can you say that outside of adoption it is a different situation?

So, I guess what I want to know is, can children lead fulfilling lives under the influence of one mother? And if they can, then doesn't that mean they can live fulfilling lives under the influence of two mothers? And if the answer to both those questions is "yes," then why does gender matter at all in the adoption process anyway?

But here's the problem I have with your argument:

The government has the responsibility for placing adoptive children into homes that are considered optimal for raising said children. But you're arguing that because single parent situations exist, that should be considered as optimal as any other parental situation, and I believe that is wrong.

Just because there are kids out there in single family homes, it doesn't mean those situations are optimal. They are NOT. I know because I am in that situation with my daughter. OF COURSE it would have been better if her mom hadn't abandoned the two of us. But it happened and we've made the best of it, and it certainly isn't up to the government to come in and steal my child away from me because it isn't optimal.

HOWEVER, if the government has to make a decision about the welfare of a child in GOVERNMENT CUSTODY, it should make the best decision possible and provide that child with the best set of circumstances possible. Which means that if a straight couple is available, that couple should receive precedence over any other custodial situation in which that is not the case.

[ForestAflame]

You still never answered my question.

You asked one? :huh:

[jaguarr]

The "ownage" is as real as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Fixed that for ya. :up:

jag

[SuBe]

You asked one? :huh:
How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

[Marx]

The "ownage" is as fictional as the idea that gay rights are equal rights. :csad:

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

[ForestAflame]

How does 2 Married Men effect your Relationship with a woman? I'll add a second, how does 2 Married Men adopting a child affect your relationship with your children?

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:

[The Senator]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

[jaguarr]

Keep it up ForestAflame, I'd say you're definately in contention for 'Most Ignorant Post Of The Day'.

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

[SuBe]

I don't understand what point you're trying to prove. I never said it had impact on my relationships whatsoever.

Are you saying I can't debate something unless it affects me personally? :huh:
No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

[Marx]

I think it can be safely said that ForestAflame is a flamer.

Oh, double meanings. :hehe:

Play nice Jman. :oldrazz:

My God, man! Are you trying to kill us all!?

jag

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

[ForestAflame]

No, what I'm saying is, why are you intent on using the Force Powers of Government to inflict your will on others?

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o

[The Senator]

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Notice I also said a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a single individual during the adoption process. You only discussed a homosexual couple, when I stated both.

And I believe that if a couple has a child, and then one of the parents realizes that he or she is homosexual, that individual should still be allowed to raise his or her own offspring. I know of a person in this situation, and I have absolutely no problem with it. If it is YOUR offspring, there's no problem.

Considering I discussed being raised by a single parent in my post, so I didn't necessarily think I needed to discuss that point further.

[SuBe]

I'm intent on no such thing.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. :o
So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

[ForestAflame]

I have a sneaky suspicion your stance on the issue stems from the bible. Would you like to get into the gay and religion argument while we're at it? I haven't had one of those in a while.


No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

[The Senator]

Hey, I have a sneaky suspicion about the root of some poster's argument. I figure...why keep tiptoeing around it? :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

[ForestAflame]

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion

Oh my god. :wow:

Don't let that man anywhere near this thread. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

No thanks. I "know where" those arguments lead. :cwink:

Because, if you do that, I will have to ask Wilhelm-Scream to enter the discussion on religion, and while that will be interesting, he will notice that I've been using his eye-rolling smiley face, and that could lead to an intellectual property lawsuit I'm not sure I'd win :csad:

Fine. On the account of a potential Jman intellectual property lawsuit, the 'Gay and Religion Debate' will be postponed.

For now. :meanie:

[jaguarr]

I'm still inviting Wilhelm to this thread. :hehe:

jag

[SentinelMind]

I agree with you. The best situation for raising a child (in my mind) is a father and a mother. You learn certain things from the male head of the household and you learn other things from the female leader of the household. A child who grows up without a father or mother is missing out on learning many things.

I think a heterosexual couple should be given precedent over a homosexual couple or a single individual during the adoption process.

I agree, there is a reason why the tradition of heterosexual marriage has survived centuries. Its the best household to raise and provide a stable environment for children.

[SuBe]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

[SentinelMind]

Back to the "gay people can't raise a child properly because they don't offer a mixed sex marriage environment" argument, eh? Isn't that really just the nice way of saying "I'm afraid that gay people will raise a child to be gay"?, though? I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt? How about people who are Pagan? Surely they'll raise a Pagan child? We should put a stop to that while we're at it. Never mind the fact that countless gay couples have raised perfectly normal, well adjusted people who...surprise....didn't turn out to be gay. All this is about is people being afraid that "the gay will rub off on those poor kids" and not a whole lot more.

jag

I agree with the bold. The interpretation afterwards, not so much. I also distinctly stated I think married straight couples should have precedence over a single person getting adoption, in fact not sure if I support allowing one never-married person to get an adoption at all.

[Tron5000]

But, if that is not availible, does the child sit and wait in a Foster home, or do you let them be raised by loving adults who happen to be gay?

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.

[SuBe]

I believe that heterosexual couples should be given precedent over homosexual couples or single individuals during the adoption process. I don't feel that homosexual couples and single individuals should be banned from adopting children. But if a loving, caring, providing heterosexual couple is available, they should be at the top of the list.
I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

[Tron5000]

I can understand your feelings on this, but if a hetrosexual couple is available, and a Homosexual Couple is available, but the Homosexual Couple has better means to care for the child (more money, stable living situation, better schools, etc), then what?

These are obviously factors that need to be taken into consideration. All things being equal, I believe the precedence should be given to the heterosexual couple. If it's between a stable, loving homosexual couple or a deadbeat hetero couple, I'll go with the former over the latter.

There are always many determining factors when deciding in which home to place a child with no parents. But my belief in precedent for the hetero couple comes into play when the factors are pretty much even. If both couples are equally qualified, I'd place the child with the hetero family.

[ForestAflame]

So, if it doesn't affect you, then why voice your opinion to discourage abandonned or orphaned children from having a roof over their head and a loving family?

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

[ForestAflame]

I'm afraid that racist people will raise racist children. Should we go our of our way to ensure they can't adopt?

jag

Yes.

[TheGreenMeanie]

I'm doing the opposite. I'm encouraging it. It's not like there's any shortage of straight couples out there who'd love to adopt.

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

[BlackLantern]

edit double post

[BlackLantern]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

[Tron5000]

I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

[BlackLantern]

Oh, and homosexual couples don't split up? Come on, now.

I've also read much about the rising rates of domestic violence in homosexual households. See, a man can't hit a woman. But if it's not a woman and is a man, all bets are off.

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

[TheGreenMeanie]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

[Tron5000]

Maybe so, but it's nowhere near the level of domestic abuse in heterosexual households...I watched my mom get smacked around for over 15 years......and that's not even considering the domestic abuse that doesn't get reported

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

Studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. For example, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[79] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."[80] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[81]

And I'm sorry your mother had to go through that. No one should ever have to live in a situation like that.

[The Senator]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

[TheGreenMeanie]

Isn't that what McCain uses? Oh not, thats Wikipedia lol.

[Tron5000]

I am not saying that, but its kind of a weak argument when you won't even let them marry. What are heterosexuals doing so great for marriage? The American family is pretty much becoming a joke, and it is not being lead by gay people.

Let's check some more statistics, shall we?

http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)

Figures were also compared with studies on heterosexual women who had been victims of violence within marriage or while cohabiting with men, also within five-year periods. Victimization for homosexual men (22%) was also substantially higher than for heterosexual women (11.6%).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual

A 2004 article by Michael Proust regarding homosexuality and promiscuity states the following:
“ A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[72]
”

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following regarding homosexuality and promiscuity:
“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.

Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[73]

In 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.[191]

In January of 2007, the journal AIDS (London, England) in an article entitled Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney stated the following: "Higher rates of illicit drug use have been reported among gay men than among similar populations of heterosexual men..."[192]

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexuality and illegal drug use:
“ ...the increased use of recreational or party drugs such as ectasy, "poppers", and methamphetamine ("crystal meth") influence unsafe sexual behaviors in gay men. Many of these illicit drugs are used during "circuit parties," in which gay men from various geographical locales congregrate in one large metropolitan community over an extended 2- or 3-day period for the purposes of intense partying and sexual activity.[193] ”

In June of 2001, the American Journal of Public Health reported the following in respect to homosexuality and illegal drug use and homosexual circuit parties and disease:
“ ...Nearly all participants stated that strong motivations for having attended circuit parties in the previous year were “to listen to music and dance” and “to be with friends”...“To get high on drugs” was a strong motivation for most participants...

Sexual activity, including unprotected anal sex, was relatively common during circuit party weekends...

Consider the potential impact of circuit party weekends on HIV infection rates and rates of infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, based on sexual mixing opportunities and patterns both within and beyond the 3-day periods. Our data pertain to a single circuit party weekend for each participant. If we multiply the prevalence of sexual risk behavior by the median of 3 parties per year revealed in this sample, and if we consider the large number of men who attend circuit parties, as well as the growing popularity of such parties, then the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern.[194][195]

[Tron5000]

Conservapedia is hardly a reliable source...

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

[danoyse]

On the adoption issue, my friend was telling me about a co-worker who was adopting a baby with his partner through a surrogate. They went to find out the sex of the baby, and learned they were having twins. They were so delighted and thrilled, and my friend was so happy for them. These kids were coming into the world so welcomed and loved that no one can tell me that they weren't a family. Today they're great parents.

To me, that's living proof that any couple that's willing and able to adopt a child should be allowed to do so.

[JLBats]

Man, are those kids' faces gonna be red when they realize how badly their rights were infringed upon:csad:

[Tron5000]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

Same-sex Parenting

According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid.

According to a paper published by Professor Bradley P. Hayton, there are serious concerns about the effects of a homosexual lifestyle on children.

Professor Hayton states:

Homosexuals... model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and most sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

The reason that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well being of children is due to several factors:

1. Higher Incidence of Violence

There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. This is verified in a number of other studies. According to the homosexual authors of Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, domestic violence affects half of all gay couples. The vast majority of violent crimes against homosexuals are committed by homosexuals, and are not considered hate crimes. According to the leading US gay magazine The Advocate, 75% of its readers admit engaging in violent sex, 20% in sadistic sex and 55% are using painful objects.

2. Higher Incidence of Mental Health Problems

There is a higher incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians. These include problems of substance abuse, as well as a greater risk for suicide. Homophobia is often blamed for the high suicide rate of young gays but this cause is only one among many, such as prostitution, broken families, sexual assault at a young age, disappointments in love affairs, and premature homosexual labeling.

3. Reduced Life Expectancy

Male homosexuals have a significantly reduced life expectancy. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals stated as follows:

In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

4. Higher Incidence of Same-sex Orientation

Same-sex parents are inclined to influence their children's sexual orientation. A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, stated as follows:

...there are developmentally important, statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behaviour [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behaviour.

5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents

According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.

These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.

6. Greater Risk of Social or Psychological Problems

The vast majority of the American studies widely used by homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting is as valid as opposite-sex parenting. However, as mentioned previously, these earlier studies have been found to be seriously flawed. According to a study there were noticeable problems with children raised by same-sex parents in regard to discipline expectations, and general parent-child relationships. Other studies have also reported that boys raised by homosexual mothers may have a lower self-image, regarding masculinity.

A study of children of lesbians revealed many problems, including a "defensiveness" on the part of the children of lesbian couples she studied, a pattern of denial - especially deep in the youngest child in the lesbian couples, hostility from older boys, especially directed at the mother's lesbian lover, the children expressed concern for the welfare of siblings, the children had concerns about their own sexuality, the children had concerns about the integrity of their family, concerns about their mother's homosexual activities, there was evidence that one of the lesbian mothers expressly encouraged her daughters to make lesbian sexual choices, and that the children were forced to conceal one parent's secret sexual behaviours from the other parent.

All these problems have led to the children raised by same-sex parents becoming dysfunctional and disadvantaged.

7. Higher Incidence of Child Molestation

Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.

According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.

Although pedophilia is condemned by most homosexuals, it remains condoned by many leading gay and lesbian North American activists who lobby for the lowering of the age of consent for sex. Early sex is said to be healthy for boys claims the self-proclaimed homosexual association NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Intergenerational sex (an often used euphemism for pederasty) is an undeniable fixture of gay literature, gay films, gay travel and gay prostitution. In the 70's, The Advocate repeatedly ran full page adds for a "penetrable boy doll" and in the 90's, 21% of its readers admitted having been molested before the age of 15.

[danoyse]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

[Tron5000]

What pure nonsense. :whatever:

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

[jaguarr]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

[Tron5000]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

[jaguarr]

You think that may be because there are a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men? Would it not, then, stand to reason that there will be a higher humber of heterosexual molesters than homosexual molesters? But when you break it down to percentages, that may not be the case.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

Cheers,
jag

[Tron5000]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php


Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals


Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”





Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals.

* Rev. Paul Shanley, a retired Catholic priest was arrested on May 4, 2002 in San Diego on three counts of child rape. Shanley had a history of molesting boys that went back to 1967. He was at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and while in San Diego operated a bed & breakfast for homosexuals in Palm Springs. Shanley has openly called for “man-boy” love.

* David Carlton Nurmi, was arrested in Florida on April 26, 2002, for possession of child pornography and for molesting a 15-year-old boy.

* Geoffrey Cornish, a well-respected Solana Beach, California therapist was sentenced to 23 years in prison in September, 2001 for sexually molesting boys who came to him for therapy. Cornish, who is HIV-positive, was also a coach for the Torrey Pines High School surf team. Cornish told police he had been molested himself by a Boy Scout leader for three years when he was living in England.

* James Edward Sanders, a homosexual child molester, was arrested in New Mexico in December, 2001 for sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy. Police also discovered child pornography in Sanders’ home.

* Christopher Reardon, a homosexual, former youth minister, and Boy Scout leader was sentenced to 40-50 years in prison in the Summer of 2001 for raping, molesting, and disseminating pornography to 29 boys under his care.

These are only a few of the homosexual child molestation cases to hit the news during 2001-02. Virtually every week, newspapers detail more cases involving homosexuals who have sexually assaulted children under their care.
New York Post Exposes High Rate Of Teacher/Student Molestations

In a story not widely publicized in the mainstream press, the New York Post published a story in its July 30, 2001 edition about the secret epidemic of homosexual child abuse cases that go unreported in New York City’s public schools.

The report, “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.

The report noted that out of the 117 cases, 212 children were victims. In 45% of the cases, the sex offender attacked more than one student. In nearly 16% of the cases, school officials delayed or tried to cover up the sexual molestations. The average victim is a 15-year-old girl and 75% of the victims were girls. According to the report, “Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these cases, the attack led to a sexual relationship with the stu- dent.” The report also discovered that the Board of Education investigated another 347 substantiated sex abuse cases between January 2000 and July 20, 2001. Adding the 117 cases with the 327, it appears that at least one child is sexually abused each day by a school employee—and 20% of these molestations against children are done by homosexuals!
Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals

Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children.

[jaguarr]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

Cheers,
jag

[StrainedEyes]

98% of all statistics are bogus. :o

[danoyse]

Yes, statistics are troublesome things. Fantastic rebuttal. When will your book be out?

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

[Tron5000]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

Cheers,
jag

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html


[T]hese studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children

Cheers,
Tron

[Tron5000]

When I get the 10 minutes of my life I wasted reading that article back. :cwink:

When the statistics come from a reliable source and not a random article from Canada posted on a rampant pro-life site, they'll be worth responding to.

Yeah, the writers of the article probably made up all those studies and figures.

It's the message that is important, not the messenger.

[jaguarr]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html



Cheers,
Tron

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):

Conclusion The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.


There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

[danoyse]

You lost me completely when you whipped out all the molestation BS, Tron. When I worked for the court system I had a ton of appeals cases in my office for child molesters; almost all of the kiddie-fiddlers were supposedly straight guys who messed with some kid they were babysitting be it their own, a family member's child or a friend's child. They had no history of homosexuality and identified as straight in their sexual orientation, even though they were messing with children of the same sex. Now I KNOW those "stats" you posted are bogus. Sorry, duder.

jag

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

[Tron5000]

A guy I went to high school with spent a year in jail for trying to pick up a 14-year-old girl on the internet. They had 6 months worth of explicit emails between him and the 'girl' (really an agent) that they presented in court. At the time he was an elementary school teacher.

I have several gay friends, and there's not a child molester among them.

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

[Tron5000]

Also from that article (which you clearly did not read all of):




There's a whole lot more there that debunks all the claims you are trying to put forth including the "statistics" and the "research", but I thought I'd just go ahead and ruin the ending for you.


Cheers,
jag

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

[SentinelMind]

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

[Tron5000]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/fri_edupamphlet2.html


The Scientific Evidence

Three kinds of scientific evidence point to the proportion of homosexual molestation: 1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported. These three lines of evidence suggest that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality (3) account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation.
Reports of Molestation by the General Population

In 1983, a probability survey of the sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7% of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 134 (i.e., 30% was homosexual).

In 1983- (4), a random survey of 3,132 adults in Los Angeles found that 3.8% of men and 6.8% of women said that they had been sexually assaulted in childhood. Since 93% of the assailants were male, and only 1% of girls had been assaulted by females, about 35% of the assaults were homosexual. (5)

The Los Angeles Times (6) surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 of every 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual.

In a random survey of British 15-to-19 yr olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. (7)

In science, a review of the professional literature published in a refereed scientific journal is considered to be an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge. The latest such review was published in 1985. (8) It concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation recorded in the scientific and forensic literature.
Surveys of Those Convicted

Drs Freund and Heasman (9) of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles.

Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said (10) that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and "40% to 45%" of child molesters have had "significant homosexual experiences."

Dr. C. H. McGaghy (11) estimated that "homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children." Other studies are similar:

– Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual and a third homosexual in orientation. (12)

– A state-wide survey of 161 Vermont adolescents who committed sex offenses in 1984 found that 35 (22%) were homosexual. (13)

– Of the 91 molesters of non-related children at Canada’s Kingston Sexual Behaviour Clinic from 1978-1984, 38 (42%) engaged in homosexuality. (14)

– Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual. (15)

– In England for 1973, 802 persons (8 females) were convicted of indecent assault on a male, and 3,006 (6 of them female) were convicted of indecent assault on a female (i.e., 21% were homosexual). 88% of male and about 70% of female victims were under age sixteen. (16)

Because of this pattern, Judge J. T. Rees concluded that "the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to that of the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims.... The great majority of [whom]... were under the age of 16. Only 11%... were over 21."

"[T]he problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e., by other boys] and by its elders. [And thereby]... the creation... of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future." (17)

What Homosexuals Admit

The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. (18)

In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (19)

In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. (20)

In France, 129 convicted gays (21)(average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man). Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each. (22)
Summary

About a third of the reports of molestation by the populace have involved homosexuality. Likewise, between a fifth and a third of those who have been caught and/or convicted practiced homosexuality. Finally, a fifth to a third of surveyed gays admitted to child molestation. All-in-all, a rather consistent story.

[jaguarr]

I don't see how that last bit in any way negates the studies and stats that I presented showing the exact opposite of what you posted.

That assertion from the UC Davis site is presenting a theory and explanation to dismiss data "we can't look at them as having adult sexuality, they're fixated on children"...which is a bit of a subjective claim. Their theory may or may not have validity, but it doesn't negate the statistical data reported in Tron's websites.

Hmmm...yeah, you guys haven't read the entire article, then. It very specifically addresses how these "studies" and "statistics" are derived and debunks their validity due to severe flaws. You can post all the "data" you want, but if it's flawed and biased to begin with (which it is), then it's irrelevant and does nothing to support your claims. Sorry. Come up with some data from an impartial source that's not pushing a particular agenda (hint: it doesn't exist), and then we'll talk.

jag

[danoyse]

So you know a guy who molested a girl, but none of your gay friends have molested anyone? Wow, then I guess that proves everything.

You didn't even read that correctly. He spoke with a girl over the internet who he planned to meet for sex. There was no girl. He met the FBI agent that he'd been speaking to for the last 6 months instead.

And yes, it's amazing when reality flies in the face of the rantings of a ridiculous article.

[jaguarr]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

1. Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."


2. Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.

The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.

The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
* the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
* all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
* the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.


3. Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.


4. Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.

In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.


5. Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.


6. Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.

In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.

The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.

The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.


7. Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.

This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:

refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.... Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."

In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):

"Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby,Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome." (p. 56)


8. Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.

This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.


9. Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.

This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.



In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

jag

[jaguarr]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.

In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.

Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminishing credibility in this area is that his work was not cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.

jag

[jaguarr]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr7388256l7437xh/

A. Nicholas Groth1 and H. Jean Birnbaum1
(1) Forensic Mental Health Program, Harrington Memorial Hospital, 01550 Southbridge, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

Key words pedophile - homosexual - rape - sexual assault

jag

[The Senator]

The studies and links provided by Conservapedia are reliable. You know, groups like The American Journal of Public Health, Nursing Clinics of North America, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine...But I guess these are all just right-wing fronts, 'cause Conservapedia links to 'em.

Next time try reading the message before shooting the messenger between the eyes, K?

If you are going to provide sources, I suggest you post the articles from the actual sources instead of through conservapedia. That website, like Wikipedia, is known to exaggerate claims it makes. There are links at the end of every statement it makes-- how hard would it be to click on those and provide the actual research findings? That's what I do with Wikipedia, unless I'm looking for a definition or vague information. Specifics, from specific sources, should be reported from the source rather than a proxy website that anyone can edit.

[The Senator]

Statistics can often be manipulated, and when you are reporting statistics from a conservative think tank, they will be manipulated in a manner which will support the causes they are for. Just like if you took stats from a Democratic think tank, they would be manipulated in a manner to reflect liberal causes. None of these statistics mean a goddamn thing to me.

There are sick, disgusting people in the world, and if you base your opinion on all people from one demographic based on a statistic, you prove just how much of a moron you are, and how you cannot be taken seriously. Especially something as disturbing as child molestation or domestic abuse.

That would be like if I said all people from the South are a bunch of racist, gun-toting psycho-Christians because stats show more people from the South are racist, own guns, and belong to evangelical religions.

[The Chairman]

Well, this thread has certainly grown since it first began!

Anyway, my basic view is people are people, and that everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the same rights. To keep gay marriage illegal violates the very ideals this nation was founded on, mostly due to self righteous fanaticism, close minded prejudice, or simple fear of change from the thing you were brought up to recognize as normal.

I think gay rights (meaning equal marriage, adoption and social security benefits) should be totally legalized and allowed.

[MaskedManJRK]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

The problem with children being raised by a gay couple not having the "other gender influence" is that children aren't raised in a vaccum (I would make a Utah joke here, but I'm trying to be above that). Besides the parents themselves, kids are influenced by their parent's family and friends, their teachers, even characters from forms of entertainment. So, it's not IMPOSSIBLE to get both sides from a single-sex couple, just slightly different.

Also, here's my basic problem with not allowing gays rights: It's ultimately against the Constitution.

Now, you might be asking, "How? Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution!" Well, there's one amendment, not often talked about, but, IMHO, very important. It is the Ninth Amendment, and it goes like this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Now, what this could be summed up to mean is that just because a right is not mentioned inside of the Constitution, it does not mean that the right does not exist and should be ignored or denied. While it is against them that they didn't think about this about the whole slavery thing, but the words are in there nonetheless.

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.

[JLBats]

Y'know, I'm surprised Lazur and other people against gays having the right to adopt didn't address JLBat's post about other influences for children.

Thank you.

Vindicated. Tonight I sleep the sleep of the just. Wooo.

[ForestAflame]

In essence, same-sex couples being able to get married or adopt or basically live the same way as straight couples do is protected by the Constitution because it says that the government cannot deny rights because it isn't in the Constitution.

This why that, IMHO, that people who do not believe that the GLBT community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else is ultimately Un-American.


I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

[The Senator]

I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

[Marx]

I don't think it's a "right" to get married to someone of the same sex. It's more like a crime.

Do I believe the GLBT should have the same rights as everyone else?
Sure. Do I believe they should twist the law and the Constitution based on their sexual preferences? No. I find such distortion Un-American.

So which is it ForestAflame? You cannot have it both ways. You claim to 'support' gay rights but one of the main rights being fought for...you see as criminal?


I take ForestAflame just said something awful, correct?

Yes, and it's highly teeing me off.

[lazur]

Originally Posted by TheGreenMeanie View Post
I guess that would be best, because then the kids can see some of the great things all the straight people have brought to marriage and families. Such as divorce...

..domestic abuse (verbal and physical, both if you're lucky), chance of molestation, neglect...

Got news for you. The 'nuclear' family consisting of a mother, father and their children is the foundation of all humankind. Whether or not YOU consider it to be a poor example of 'family' is completely irrelevant. You cannot wipe out thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years of evolutionary and/or creative design just because it may be 'politically correct' to do so at this insignificant fraction of time during the existence of humanity.

Gay marriage - fine. Gay adoption when a 'nuclear' family is available - no.

[The Senator]

The fun thing about the "ignore" list is that while you cannot see their initial post, you can see it when it is quoted in others'.

I don't see how sanctifying a relationship through the legal means of marriage is a crime. Moreover, our constitution is a malleable document which does not promote one sexual orientation over another. Amending it to allow members of the GLBT community equal rights is no more of a crime than amending it to prohibit same-sex couples the opportunity to marry.

The members of the GLBT community, on the whole, are different from everyone else in sexual orientation and identity only. We are human beings, who care about one another and the future of this country. We are just like everyone else in this country. We are cops, lawyers, doctors, teachers, truck drivers, technicians, mothers and fathers. We are consumers, proprietors, intellectuals and laymen. We are just as much a part of this society as any other hard-working, loving American, and we deserve the opportunity to be treated the same as everyone else. We do not deserve to be treated like second-class citizens, like sinful hellions who aspire to do nothing more than corrupt children and dismantle the establishment. We have spent decades out in the open, our reputations trampled on due to disease, media stereotypes, and the radical agenda of the Christofascists which have treated hatred and ignorance as a part of the family values they so believe they are for. Let me tell you something, right here and now: Hate is not a family value. It should not be a family value to throw someone aside based on their sexuality. It should not be a family value to tell your children that someone is vile and disgusting because he or she is engaged in a relationship with members of the same sex. It should not be a family value to disown your child because he is gay. And it most certainly should not be a family value to encourage your children and your peers to disrupt the lives of millions of peaceful, kind, generous, and altogether good people solely because they live lives which go against your own personal creed.

Let's get something clear: This is not about selfishness, or the desire for us to break down the basic constructs of our society. This is about what is fair, under the liberty this country was rightfully founded on. It is about our ability to live our lives openly, to marry the people we are most compatible with, and to not be denied the chance to sanctify what is a beautiful bond through the holiest of all institutions: marriage. Churches are already seeing how important it is to allow members of the GLBT community a chance at equality, many of them are dismantling their own preconceived beliefs and allowing gays to join their congregations and marry under them. Religion is already abiding, states like Massachusetts and California have seen that marriage is a wholesome value which can and should be shared by all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. And many more states will follow in the coming years, perhaps not now, but in due time.

This fight for equality is not only about marriage and adoption rights, folks. It is about being able to go to school or work without being harassed. It is about being able to work in an office and not lose your job because you are gay. It as about being able to find an apartment or purchase a home without being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation or gender identity. It is about being able to fight for and serve this country, the United States of America, without being discharged because one of your officers discovers you are a homosexual in your life away from the service.

There is nothing criminal about a group of people who not only want, but deserve, a chance to be themselves, to be Americans. And in this democratic country, the greatest country in the world, where freedom and liberty reign supreme, members of the GLBT community deserve to live freely. It is more than selfishness, it is about love; and more than love, it is about fulfilling the promise of this nation, a promise which Jefferson declared was based on the fact that all men are created equal and deserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have a long way to go, there are hurdles built on a foundation of intolerance which we must leap, barriers plastered in stereotypes which we must tear down, and a vision of an equal America which we must restore. The only crime being committed is the nation's collective inability to restore the promises of our founding fathers and the Constitution of the United States.

It is my hope, my vision, and my prayer that someday this country will prove itself to be better than it truly is, and that all men and women, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity, will be able to live as equals in a truly democratic America.

Until then, the fight lives on, and this poster will remain at the forefront. I hope there are people here who are willing to join me.

[JLBats]

Gay marriage - fine. Gay adoption when a 'nuclear' family is available - no.

What if the gay couple simply displays more of the necessary parental attributes and are just more genuinely loving and enthusiastic than ANY of the other nuclear family candidates?

[Gilpesh]

Got news for you. The 'nuclear' family consisting of a mother, father and their children is the foundation of all humankind. Whether or not YOU consider it to be a poor example of 'family' is completely irrelevant. You cannot wipe out thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years of evolutionary and/or creative design just because it may be 'politically correct' to do so at this insignificant fraction of time during the existence of humanity.

Gay marriage - fine. Gay adoption when a 'nuclear' family is available - no.

You're a hypocrite and an idiot. You just bashed them for what you yourself are doing.

You think gay parents is a poor example of family and that is completely irrelevant to the discussion... that's just you hating gays.

Oh and don't point to evolution... cause in case you didn't understand that lesson in science.......... evolution means things change. :whatever:




(and to any mods... sorry, it's too hard not to call the bigot, an idiot)

[ForestAflame]

So which is it ForestAflame? You cannot have it both ways. You claim to 'support' gay rights but one of the main rights being fought for...you see as criminal?



I don't support "gay rights", I think gays should have EQUAL rights (which they already do).

[Carcharodon]

I don't support "gay rights", I think gays should have EQUAL rights (which they already do).They most certainly do not have equal rights, not so long as it's illegal for them to marry.

[ForestAflame]

The fun thing about the "ignore" list is that while you cannot see their initial post, you can see it when it is quoted in others'.

I don't see how sanctifying a relationship through the legal means of marriage is a crime. Moreover, our constitution is a malleable document which does not promote one sexual orientation over another. Amending it to allow members of the GLBT community equal rights is no more of a crime than amending it to prohibit same-sex couples the opportunity to marry.

The members of the GLBT community, on the whole, are different from everyone else in sexual orientation and identity only. We are human beings, who care about one another and the future of this country. We are just like everyone else in this country. We are cops, lawyers, doctors, teachers, truck drivers, technicians, mothers and fathers. We are consumers, proprietors, intellectuals and laymen. We are just as much a part of this society as any other hard-working, loving American, and we deserve the opportunity to be treated the same as everyone else. We do not deserve to be treated like second-class citizens, like sinful hellions who aspire to do nothing more than corrupt children and dismantle the establishment. We have spent decades out in the open, our reputations trampled on due to disease, media stereotypes, and the radical agenda of the Christofascists which have treated hatred and ignorance as a part of the family values they so believe they are for. Let me tell you something, right here and now: Hate is not a family value. It should not be a family value to throw someone aside based on their sexuality. It should not be a family value to tell your children that someone is vile and disgusting because he or she is engaged in a relationship with members of the same sex. It should not be a family value to disown your child because he is gay. And it most certainly should not be a family value to encourage your children and your peers to disrupt the lives of millions of peaceful, kind, generous, and altogether good people solely because they live lives which go against your own personal creed.

Let's get something clear: This is not about selfishness, or the desire for us to break down the basic constructs of our society. This is about what is fair, under the liberty this country was rightfully founded on. It is about our ability to live our lives openly, to marry the people we are most compatible with, and to not be denied the chance to sanctify what is a beautiful bond through the holiest of all institutions: marriage. Churches are already seeing how important it is to allow members of the GLBT community a chance at equality, many of them are dismantling their own preconceived beliefs and allowing gays to join their congregations and marry under them. Religion is already abiding, states like Massachusetts and California have seen that marriage is a wholesome value which can and should be shared by all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. And many more states will follow in the coming years, perhaps not now, but in due time.

This fight for equality is not only about marriage and adoption rights, folks. It is about being able to go to school or work without being harassed. It is about being able to work in an office and not lose your job because you are gay. It as about being able to find an apartment or purchase a home without being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation or gender identity. It is about being able to fight for and serve this country, the United States of America, without being discharged because one of your officers discovers you are a homosexual in your life away from the service.

There is nothing criminal about a group of people who not only want, but deserve, a chance to be themselves, to be Americans. And in this democratic country, the greatest country in the world, where freedom and liberty reign supreme, members of the GLBT community deserve to live freely. It is more than selfishness, it is about love; and more than love, it is about fulfilling the promise of this nation, a promise which Jefferson declared was based on the fact that all men are created equal and deserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have a long way to go, there are hurdles built on a foundation of intolerance which we must leap, barriers plastered in stereotypes which we must tear down, and a vision of an equal America which we must restore. The only crime being committed is the nation's collective inability to restore the promises of our founding fathers and the Constitution of the United States.

It is my hope, my vision, and my prayer that someday this country will prove itself to be better than it truly is, and that all men and women, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity, will be able to live as equals in a truly democratic America.

Until then, the fight lives on, and this poster will remain at the forefront. I hope there are people here who are willing to join me.

You're amending the Constitution to allow a crime...point blank.

I don't hate gay people for what they do. You see, I have the uncanny ability to separate a person's actions from the actual person. There are nice gay people, nice jaywalkers, nice alcoholics, nice zoophiles (legal in some parts of the world BTW), and nice sadists who don't really mean harm to their society.

That doesn't mean that the way they feel is all right. We all have certain feelings and impulses, that if pursued, could be damaging. But that's not enough to break law over.

"all men and women, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity"

It's not the same. Race is different from religion and creed and all of them are different from sexual orientation and gender identity.

You can either recognize that or go the blissful way of ignorance.

[ForestAflame]

They most certainly do not have equal rights, not so long as it's illegal for them to marry.

They can marry people of the opposite sex...just like anybody else.

The day a gay man can't marry a woman, I'll protest in the streets. :o

[The Senator]

Can people not quote ForestAflame anymore? Seriously, it defeats the purpose of the "ignore" list, and after writing what I wrote above, I really don't want to read his ignorant, nonsensical, and utterly despicable views anymore.

[Gilpesh]

Can people not quote ForestAflame anymore? Seriously, it defeats the purpose of the "ignore" list, and after writing what I wrote above, I really don't want to read his ignorant, nonsensical, and utterly despicable views anymore.

I'm surprised no mod has seen his obvious trolling yet.

[The Senator]

I have no problem debating this issue with people who have opposing views. Not at all. But when people have views which are so outlandish, so far away from the core concern of GLBT rights and demonstrate the homophobia I thought some posters were above, it truly gets on my nerves. I expected a few disturbing opinions on this, when you start a thread like this it is obvious that they will come into fruition.

But this poster has a history of posting nonsense, just utter nonsense which makes no sense at all. Nonsense which is hidden behind a shield of bigotry and/ or ignorance. I cannot tell if he is trying to be funny, sarcastic, or what-- but he has demonstrated to me that he is nothing more than a child, and he doesn't merit a single ounce of attention from the people here.

As much as I disagree with posters like Tron, it is easy to debate an issue with him. And if I don't care for some of his views, I know that they are least justified and sound. ForestAflame's views are so warped and ridiculous I had to put him on ignore. Only three posters here have that distinct position of being on my ignore list, he's one of them and another one was banned a long time ago.

I think others should do the same, if what he has to say doesn't violate some sort of trolling rule.

[MaskedManJRK]

The fun thing about the "ignore" list is that while you cannot see their initial post, you can see it when it is quoted in others'.

I don't see how sanctifying a relationship through the legal means of marriage is a crime. Moreover, our constitution is a malleable document which does not promote one sexual orientation over another. Amending it to allow members of the GLBT community equal rights is no more of a crime than amending it to prohibit same-sex couples the opportunity to marry.

The members of the GLBT community, on the whole, are different from everyone else in sexual orientation and identity only. We are human beings, who care about one another and the future of this country. We are just like everyone else in this country. We are cops, lawyers, doctors, teachers, truck drivers, technicians, mothers and fathers. We are consumers, proprietors, intellectuals and laymen. We are just as much a part of this society as any other hard-working, loving American, and we deserve the opportunity to be treated the same as everyone else. We do not deserve to be treated like second-class citizens, like sinful hellions who aspire to do nothing more than corrupt children and dismantle the establishment. We have spent decades out in the open, our reputations trampled on due to disease, media stereotypes, and the radical agenda of the Christofascists which have treated hatred and ignorance as a part of the family values they so believe they are for. Let me tell you something, right here and now: Hate is not a family value. It should not be a family value to throw someone aside based on their sexuality. It should not be a family value to tell your children that someone is vile and disgusting because he or she is engaged in a relationship with members of the same sex. It should not be a family value to disown your child because he is gay. And it most certainly should not be a family value to encourage your children and your peers to disrupt the lives of millions of peaceful, kind, generous, and altogether good people solely because they live lives which go against your own personal creed.

Let's get something clear: This is not about selfishness, or the desire for us to break down the basic constructs of our society. This is about what is fair, under the liberty this country was rightfully founded on. It is about our ability to live our lives openly, to marry the people we are most compatible with, and to not be denied the chance to sanctify what is a beautiful bond through the holiest of all institutions: marriage. Churches are already seeing how important it is to allow members of the GLBT community a chance at equality, many of them are dismantling their own preconceived beliefs and allowing gays to join their congregations and marry under them. Religion is already abiding, states like Massachusetts and California have seen that marriage is a wholesome value which can and should be shared by all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. And many more states will follow in the coming years, perhaps not now, but in due time.

This fight for equality is not only about marriage and adoption rights, folks. It is about being able to go to school or work without being harassed. It is about being able to work in an office and not lose your job because you are gay. It as about being able to find an apartment or purchase a home without being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation or gender identity. It is about being able to fight for and serve this country, the United States of America, without being discharged because one of your officers discovers you are a homosexual in your life away from the service.

There is nothing criminal about a group of people who not only want, but deserve, a chance to be themselves, to be Americans. And in this democratic country, the greatest country in the world, where freedom and liberty reign supreme, members of the GLBT community deserve to live freely. It is more than selfishness, it is about love; and more than love, it is about fulfilling the promise of this nation, a promise which Jefferson declared was based on the fact that all men are created equal and deserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have a long way to go, there are hurdles built on a foundation of intolerance which we must leap, barriers plastered in stereotypes which we must tear down, and a vision of an equal America which we must restore. The only crime being committed is the nation's collective inability to restore the promises of our founding fathers and the Constitution of the United States.

It is my hope, my vision, and my prayer that someday this country will prove itself to be better than it truly is, and that all men and women, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity, will be able to live as equals in a truly democratic America.

Until then, the fight lives on, and this poster will remain at the forefront. I hope there are people here who are willing to join me.

...Can you tell us your real name? 'Cause I want to write it in on the ballot this November. :o

[The Senator]

I'm ineligible for the only offices I want to seek, so not for another four years or so.

[Gilpesh]

I think others should do the same, if what he has to say doesn't violate some sort of trolling rule.

It's not debating when his side is clearly just to piss people off...

And it's obvious that it is to piss people off.

[kainedamo]

jag defeated Tron5000 with facts :up: awesome.

Seriously, Tron5000, could you not have found a more unbiased source to back up your claims?

[lazur]

You're a hypocrite and an idiot. You just bashed them for what you yourself are doing.

You think gay parents is a poor example of family and that is completely irrelevant to the discussion... that's just you hating gays.

Oh and don't point to evolution... cause in case you didn't understand that lesson in science.......... evolution means things change. :whatever:

(and to any mods... sorry, it's too hard not to call the bigot, an idiot)

You have issues. I did not say that I think 'gay parents are a poor example of family.' Maybe if you'd learn to read, you might just understand, but that doesn't appear to be the case...

I was responding to others who said STRAIGHT FAMILIES were poor examples of family. Maybe you should re-read that and then take some meds.

But I must say that people of your caliber don't fail to disappoint by always retreating into name-calling when you have nothing of intelligence to offer to the discussion...

[lazur]

I'm surprised no mod has seen his obvious trolling yet.

You're one to talk...

[lazur]

It's not debating when his side is clearly just to piss people off...

And it's obvious that it is to piss people off.

You're one to talk, again...

[Matt]

I have no problem debating this issue with people who have opposing views. Not at all. But when people have views which are so outlandish, so far away from the core concern of GLBT rights and demonstrate the homophobia I thought some posters were above, it truly gets on my nerves. I expected a few disturbing opinions on this, when you start a thread like this it is obvious that they will come into fruition.

But this poster has a history of posting nonsense, just utter nonsense which makes no sense at all. Nonsense which is hidden behind a shield of bigotry and/ or ignorance. I cannot tell if he is trying to be funny, sarcastic, or what-- but he has demonstrated to me that he is nothing more than a child, and he doesn't merit a single ounce of attention from the people here.

As much as I disagree with posters like Tron, it is easy to debate an issue with him. And if I don't care for some of his views, I know that they are least justified and sound. ForestAflame's views are so warped and ridiculous I had to put him on ignore. Only three posters here have that distinct position of being on my ignore list, he's one of them and another one was banned a long time ago.

I think others should do the same, if what he has to say doesn't violate some sort of trolling rule.

Sorry guys, just wanted to give him enough rope to hang himself. That means two of the people on your ignore list are banned Jman. Jman's a witch. :csad:

[lazur]

Hmmm...yeah, you guys haven't read the entire article, then. It very specifically addresses how these "studies" and "statistics" are derived and debunks their validity due to severe flaws. You can post all the "data" you want, but if it's flawed and biased to begin with (which it is), then it's irrelevant and does nothing to support your claims. Sorry. Come up with some data from an impartial source that's not pushing a particular agenda (hint: it doesn't exist), and then we'll talk.

jag

That's an impossibility. What you ask is for 'unbiased' data and yet any data presented on this subject will be biased. All of these studies and 'facts' are subjective.

My position will not change. I have no problem with gay marriage. I do, however, have big problems with gay couples being awarded custody of adopted children ahead of straight couples.

In terms of the debate this thread seems to have sunken into, people are people. Whether gay, white, black, or from mars, the same percentage of pedophiles exists within every race and gender. However, since gays only comprise about 2% of the total population in this country, you won't hear about them as often on the news. It's a fairly 'common sense' observation...

[Gilpesh]

You have issues. I did not say that I think 'gay parents are a poor example of family.' Maybe if you'd learn to read, you might just understand, but that doesn't appear to be the case...

Saying that the 'atomic' family > homosexual family.... you have to think it is poor to say one is better than the other. :whatever:

I was responding to others who said STRAIGHT FAMILIES were poor examples of family. Maybe you should re-read that and then take some meds.

No... I saw a bunch of people grilling you about SINGLE parents.

But I must say that people of your caliber don't fail to disappoint by always retreating into name-callingwhen you have nothing of intelligence to offer to the discussion...

Funny. I'm not the one continuously saying that gay people should not be allowed to adopt when the 'obviously superior' straight parents are available. First it's child's rights then it is evolution then it just cuz then blah blah blah...

It's hard not to name call when your position is discriminate for no reason with no evidence to back up your idea of what family should be. :whatever:

[lazur]

Saying that the 'atomic' family > homosexual family.... you have to think it is poor to say one is better than the other. :whatever:

It is. The history of all humankind is on my side, not yours...



No... I saw a bunch of people grilling you about SINGLE parents.

You obviously didn't bother to read the person I quoted in my response...

Funny. I'm not the one continuously saying that gay people should not be allowed to adopt when the 'obviously superior' straight parents are available. First it's child's rights then it is evolution then it just cuz then blah blah blah...

A child's rights trump all else even when a gay couple 'wants' to adopt a child...

It's hard not to name call when your position is discriminate for no reason with no evidence to back up your idea of what family should be. :whatever:

My evidence is called the entirety of human history. What's yours again??

[kainedamo]

lazur isn't right wing :huh:

[Gilpesh]

It is. The history of all humankind is on my side, not yours...

That's it? Evolution again? You missed the point about evolution changing... so that means the family is evolving also and you should let it happen... or just completely invalidate your own argument by being hypocritical.

You obviously didn't bother to read the person I quoted in my response...

And you didn't read my point on evolution so you could rush to say I couldn't read.

A child's rights trump all else even when a gay couple 'wants' to adopt a child...

Rights again. :whatever:

Seeing as the entire rights argument of yours means that someone has to decide what a better family is for the kid... which would go against the whole thing of rights in the first place... saying that one person's right is better than another's.

My evidence is called the entirety of human history. What's yours again??

The entirety of human history has a lot of bad heterosexual parents. Sure you want to use that?

[lazur]

That's it? Evolution again? You missed the point about evolution changing... so that means the family is evolving also and you should let it happen... or just completely invalidate your own argument by being hypocritical.

2% of the population compared to 98%. I'd say that, statistically, the facts are on my side. I certainly don't hold you at fault for what you believe, but this is something we will never agree on.

And you didn't read my point on evolution so you could rush to say I couldn't read.

Your point about evolution changing is as opinionated as any other. The family unit does not 'evolve' the way life does. You can be 'progressive' all you want, but citing 'evolutionary change' as a reason for justifying gay couples adopting children is quite the stretch...

Rights again. :whatever:

Right, I forgot that you don't believe in rights for children...

Seeing as the entire rights argument of yours means that someone has to decide what a better family is for the kid... which would go against the whole thing of rights in the first place... saying that one person's right is better than another's.

People have rights. Some rights are greater than others. The right to live far outweighs someone's right to drive a car. A child's right to be raised in a normal, hetero family outweighs the rights of gays to adopt said child.

But again, you don't believe in rights for children, so this is again something we will never see eye to eye on, no matter how many times you post utilizing insults and sarcasm.

The entirety of human history has a lot of bad heterosexual parents. Sure you want to use that?

Yeah, exactly, I only want to choose the BAD parents as my example. :rolleyes:

There are far more good hetero parents than bad, just as there are far more good gay parents than bad. The question isn't about whether someone is bad or good, but whether being raised in a hetero family is healthier (socially and otherwise) for a child. And I believe it is.

I understand if you can't accept that, and if you disagree, but at least try to keep the discussion civil ... if you can...

[The Senator]

This thread would be so much more fulfilling if everyone with different views weren't being referred to as right-wing nutjobs or implied bigots...

[Gilpesh]

I understand if you can't accept that, and if you disagree, but at least try to keep the discussion civil ... if you can...

Your entire point is to completely discriminate against people for something out of their control... and institutionalize it. The discussion isn't very civil to begin with.

This thread would be so much more fulfilling if everyone with different views weren't being referred to as right-wing nutjobs or implied bigots...

Sorry, I'll stop posting.

[Tron5000]

jag defeated Tron5000 with facts :up: awesome.

Seriously, Tron5000, could you not have found a more unbiased source to back up your claims?

Funny, we both had statistics and 'facts' to back up our claims.

Are you calling the American Journal of Psychiatry, the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology biased sources?

[lazur]

Your entire point is to completely discriminate against people for something out of their control... and institutionalize it. The discussion isn't very civil to begin with.

Heh, well I won't apologize because I refuse to 'normalize' gay marriage to the extent that I'd be okay with their adopting children. Fortunately, most of the country (and the world for that matter) sees it the same way I do.

[Mr Sparkle]

Got news for you. The 'nuclear' family consisting of a mother, father and their children is the foundation of all humankind. Whether or not YOU consider it to be a poor example of 'family' is completely irrelevant. You cannot wipe out thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years of evolutionary and/or creative design just because it may be 'politically correct' to do so at this insignificant fraction of time during the existence of humanity.

Gay marriage - fine. Gay adoption when a 'nuclear' family is available - no.

well, yes and no.
community is the foundation of humankind, often times polygamy and incest were involved.
I mean, if you want to get academic about what the "foundation" was.
evolutionary and creative design be damned, they had little to do with sociological development, in fact, this would fly in the face of intelligent design, since sociological family structures and roles have been changing and shifting dramatically since they emerged.
the role of women in society was different 50 years ago, and the exact same argument could have been used back then, to simply deny the validity of women in the workplace.
just because something appears to have been working for a long time doesn't mean it's

a.- the only option
b.- the right option

it's simply the option that works for you.
I was reading about a particular type of bonobo that pretty much breaks down sexual barriers between all the members of it's familial unit, to them, sex is like a handshake or a hug, strangely, they are the least violent, and spats between them often are small and easily resolved.
also, the sex serves to solidify the family bond.
yet, when put into a human society, the mere concept of having sex with a blood relative is abhorrent, where would the "who are we to question thousands of years...." speech come in then?

the heterosexual union is not new, but neither is the homosexual one, and many cultures did not view it as deviant, merely different and normal.
I don't remember if it was the greeks that said "women are for breeding but true love can only be experienced between men", some native american tribes viewed homosexuals as "gifted" able to experience both the male and female emotions, some straight native americans ( I forget which tribe) would actually have homosexual experiences and decide "meh, not for me..." and that would be the end of that.
no one got warped, no one got angry.
plus, let us not forget that heterosexual marriages have produced deviants all of their own, since, they are the rule of law, it is safe to say that if all deviancy comes from the normal heterosexual family unit, to believe that shifting this family unti or changing it would somehow aggravate the situation is simply preposterous.

[lazur]

well, yes and no.
community is the foundation of humankind, often times polygamy and incest were involved.

Agreed, but I'm not sure I'd use the phrase 'often times' to describe the frequency of polygamy and incest in a community. Both are rare in every society unless that particular society has a religious slant that allows/requires it.

I mean, if you want to get academic about what the "foundation" was.
evolutionary and creative design be damned, they had little to do with sociological development, in fact, this would fly in the face of intelligent design, since sociological family structures and roles have been changing and shifting dramatically since they emerged.

How so? The heterosexual family unit has ALWAYS dominated humankind in every culture and on every continent. Just because other forms of sexual orientation existed doesn't mean they were mainstream or influential, or that they should be.

the role of women in society was different 50 years ago, and the exact same argument could have been used back then, to simply deny the validity of women in the workplace.

Of course, but the role of a woman in a family unit has never changed except in very insignificant ways. Mom still nurtures and mom still provides love today just like she did 10,000 years ago.

Over time, women were granted more freedoms simply due to the sociological development of human beings, but that did not change a woman's role as a mother and wife in a marriage.

just because something appears to have been working for a long time doesn't mean it's

a.- the only option
b.- the right option

it's simply the option that works for you.

You're speaking as if I have something against gay marriage. That's where you'd be wrong. I do, however, have something against gay couples adopting children when hetero couples are available.

I was reading about a particular type of bonobo that pretty much breaks down sexual barriers between all the members of it's familial unit, to them, sex is like a handshake or a hug, strangely, they are the least violent, and spats between them often are small and easily resolved.
also, the sex serves to solidify the family bond.
yet, when put into a human society, the mere concept of having sex with a blood relative is abhorrent, where would the "who are we to question thousands of years...." speech come in then?

Umm, for me it's not about breaking down barriers in order to experience something that's 'taboo.' Having sex with a family member is just sick, period.

the heterosexual union is not new, but neither is the homosexual one, and many cultures did not view it as deviant, merely different and normal.

I don't view 2% of the population engaging in homosexuality as wrong, but I also do not view it as 'normal' because it's not. If it were normal, the percentage would be significantly higher...

I don't remember if it was the greeks that said "women are for breeding but true love can only be experienced between men", some native american tribes viewed homosexuals as "gifted" able to experience both the male and female emotions, some straight native americans ( I forget which tribe) would actually have homosexual experiences and decide "meh, not for me..." and that would be the end of that.
no one got warped, no one got angry.

Of course. That's as it should be.

plus, let us not forget that heterosexual marriages have produced deviants all of their own, since, they are the rule of law, it is safe to say that if all deviancy comes from the normal heterosexual family unit, to believe that shifting this family unti or changing it would somehow aggravate the situation is simply preposterous.

Yeah, but so have homosexual relationships and incest. Heterosexual marriages are more common by an overwhelming margin, so of course they will produce more results, whatever they are. People are people are people.

That being said, I'm still of the belief that heterosexual couples should receive precedence over homosexual couples through adoption of children.

[Spider-Bite]

You have issues. I did not say that I think 'gay parents are a poor example of family.' Maybe if you'd learn to read, you might just understand, but that doesn't appear to be the case...

I was responding to others who said STRAIGHT FAMILIES were poor examples of family. Maybe you should re-read that and then take some meds.

But I must say that people of your caliber don't fail to disappoint by always retreating into name-calling when you have nothing of intelligence to offer to the discussion...

I just wanted to point to an interesting angle with regards to people opposing gay parenting and pointing to evolution.

This is something I also have considered. Species evolve to fit their environment. So after millions of years, the primate brain might be custom made, or custom evolved specifically to be born into a male female family situation right? After millions of years of hetero sexual parents, the human brain will have evolved to do best in that situation.

That does make sense, however, you have to remember something. Male parents don't stick around as often as female parents. A hundred thousand years ago, they probably stuck around even less thatn they do now. From a bioligical stand point if the male runs around from girl to girl, instead of sticking by one mate and taking care of the kids, his genes will spread faster. He has a greater chance of passing on his genes that way.

Well think about that. How many children got left without a father in primate history? Or human history for that matter. A lot! And one of the things that have been observed in the wild is chimpanzee females babysitting each other's children, or even helping each other raise their children together. One chimp baby, being raised by 2 female chimpanzees.

This has undoubtedly happened countless times in human history, as well as homo erectus, homoe egaester, homo habillis, and cro-magnon. Women bonding together to help each other raise their babies after the man has left or been killed in the hunt. The human brain is probably prepared for this. Kind of like a back up plan, a safe guard if you will, so that this is not traumatizing.

You also have to consider the fact that often times women die during pregnancy. And this was probably not rare during pre-civilized times. Often times chilidren were left without mothers. And even though some males will not take care of their offspring, many will.

The human brain has not evolved in a way that a male and female heterosexual parental situation is essential for a person to grow up to be happy and healthy.


Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts. Organizations that have officially supported adoption by same-sex couples include the American Psychological Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association), the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association), the American Psychiatric Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association), the National Association of Social Workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Social_Workers), the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics), the American Psychoanalytic Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychoanalytic_Association), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Family_Physicians).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_parenting#cite_note-hrc-2)
The American Psychological Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association) states in its Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (adopted July 2004):
there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_parenting#cite_note-apa-0)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_parenting

[lazur]

I just wanted to point to an interesting angle with regards to people opposing gay parenting and pointing to evolution.

This is something I also have considered. Species evolve to fit their environment. So after millions of years, the primate brain might be custom made, or custom evolved specifically to be born into a male female family situation right? After millions of years of hetero sexual parents, the human brain will have evolved to do best in that situation.

That does make sense, however, you have to remember something. Male parents don't stick around as often as female parents. A hundred thousand years ago, they probably stuck around even less thatn they do now. From a bioligical stand point if the male runs around from girl to girl, instead of sticking by one mate and taking care of the kids, his genes will spread faster. He has a greater chance of passing on his genes that way.

Well think about that. How many children got left without a father in primate history? Or human history for that matter. A lot! And one of the things that have been observed in the wild is chimpanzee females babysitting each other's children, or even helping each other raise their children together. One chimp baby, being raised by 2 female chimpanzees.

This has undoubtedly happened countless times in human history, as well as homo erectus, homoe egaester, homo habillis, and cro-magnon. Women bonding together to help each other raise their babies after the man has left or been killed in the hunt. The human brain is probably prepared for this. Kind of like a back up plan, a safe guard if you will, so that this is not traumatizing.

You also have to consider the fact that often times women die during pregnancy. And this was probably not rare during pre-civilized times. Often times chilidren were left without mothers. And even though some males will not take care of their offspring, many will.

The human brain has not evolved in a way that a male and female heterosexual parental situation is essential for a person to grow up to be happy and healthy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_parenting

I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not using evolution as my only reason for why I believe children thrive in heterosexual family units. There are many other factors involved, least of which is the social implication of being raised by two dads, for example.

Human beings are different than primates in that we are intelligent, thinking beings. Because we are intelligent, thinking beings who also adopt many sociological positions on life, we have a tendency of dumbing down the natural traits that make men men and women women. We eliminate competitive sports from our schools so that kids won't 'feel bad' about losing. We tell our boys that rough-housing is wrong, and we tell our girls that they can do anything a boy can do physically. We work to artificially blur and eventually erase the important differences between men and women.

Every child *needs* strong parental influences in their lives, and every child regardless of circumstance receives them, just not always in a way that one would want. For example, the drunken father may influence his children to never drink, or to become alcoholics themselves. People who claim that one or both of their parents have less influence on them than their social circle are kidding themselves. Parents shape and mold their kids for the good and for the bad.

Under the 'optimum' circumstance, every child should have a mother and a father who are both involved in that child's life, who are both decent people, and who both love that child more than they love themselves. Every child needs to see a man in action doing manly things and a woman in action doing womanly things in order to tailor their own behaviors in a society full to the brim with differences of opinion on how people should behave.

For example, I have two brothers. But I always wished that I had a sister because it would have given me insight into the female psyche that I just didn't have growing up. But I did have my mom. Had I not, and for example had two fathers and two brothers, the greatest influential female in my life might have been a school teacher or a friend - someone I'd have received only limited exposure to, and it would not have been enough to allow me as a child to evaluate the differences between men and women and why they exist. Thus, my own family background wasn't 'optimal' but it also wasn't horrible.

I'm not opposed to gay couples adopting kids. However, I believe that any adoption agency should place children in whatever the available 'optimal' environment is. If the choice is between a hetero couple or a gay couple, the hetero couple is closer to 'optimal' than the gay couple, and the agency should place the child accordingly.

[Marx]

...It is my hope, my vision, and my prayer that someday this country will prove itself to be better than it truly is, and that all men and women, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity, will be able to live as equals in a truly democratic America.

Until then, the fight lives on, and this poster will remain at the forefront. I hope there are people here who are willing to join me.

I can assure you that you're not alone in this fight.

[SuBe]

I can assure you that you're not alone in this fight.
I'll Join, as long as we can fight for the FairTax too!

[Marx]

I'll Join, as long as we can fight for the FairTax too!

NEW HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Everyone try to figure out how many threads there are in existence here in politico-HYPE-land that SB hasn't mentioned 'FairTax'.

Ready? GO!

:hehe:

[SuBe]

NEW HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Everyone try to figure out how many threads there are in existence here in politico-HYPE-land that SB hasn't mentioned 'FairTax'.

Ready? GO!

:hehe:
I've wondered the same thing before.

[jaguarr]

NEW HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Everyone try to figure out how many threads there are in existence here in politico-HYPE-land that SB hasn't mentioned 'FairTax'.

Ready? GO!

:hehe:

None. The answer is "none".

jag

[Marx]

None. The answer is "none".

jag

YOU WIN! I'm not quite sure what your prize is yet...but YOU WIN! :applaud

[jaguarr]

YOU WIN! I'm not quite sure what your prize is yet...but YOU WIN! :applaud


Woohoo! :grin:

jag

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=lazur;15563592]I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not using evolution as my only reason for why I believe children thrive in heterosexual family units. There are many other factors involved, least of which is the social implication of being raised by two dads, for example.

some are accepting and some aren't. would you rather be part of the problem or the solution? The whole entire problem with that, is people with your position.


Human beings are different than primates in that we are intelligent, thinking beings.

All the more reason that a person would be able to adopt to their situation, actually.

Because we are intelligent, thinking beings who also adopt many sociological positions on life, we have a tendency of dumbing down the natural traits that make men men and women women. We eliminate competitive sports from our schools so that kids won't 'feel bad' about losing.
We are not eliminating competetive sports from our schools. Extra curricular activities are an important part of our education system, and they will remain in place. And this has nothing to do with gay parenting. It does not support your anti-gay parenting argument.

We tell our boys that rough-housing is wrong, No we don't. And this also has nothing to do with gay parenting.


and we tell our girls that they can do anything a boy can do physically.

they can except, eject semen, and grow facial hair, with a few exceptions of course.

We work to artificially blur and eventually erase the important differences between men and women.
Correction. We work to erase discrimination, misconceptions, and oppression of women. America has made enourmous progress on issues of gender. And your criticizing it? Seriously man. You make it sound like we have changed for the worse. You are dead wrong man.

Every child *needs* strong parental influences in their lives, and every child regardless of circumstance receives them, just not always in a way that one would want. For example, the drunken father may influence his children to never drink, or to become alcoholics themselves. People who claim that one or both of their parents have less influence on them than their social circle are kidding themselves. Parents shape and mold their kids for the good and for the bad.

There is nothing in that to support an anti-gay parental household position.

Under the 'optimum' circumstance, every child should have a mother and a father who are both involved in that child's life,

the data suggest otherwise, which you chose to ignore in your post.

who are both decent people, and who both love that child more than they love themselves. Every child needs to see a man in action doing manly things and a woman in action doing womanly things in order to tailor their own behaviors in a society full to the brim with differences of opinion on how people should behave.

That mindset is horribly outdated. what are manly and womanly things? Like cooking and cleaning? Or working on tools out in the garage? That is ridiculous. According to that logic all iintellectual men who don't work on cars and play with hammers are bad fathers.

For example, I have two brothers. But I always wished that I had a sister because it would have given me insight into the female psyche that I just didn't have growing up. But I did have my mom. Had I not, and for example had two fathers and two brothers, the greatest influential female in my life might have been a school teacher or a friend - someone I'd have received only limited exposure to, and it would not have been enough to allow me as a child to evaluate the differences between men and women and why they exist. Thus, my own family background wasn't 'optimal' but it also wasn't horrible.

dude I did not have a father. My father left me when I was 2. My mother did have relationships, but there was never any stable male figure taking on a parental role. I never had any problem whatsoever seeing the differences between men and women. yes I did have a sister who was born when I was six, but she turned out to be a very tomboyish lesbian. And before you use that as evidence that we needed a male father figure, and say she didn't turn out right. There is nothing wrong with her being a lesbian.

needless to say I understood the differences because of friends and school. I didn't grow up to be gay, flamboyant, or not sure of my gender or anything like that.

You sound like you are afraid that men wont be manly enough, and girls wont be girly enough. the problem is that you believe these stereotypes about men and women have to be converted into reality and kept that way, when they don't. Not all men are the same, and not all women are the same, and nor should they be. People are allowed to be different and diversity is a good thing.


I'm not opposed to gay couples adopting kids. However, I believe that any adoption agency should place children in whatever the available 'optimal' environment is. If the choice is between a hetero couple or a gay couple, the hetero couple is closer to 'optimal' than the gay couple, and the agency should place the child accordingly.

sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Like my friend who was adopted. His parents never gave a care what he did. never. A gay couple who wont do that? Obviously they would be the more optimal choice in that situation.

and I provided data showing that children raised by gay couples are not at a disadvantage.

But I will respect the fact that you do not prefer children grow up in foster care for the rest of their lives as opposed to being adopted by a gay couple.

[Spider-Bite]

It is my hope, my vision, and my prayer that someday this country will prove itself to be better than it truly is, and that all men and women, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity, will be able to live as equals in a truly democratic world.

.

There I corrected it :cwink: and yes it is possible, because you are not alone. Some day far off in the futre, we will tear down all barriers, and divisions, and even borders!

[JLBats]

What if the gay couple simply displays more of the necessary parental attributes and are just more genuinely loving and enthusiastic than ANY of the other nuclear family candidates?


^^^^

Come ON!:dry:

[SuBe]

YOU WIN! I'm not quite sure what your prize is yet...but YOU WIN! :applaud
Jaggy, you've won the FairTax Book, Congradulations!!!

[The Senator]

There I corrected it :cwink: and yes it is possible, because you are not alone. Some day far off in the futre, we will tear down all barriers, and divisions, and even borders!

I care more about this country than I care about others.

[Mr Sparkle]

^^^^

Come ON!:dry:

logically they should be considered first.
thing is that this issue is not about logic as has been already established.
logically, an actor could be Gay and people wouldn;t have to care, since he fakes stuff for a living, yet a bunch of them are in the closet for reasons known only to them and a BUNCH of people in the general population.
perhaps, because people think, or like to think that Gay people are promiscuous , or violent or both, whatever.

so regardless of the fact that LOGICALLY the gay couple should be considered first it won't.
why?
because some people still think gay marriage is a "threat" to hetero marriage.

[JLBats]

I just want to hear someone come out and say

"I would prefer an adopted child be placed with less well-equipped, heterosexual parents than more highly equipped, homosexual parents."

Then I want them to pair away the ******** and say

"I would prefer an adopted child be placed with less well-equipped parents than more highly equipped parents."

And then, a little more ******** knocked away, I'd love to hear

"I would prefer an adopted child be placed with WORSE parents than BETTER ones."

Thanks.

[Matt]

I just want to hear someone come out and say

"I would prefer an adopted child be placed with less well-equipped, heterosexual parents than more highly equipped, homosexual parents."

Then I want them to pair away the ******** and say

"I would prefer an adopted child be placed with less well-equipped parents than more highly equipped parents."

And then, a little more ******** knocked away, I'd love to hear

"I would prefer an adopted child be placed with WORSE parents than BETTER ones."

Thanks.

But...but...Adam and Eve! Not Adam and Steve :csad: :cwink:

[The Senator]

So let's steer the conversation.

What do you think about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?

[Mr Sparkle]

it's dumb, when someone pulls you out the burning wreckage of a vehicle after a roadside bombing you're not going to be thinking "ewwww the gay guy touched me!" at least no rational person would.

[lazur]

So let's steer the conversation.

What do you think about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?

It's absolutely run its course. I believe Clinton did what was necessary to break down the barriers to acceptance of gays. However, it has outlived its usefulness and should be modified so that gays are unequivocally accepted into the military without having to hide their sexual orientation.

[jaguarr]

It's absolutely run its course. I believe Clinton did what was necessary to break down the barriers to acceptance of gays. However, it has outlived its usefulness and should be modified so that gays are unequivocally accepted into the military without having to hide their sexual orientation.

The Hell? Dude, stop typing things that I agree with. It's freaking me out!

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

I know, it's weird isn't it?

[Marx]

So let's steer the conversation.

What do you think about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?

It should be repealed.

[MaskedManJRK]

So let's steer the conversation.

What do you think about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?

It should be repealed yesterday.

I think it was Jack Rabbit on these here forums said it best, "if the soldier next to me likes the way my ass looks, hopefully that'll mean he'll fight that much harder to cover it."

[BlackLantern]

I spent 4 years in the Navy....we had gay people that we worked with, but just like anyone else, your personal life is your personal life...don't bring it to the job with you

[MaskedManJRK]

I spent 4 years in the Navy....we had gay people that we worked with, but just like anyone else, your personal life is your personal life...don't bring it to the job with you

I'm really don't think professionalism has a lot to do with the DADT laws. While it might not be professional, I'm sure you could talk to your co-worker about your wife or girlfriend without there being any problems other then MAYBE your boss telling you to get back to work. Not really the same compared to being thrown out of the army just because a guy mentions having a boyfriend.

[BlackLantern]

The way the climate is now....there are people in the service who, if they could get away with it, would kill a gay squadmate or co-worker

[MaskedManJRK]

The way the climate is now....there are people in the service who, if they could get away with it, would kill a gay squadmate or co-worker

And I'm sure the same could have been said in the 40s when blacks and whites were integrated into the same platoons.

[Mr Sparkle]

I spent 4 years in the Navy....we had gay people that we worked with, but just like anyone else, your personal life is your personal life...don't bring it to the job with you

nobody ever spoke about their wives or children? or girlfriends for that matter?

[BlackLantern]

And I'm sure the same could have been said in the 40s when blacks and whites were integrated into the same platoons.

Hell...it's still that way now

[BlackLantern]

nobody ever spoke about their wives or children? or girlfriends for that matter?

People did....I've always been a little detached when it comes to that stuff...

[Lightning Strykez!]

I have a perspective on this, so I guess I should say my piece. :dry:

Honestly? I don't think you need to legalize your union to prove your love to someone else. You can exchange rings and the whole nine and still have an unbreakable committment. In my opinion, legality shouldn't have an impact on anything. And that principle applies to STR8 people as well as far as I am concerned.

Just my thoughts.

[comicgirl]

If you were sick, how would you feel if the one you love couldn't legally talk to your Dr. about your care.........or help financially if you needed them to access your records???????

[Tron5000]

I'm being discriminated against because I'm a heterosexual. The corporation for which my fiancee works offers benefits (insurance and such) to same-sex partners who have cohabited for 1 year+. Since I am in a heterosexual relationship, I have to marry my fiancee before I am afforded these benefits. So a homosexual couple can reap the rewards of cohabitation, but I have to get married first? WTF?

[jaguarr]

I'm being discriminated against because I'm a heterosexual. The corporation for which my fiancee works offers benefits (insurance and such) to same-sex partners who have cohabited for 1 year+. Since I am in a heterosexual relationship, I have to marry my fiancee before I am afforded these benefits. So a homosexual couple can reap the rewards of cohabitation, but I have to get married first? WTF?

So, then, you feel that gay couples should be MARRIED first before they can share benefits?

jag

[comicgirl]

I'm being discriminated against because I'm a heterosexual. The corporation for which my fiancee works offers benefits (insurance and such) to same-sex partners who have cohabited for 1 year+. Since I am in a heterosexual relationship, I have to marry my fiancee before I am afforded these benefits. So a homosexual couple can reap the rewards of cohabitation, but I have to get married first? WTF?My company (United Concordia - we do dental insurance)..offers coverage to non married couples, primary grandparents of dependent children, etc.







It's backwards to be otherwise in today world...

[The Senator]

I'm being discriminated against because I'm a heterosexual. The corporation for which my fiancee works offers benefits (insurance and such) to same-sex partners who have cohabited for 1 year+. Since I am in a heterosexual relationship, I have to marry my fiancee before I am afforded these benefits. So a homosexual couple can reap the rewards of cohabitation, but I have to get married first? WTF?

Maybe if Georgia got its act together and allowed gays to marry, they could change that standard to reflect married couples. But since your state government has a nice long record of disliking people based on color, sexual preference, and gender identity, that probably isn't going to happen in the near future.

Now you know what every other gay couple goes through in states where they can't collect benefits.

[comicgirl]

Maybe if Georgia got its act together and allowed gays to marry, they could change that standard to reflect married couples. But since your state government has a nice long record of disliking people based on color, sexual preference, and gender identity, that probably isn't going to happen in the near future.

Now you know what every other gay couple goes through in states where they can't collect benefits.Hear, hear...........:word:

[Tron5000]

So, then, you feel that gay couples should be MARRIED first before they can share benefits?

jag

I feel that I should not have to be married in order to receive these benefits. I am being discriminated against, and homosexuals are enjoying rights that I do not have.

This is all about rights, am I correct? Homosexuals feel they have the right to be married. Well, I feel I have the right to these benefits, and withholding them from me because my name is Chris and not Christina is a violation of my rights.

I should file a lawsuit.

[Tron5000]

Maybe if Georgia got its act together and allowed gays to marry, they could change that standard to reflect married couples. But since your state government has a nice long record of disliking people based on color, sexual preference, and gender identity, that probably isn't going to happen in the near future.

Now you know what every other gay couple goes through in states where they can't collect benefits.

So discrimination in one state is OK, because there's discrimination in other states as well? I'm not sure I agree with that.

[JLBats]

I feel that I should not have to be married in order to receive these benefits. I am being discriminated against, and homosexuals are enjoying rights that I do not have.

Are you KIDDING me?

How about the fact that they're being denied the right to marry the person they LOVE?

If you honestly feel that your rights are being more trod upon in this case than theirs, then I'm pretty much STUNNED.

:down:down:down

The only thing that policy is trying to do is give gay people access to benefits and privileges they have no access to if they're evaluated by the same rules as you:down

How can they EVER get those marital benefits if they can't get married and they're withheld from them short of marriage?

[Tron5000]

Are you KIDDING me?

How about the fact that they're being denied the right to marry the person they LOVE?

If you honestly feel that your rights are being more trod upon in this case than theirs, then I'm pretty much STUNNED.

:down:down:down

The only thing that policy is trying to do is give gay people access to benefits and privileges they have no access to if they're evaluated by the same rules as you:down

How can they EVER get those marital benefits if they can't get married and they're withheld from them short of marriage?

Oh, so it's OK for me to be discriminated against because others are? I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

What if I am in love with my cousin, or my sister, or my daughter? Should I be "denied the right to marry the person [I] LOVE"?

[JLBats]

Oh, so it's OK for me to be discriminated against because others are? I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

Equal results, not equal treatment. It's one of the fundamental building blocks of current equality laws.

What if I am in love with my cousin, or my sister, or my daughter? Should I be "denied the right to marry the person [i] LOVE"?

There are numerous disqualifiers for each of those situations. We're not talking about love in which anyone's rights are potentially trodden upon, or where there's a drastic and unhealthy imbalance, we're talking about love between two equals.

But then I suppose I just threw a live grenade into this thread. :)

BAM.

[The Senator]

So discrimination in one state is OK, because there's discrimination in other states as well? I'm not sure I agree with that.

Um, no. Not what I'm getting at all.

If these states got their act together and allowed everyone the same benefits, then you wouldn't be in this predicament. But because the voters in states like Georgia won't allow same sex marriage, which would then come with benefits to those who are wed, businesses are now offering these benefits to same sex couples in general. I agree that they should get them only when they are married, but because Georgia doesn't allow same sex marriage, I really have no sympathy for your situation. You can get married, you can be with the one you love through the sanctity of marriage. Your gay colleagues cannot.

And the only way for some businesses to keep their best employees, especially from moving to larger states with equal business opportunities, is to offer incentives, and in this case rewards and benefits for same sex couples is what your company is offering.

I personally believe that business is going to be a driving factor in the same sex marriage debate in the coming years, because more and more employees are leaving states like Georgia which don't allow same sex marriage or civil unions for more industrialized, business savvy states like NJ, CT, MA, CA and WA which allow marriage or domestic partnership benefits. These businesses cannot afford to lose some of their best employees, so they're doing what they can to entice them. Does that make it right? No. But you can have your benefits through marriage. You can get married. A gay couple cannot.

BIG difference.

[Tron5000]

Um, no. Not what I'm getting at all.

If these states got their act together and allowed everyone the same benefits, then you wouldn't be in this predicament. But because the voters in states like Georgia won't allow same sex marriage, which would then come with benefits to those who are wed, businesses are now offering these benefits to same sex couples in general. I agree that they should get them only when they are married, but because Georgia doesn't allow same sex marriage, I really have no sympathy for your situation. You can get married, you can be with the one you love through the sanctity of marriage. Your gay colleagues cannot.

And the only way for some businesses to keep their best employees, especially from moving to larger states with equal business opportunities, is to offer incentives, and in this case rewards and benefits for same sex couples is what your company is offering.

I personally believe that business is going to be a driving factor in the same sex marriage debate in the coming years, because more and more employees are leaving states like Georgia which don't allow same sex marriage or civil unions for more industrialized, business savvy states like NJ, CT, MA, CA and WA which allow marriage or domestic partnership benefits. These businesses cannot afford to lose some of their best employees, so they're doing what they can to entice them. Does that make it right? No. But you can have your benefits through marriage. You can get married. A gay couple cannot.

BIG difference.

So, in a nutshell, it is OK to offer these benefits to cohabiting homosexual couples, but not to heterosexual couples? What if I don't want to get married, and the homosexual couple being offered these benefits does not want to get married either? We're on the same page, yet I have a penis, so I'm locked out. Not cool in my book.

[The Senator]

So, in a nutshell, it is OK to offer these benefits to cohabiting homosexual couples, but not to heterosexual couples? What if I don't want to get married, and the homosexual couple being offered these benefits does not want to get married either? We're on the same page, yet I have a penis, so I'm locked out. Not cool in my book.

Oh well.

You want these benefits to be fair? Go out and campaign for same-sex marriage in Georgia. If you disagree with same sex marriage, or don't want those in domestic partnerships to have these benefits, then I'm not arguing this with you any further because you truly don't get the point behind offering domestic partnership benefits.

Hell, now you know what it is like to be on the receiving end of "discrimination." You feel robbed? File a lawsuit. It won't get you anywhere, because these businesses are entitled to do whatever they want (and for someone who is in love with big business, I would expect you to follow in lock step with their decisions).

[Tron5000]

Oh well.

You want these benefits to be fair? Go out and campaign for same-sex marriage in Georgia. If you disagree with same sex marriage, or don't want those in domestic partnerships to have these benefits, then I'm not arguing this with you any further because you truly don't get the point behind offering domestic partnership benefits.

Hell, now you know what it is like to be on the receiving end of "discrimination." You feel robbed? File a lawsuit. It won't get you anywhere, because these businesses are entitled to do whatever they want (and for someone who is in love with big business, I would expect you to follow in lock step with their decisions).

I've been discriminated against more than once. I was told I would not be hired at a certain bar because they only hired good-looking females (and no, not Hooters...just your average dive bar). I've had people sit at my bar and complain that they were being served by me, rather than a hot chick. I've received 0 tip from a black table and heard one gentleman exclaim to another at the table that he would not tip me because I was white, and he was getting his "reparations" by not paying me for my service.

My fiancee is Korean, and was adopted and raised by a white family, and we have seen our dry cleaning prices raised after the proprietors realized that she wasn't "Korean enough."

I have been discriminated against. The insurance issue is just another example.

[SentinelMind]

I have to agree with Tron, that policy makes no sense. A straight couple has to go through legal ordeal of getting married and sign a binding contract, but a gay couple just has to live with each other for a year to get the same benefits? Although I do agree the business has right to do that.

[The Senator]

I have to agree with Tron, that policy makes no sense. A straight couple has to go through legal ordeal of getting married and sign a binding contract, but a gay couple just has to live with each other for a year to get the same benefits? Although I do agree the business has right to do that.

So, do you agree that gay couples should have to be married before they receive these benefits? And that all states should legalize same-sex marriage to avoid these tricky scenarios? In order for everyone to be truly equal, that is...

[JackMercy]

Exactly jman...

[Sigh]

You guys still don't get it.

"Domestic partnership" benefits for same-sex couples are offered as an appeasement to make up for what all these states of the so-called "union" should be doing, which is offering 100% of the same benefits to any married couple, straight or gay -- except, wait, same-sex marriage isn't yet signed into law in many states.

Until that happens, you won't see your "discrimination" decrease, because if you don't support marriage regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, then the laws won't change, and certain conservative-led state governments will keep doing everything they can to deny any lawful citizen of this country the rights that they are so entitled to.

When marriage for same-sex couples is allowed, then maybe your "discrimination" will be eliminated -- or perhaps be modified to allow benefits for "partnerships" of all kinds...

[Tron5000]

If we're all allowed to marry the person we LOVE, can I then marry my sister, or cousin, or aunt, or daughter?

[The Senator]

If we're all allowed to marry the person we LOVE, can I then marry my sister, or cousin, or aunt, or daughter?

Truly do not care, to tell you the truth. The government should have no role in telling people who they can love or marry as long as it is within the age of consent.

[Gilpesh]

If we're all allowed to marry the person we LOVE, can I then marry my sister, or cousin, or aunt, or daughter?

Wait... you just called homosexuality, incest?

I see what you did there.

[Tron5000]

Wait... you just called homosexuality, incest?

I see what you did there.

No, the whole discussion is whether or not the government can prevent you from marrying the person you love. Well, what if the person I love happens to share with me a branch of our family tree? After all, we are talking about equal rights and protections.

[Marx]

If we're all allowed to marry the person we LOVE, can I then marry my sister, or cousin, or aunt, or daughter?

That's a tad bit ridiculous Tron.

[Tron5000]

That's a tad bit ridiculous Tron.

It's all about love, man. It's all about love.

[Gilpesh]

No, the whole discussion is whether or not the government can prevent you from marrying the person you love. Well, what if the person I love happens to share with me a branch of our family tree? After all, we are talking about equal rights and protections.

How can you dare to argue that homosexuals can't get married while you can and your argument is that you can't marry your mother/sister/etc....

[Marx]

It's all about love, man. It's all about love.

Comparing homosexual relationships to incest isn't right or fair...

[Tron5000]

Comparing homosexual relationships to incest isn't right or fair...

I'm simply arguing with those who say that the government should not be allowed to tell people who they can and can not marry. If that's the argument some would like to make, I'm just taking them up on it.

I'm not comparing the two as in they are the same thing. I'm simply fighting the fight that others laid out in front of me.

[The Senator]

People should be able to marry whoever they want to as long as those people are of the age of consent. Two adults who are in love with each other should not be denied the right to marry. Moreover, polygamy should be legal as well.

As long as it's PEOPLE we're talking about, I could care less.

[Gilpesh]

People should be able to marry whoever they want to as long as those people are of the age of consent. Two adults who are in love with each other should not be denied the right to marry. Moreover, polygamy should be legal as well.

As long as it's PEOPLE we're talking about, I could care less.

Yeaup sounds right. But I disagree with one thing you said... I couldn't care less. :whatever:

[Marx]

I'm simply arguing with those who say that the government should not be allowed to tell people who they can and can not marry. If that's the argument some would like to make, I'm just taking them up on it.

I'm not comparing the two as in they are the same thing. I'm simply fighting the fight that others laid out in front of me.

Ok. I just wanted to make sure what you were trying to say because if you were seriously trying to compare the two...I may have to put my two cents in. :cwink:

[Ocramed]

Homosexuality is an interesting thing. Statistically, gays and lesbians are better off financially, and tend to have higher levels of education than those who are "traditionally" a minority. The usual argument to promote and protect "gay rights" stems from the idea that a secular society should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation. And a part of this stems from the claim that "being gay" is natural (which has not been scientifically proven as conclusive), the same way as being African-American is natural (see above as to why this aspect of the debate is insulting to Blacks). However, what is most profound is that should being gay is proven to be a natural genetic trait, there is a fear that parents will use that to begin aborting their children, along the lines of aborting embryos with "Down's Syndrome". That is why there has been a move to push the debate from "tolerance" to "acceptance" in many cases. Still, I do wonder if the GLBT and the pro-lifers will end up switching sides on the pro-life/pro-choice debate...

Regardless, I do see a day when openly gay people will be mainstreamed. When that happens, in a generation, many of them will become Republican. After all, being fiscally responsible need not be based on being "socially aware" in the mode of secular progressivism.

[The Senator]

Homosexuality is an interesting thing. Statistically, gays and lesbians are better off financially, and tend to have higher levels of education than those who are "traditionally" a minority. The usual argument to promote and protect "gay rights" stems from the idea that a secular society should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation. And a part of this stems from the claim that "being gay" is natural (which has not been scientifically proven as conclusive), the same way as being African-American is natural (see above as to why this aspect of the debate is insulting to Blacks). However, what is most profound is that should being gay is proven to be a natural genetic trait, there is a fear that parents will use that to begin aborting their children, along the lines of aborting embryos with "Down's Syndrome". That is why there has been a move to push the debate from "tolerance" to "acceptance" in many cases. Still, I do wonder if the GLBT and the pro-lifers will end up switching sides on the pro-life/pro-choice debate...

Regardless, I do see a day when openly gay people will be mainstreamed. When that happens, in a generation, many of them will become Republican. After all, being fiscally responsible need not be based on being "socially aware" in the mode of secular progressivism.

Because the religious right will never admit that homosexuality is hereditary, they won't ever switch their position on abortion or GLBT issues.

[Marx]

Homosexuality is an interesting thing. Statistically, gays and lesbians are better off financially, and tend to have higher levels of education than those who are "traditionally" a minority. The usual argument to promote and protect "gay rights" stems from the idea that a secular society should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation. And a part of this stems from the claim that "being gay" is natural (which has not been scientifically proven as conclusive), the same way as being African-American is natural (see above as to why this aspect of the debate is insulting to Blacks). However, what is most profound is that should being gay is proven to be a natural genetic trait, there is a fear that parents will use that to begin aborting their children, along the lines of aborting embryos with "Down's Syndrome". That is why there has been a move to push the debate from "tolerance" to "acceptance" in many cases. Still, I do wonder if the GLBT and the pro-lifers will end up switching sides on the pro-life/pro-choice debate...

Regardless, I do see a day when openly gay people will be mainstreamed. When that happens, in a generation, many of them will become Republican. After all, being fiscally responsible need not be based on being "socially aware" in the mode of secular progressivism.

To suggest that anyone would make a conscious choice to be ridiculed, judged, and outcast the way homosexuals are in this country and the world is absolutely ridiculous.

[The Senator]

To suggest that anyone would make a conscious choice to be ridiculed, judged, and outcast the way homosexuals are in this country and the world is absolutely ridiculous.

I made a conscious choice to be heterosexual, and that didn't turn out too well. Some people may in fact choose to be gay. But I think the vast majority was born that way.

[Marx]

I made a conscious choice to be heterosexual, and that didn't turn out too well. Some people may in fact choose to be gay. But I think the vast majority was born that way.

You made a conscious choice to hide who you are. I will agree that some, and to me that number is very few, choose to be gay. I would argue that 90-95 percent are born gay.

[Tron5000]

Ok. I just wanted to make sure what you were trying to say because if you were seriously trying to compare the two...I may have to put my two cents in. :cwink:

I just like to use people's own arguments against them. It's fun.

[The Senator]

You made a conscious choice to hide who you are. I will agree that some, and to me that number is very few, choose to be gay. I would argue that 90-95 percent are born gay.

Same here.

I know of someone who tried to be gay because his lifestyle matched homosexuality perfectly. Except for the having sex with guys thing, he didn't like that part. A friend of mine told him he was 'metrosexual' so now he's living the life of a gay man but with a girlfriend.

Most gay men are born gay, though. By far.

[MaskedManJRK]

Hell...it's still that way now

But they still integrated all races into batallions, right? So why can there be integrated military squads and then not have openly gay officers?

I have a perspective on this, so I guess I should say my piece. :dry:

Honestly? I don't think you need to legalize your union to prove your love to someone else. You can exchange rings and the whole nine and still have an unbreakable committment. In my opinion, legality shouldn't have an impact on anything. And that principle applies to STR8 people as well as far as I am concerned.

Just my thoughts.


The problem is less about legitmacy, and more about being able to have the same rights as everyone else. To be perfectly frank, if a group of people has less rights then the other, then they are, to an extent, second-class citizens. If you don't have a problem with that, then...well, I don't know what to tell ya.

Oh, so it's OK for me to be discriminated against because others are? I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

What if I am in love with my cousin, or my sister, or my daughter? Should I be "denied the right to marry the person [i] LOVE"?

Dumb argument aside, it would be wrong because, more than likely, if you and your sister/cousin/daughter had children they're likely to have severe birth defects.

And before you bring up beastiality--that is a particular favorite for homophobes--we cannot know the animal is concenting because we can't translate barks into any form of human communication. No concent--no go.

Homosexuality is an interesting thing. Statistically, gays and lesbians are better off financially, and tend to have higher levels of education than those who are "traditionally" a minority. The usual argument to promote and protect "gay rights" stems from the idea that a secular society should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation. And a part of this stems from the claim that "being gay" is natural (which has not been scientifically proven as conclusive), the same way as being African-American is natural (see above as to why this aspect of the debate is insulting to Blacks). However, what is most profound is that should being gay is proven to be a natural genetic trait, there is a fear that parents will use that to begin aborting their children, along the lines of aborting embryos with "Down's Syndrome". That is why there has been a move to push the debate from "tolerance" to "acceptance" in many cases. Still, I do wonder if the GLBT and the pro-lifers will end up switching sides on the pro-life/pro-choice debate...

Regardless, I do see a day when openly gay people will be mainstreamed. When that happens, in a generation, many of them will become Republican. After all, being fiscally responsible need not be based on being "socially aware" in the mode of secular progressivism.

[Citation Needed]

[Handsome Rob]

The pure, utter, and extreme stupidity of such an argument aside, it would be wrong because, more than likely, if you and your sister/cousin/daughter had children they're likely to have severe birth defects.


They don't have to have children. You're no different from people who want to ban gay marriage. It sounds like you want to keep some people as second-class citizens. Smells like discrimination to me . . .

Oh, and I discriminate . . . for the record. :yay:

[Carcharodon]

I feel that I should not have to be married in order to receive these benefits. I am being discriminated against, and homosexuals are enjoying rights that I do not have.Dude, you know I respect you, but you really don't have a leg to stand on here. The only reason they have that right is because they're denied the right to marry. What you're essentially saying, then, is that homosexuals should be denied these benefits period.

Am I correct? I mean, the only way around it is to let them marry. So which will it be? Deny them these benefits completely because of their sexual preference, or let them marry and become equals?

[Hobgoblin]

I just like to use people's own arguments against them. It's fun.


Please try to be a little more civil.

[Hobgoblin]

The pure, utter, and extreme stupidity of such an argument aside,

Remove this part of the post, please. No name calling.

[MaskedManJRK]

Remove this part of the post, please. No name calling.

I was saying the argument was stupid, not him, but fixed nonetheless.

[BlackLantern]

Can I call myself a name?

[MaskedManJRK]

Can I call myself a name?

I call myself "Magnificant Bastard," so you can't have that one. :o

[Hobgoblin]

Sorry, BL. He beat you to it. :o

[BlackLantern]

well my alias is Lazlo Sugarpants

[MaskedManJRK]

well my alias is Lazlo Sugarpants

Hmm. Good one.

My alias is Spicy McTendercrisp.

[Marx]

well my alias is Lazlo Sugarpants

Hmm. Good one.

My alias is Spicy McTendercrisp.

:funny:

[MaskedManJRK]

Wow...the conversation feel into a stand-still, didn't it? :csad:

[Marx]

I can help with that. :yay:


Gay Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history'
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/rnc.log.cabin/index.html




(This is more of a convention note, but I think the discussion is better off in this thread.)

[MaskedManJRK]

I can help with that. :yay:


Gay Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history'
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/rnc.log.cabin/index.html




(This is more of a convention note, but I think the discussion is better off in this thread.)

Nice. This also reminds me of one of the better bits from American Dad.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=American+Dad+Log+Cabin+Republicans&hl=en&emb=0#

:woot:

[Schlosser85]

Something I've always found strange about conservative Christians and their fixation with homosexuality. The Book of Leviticus which says two men laying together is an abomination, also forbids you to shave, eat pork, or eat shellfish. By that logic, if they're about "strictly following the Bible", conservative Christians should be railing against people who shave and eat pork as much as they do against gays, but they don't, so I'm curious as to what exactly their excuse is for thinking they have something in particular to say about gays.

Some people need to read their Bibles more carefully before throwing tham at other people.

[BlackLantern]

Something I've always found strange about conservative Christians and their fixation with homosexuality. The Book of Leviticus which says two men laying together is an abomination, also forbids you to shave, eat pork, or eat shellfish. By that logic, if they're about "strictly following the Bible", conservative Christians should be railing against people who shave and eat pork as much as they do against gays, but they don't, so I'm curious as to what exactly their excuse is for thinking they have something in particular to say about gays.

Some people need to read their Bibles more carefully before throwing tham at other people.

In that same part of the Bible, there is also the bit about separating your wife from the household during her time of the month....

[Comicfilmer]

Something I've always found strange about conservative Christians and their fixation with homosexuality. The Book of Leviticus which says two men laying together is an abomination, also forbids you to shave, eat pork, or eat shellfish. By that logic, if they're about "strictly following the Bible", conservative Christians should be railing against people who shave and eat pork as much as they do against gays, but they don't, so I'm curious as to what exactly their excuse is for thinking they have something in particular to say about gays.

Some people need to read their Bibles more carefully before throwing tham at other people.

Well, to be fair - you're talking about Old Testament Jewish law. The dietary restrictions were not reinforced in the New Covenant of the New Testament, whereas the book of Romans clearly condemns homosexuality.

[Schlosser85]

I do completely agree with what the Log Cabin Republicans said about the GOP being on the wrong side of history as far as gay rights goes. Time is on our side, not theirs.

[Hobgoblin]

Lets keep religion out of the debate, guys. Thank you.

[Tron5000]

Lets keep religion out of the debate, guys. Thank you.

Um, many people's views on Gay Rights are formed by their religious beliefs. To exclude such discussion seems to me to be ridiculous and bordering on censorship.

[Hobgoblin]

Um, many people's views on Gay Rights are formed by their religious beliefs. To exclude such discussion seems to me to be ridiculous and bordering on censorship.

Just dont want the thread to turn into a religious debate. Its the Gay Rights thread, not the religion bashing thread.

[Franklin Richards]

Um, many people's views on Gay Rights are formed by their religious beliefs. To exclude such discussion seems to me to be ridiculous and bordering on censorship.

I agree.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Tron5000]

Just dont want the thread to turn into a religious debate. Its the Gay Rights thread, not the religion bashing thread.

Like I said, many people base their ideas on Gay Rights on their religious beliefs. The two are not separate from one another.

[Hobgoblin]

Fair enough. Just dont let the conversation turn into bashing.

[Marx]

Just dont want the thread to turn into a religious debate. Its the Gay Rights thread, not the religion bashing thread.

Many people's views on gay rights stem from their religious beliefs. I don't see how that is not appropriate for a discussion based on gay rights. :huh:

People here are largely respectful of each others viewpoints.

[Hobgoblin]

Ok, mea culpa! :oldrazz: ("My mistake" for the non Catholics out there.)

[Lightning Strykez!]

People here are largely respectful of each others viewpoints.

Yeah. The key word being "Largely". :cool:

However, I agree that religion definitely plays a role in this discussion. Kudos to Demogoblin for being reasonable enough to acquiesce. That's what being a good Mod is all about! :up:

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah. The key word being "Largely". :cool:

However, I agree that religion definitely plays a role in this discussion. Kudos to Demogoblin for being reasonable enough to acquiesce. That's what being a good Mod is all about! :up:

Thanks for the seal of approval. :yay: Its very much an "on the job training" kind of job.

My personal question: What do the gay members think of the Church's position on homosexuality? Do believers have the right to not accept the gay lifestyle if thier religion forbids it? Do you want a religious ceremony for your wedding or is a civil union "good enough?" What kind of middle ground can be reached?

[BlackLantern]

I think the gay community doesn't want to "settle" for good enough...they want to be treated like every other straight couple out there....

[USMC]

Thanks for the seal of approval. :yay: Its very much an "on the job training" kind of job.

My personal question: What do the gay members think of the Church's position on homosexuality? Do believers have the right to not accept the gay lifestyle if thier religion forbids it? Do you want a religious ceremony for your wedding or is a civil union "good enough?" What kind of middle ground can be reached?

I think any church has a right to not allow gay weddings. So long as that church stays the hell out of the political arena.

:up:

[Hobgoblin]

I think any church has a right to not allow gay weddings. So long as that church stays the hell out of the political arena.

:up:

Personally, I would like both politics and religion to stay out of each others business. What was the church on the east coast that split because they allowed gay pastors to perform services? Anglicans? I believe a few small, break away churches also support gay marriage. Politicians had to go and start pushing the Gay Marriage Ban around that time, I think.

Just an example of how politics and religion need to keep away from each other.

[danoyse]

I think any church has a right to not allow gay weddings. So long as that church stays the hell out of the political arena.

:up:

In the immortal words of George Carlin: "Keep thy religion to THYSELF."

[Hobgoblin]

In the immortal words of George Carlin: "Keep thy religion to THYSELF."

Two thumbs up. :up: :up:

[Lightning Strykez!]

How many posters on this thread are in the life? I want to pose a question, but not to the chirping of crickets.

[USMC]

lol, what do you mean?

[BlackLantern]

My best friend is a lesbian with a serious GF, they plan on getting married within the next 2 years....

[Lightning Strykez!]

lol, what do you mean?

You mean, what does "in the life" mean??? :confused:

[Hobgoblin]

I think he's asking who is gay...:huh:

I'm not, btw.

[MaskedManJRK]

I think the gay community doesn't want to "settle" for good enough...they want to be treated like every other straight couple out there....

You nailed it. :up:

I think any church has a right to not allow gay weddings. So long as that church stays the hell out of the political arena.

:up:

So did you. :up:

How many posters on this thread are in the life? I want to pose a question, but not to the chirping of crickets.

I'm fairly out as bi--I'll answer truthfully if asked, and I've been a part of both my high school and college GSA.

[The Senator]

Thanks for the seal of approval. :yay: Its very much an "on the job training" kind of job.

My personal question: What do the gay members think of the Church's position on homosexuality? Do believers have the right to not accept the gay lifestyle if thier religion forbids it? Do you want a religious ceremony for your wedding or is a civil union "good enough?" What kind of middle ground can be reached?

Churches have a right, as private institutions, to not allow gay marriage based on their religious beliefs. However, since some churches have expressed interest in allowing gay marriage, I believe the argument which some religious conservatives use-- that it goes against the Bible, the rights of religious institutions, etc.-- is nonsensical and not based in reality.

I want marriage and will not get married until I can get married. Civil unions are a 'separate but equal' policy and I will not settle for something which will continue to mark me as an outcast in our heteronormative society.

[BlackLantern]

but I think the gay community needs to understand that society, at large, is going to need time to adjust....gay rights have come a long way, especially in the last decade or so, but there is still a long way to go.....

[Yerzrinot]

Can anyone who's against gay rights list a single reason (aside from the puritanical belief that it's the government's job to legislate morality) that we shouldn't give gays full marriage rights?

[Marx]

Welcome to the boards V1nd1c74! :yay:

[SuperT]

I was brought up in a very religious home - my family is baptist, so I was brought up that being gay was a sin although my family NEVER taught me to hate or disprove of people because they were gay. They hammered into me "Hate the sin, not the sinner"

But anyway, I completely disagree with them on gay rights. I don't see any reason why gay American's shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. I don't see how Greg/Steve or Jane/Deb getting married affects my relationships or marriages.

[Yerzrinot]

Welcome to the boards V1nd1c74! :yay:

Nice avatar man.

[Carcharodon]

But anyway, I completely disagree with them on gay rights. I don't see any reason why gay American's shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. I don't see how Greg/Steve or Jane/Deb getting married affects my relationships or marriages.:up:

[The Senator]

Does anyone here oppose the term "homophobia" and refuses to use it to describe hatred/ discriminatory views because they believe "homophobic" should describe a "fear?"

Does anyone know anyone who claims they are not "homophobic" because they don't "fear" homosexuals, even though they say discriminatory/ ignorant things about members of the GLBT community?

Because there is a term which is starting to come out of the wordwork... "heterosexism"... which would take the social definition of "homophobic" as its own, leaving "homophobic" to describe a "fear" of homosexuals...

[BlackLantern]

I think most people might fear or insult the LGBT community because they are ignorant...they have never encountered a gay person or personally know any gay people.....Heterosexism seems an ok term

[Hobgoblin]

Churches have a right, as private institutions, to not allow gay marriage based on their religious beliefs. However, since some churches have expressed interest in allowing gay marriage, I believe the argument which some religious conservatives use-- that it goes against the Bible, the rights of religious institutions, etc.-- is nonsensical and not based in reality.

I want marriage and will not get married until I can get married. Civil unions are a 'separate but equal' policy and I will not settle for something which will continue to mark me as an outcast in our heteronormative society.

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to understand. How does the fact that some more liberal churches support gay marriage discount the conservative interpretation? Using that logic, couldnt the conservative interpretation discount the liberal one? Maybe the liberal churches are going against the Bible.

I just dont see how the opinion of a few churches disqualifies the opinion of the majority. :huh:

Does anyone here oppose the term "homophobia" and refuses to use it to describe hatred/ discriminatory views because they believe "homophobic" should describe a "fear?"

Does anyone know anyone who claims they are not "homophobic" because they don't "fear" homosexuals, even though they say discriminatory/ ignorant things about members of the GLBT community?

Because there is a term which is starting to come out of the wordwork... "heterosexism"... which would take the social definition of "homophobic" as its own, leaving "homophobic" to describe a "fear" of homosexuals...

Actually, I think the term homophobic is pretty accurate. Yes, it means fear, which is exactly the impression of the mindset of I get from those who discriminate against gays. Whenever my family visits my aunt in Chicago, my dad warns my brother and I to watch ourselves as she lives in a very popular area for gays.

[The Senator]

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to understand. How does the fact that some more liberal churches support gay marriage discount the conservative interpretation? Using that logic, couldnt the conservative interpretation discount the liberal one? Maybe the liberal churches are going against the Bible.

I just dont see how the opinion of a few churches disqualifies the opinion of the majority. :huh:

Well, considering the Bible was written by man thousands of years ago, and has been re-interpreted every generation since, and numerous scholars actually debate the legitimacy of the one line in the Bible which semi-explicitly mentions homosexuality, one church's interpretation of the Bible should not be considered more legitimate than another's. And, since man's personal interpretation of the Bible is often skewed, one's own opinion of what the Bible means could be something entirely different than someone else's. Therefore, the religious debate makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Not to mention, that there are other religions out there which accept and perform gay marriages which do not follow the Bible. For example, the Unitarian Universalists and, from what I've read, some Buddhist sects.


Actually, I think the term homophobic is pretty accurate. Yes, it means fear, which is exactly the impression of the mindset of I get from those who discriminate against gays. Whenever my family visits my aunt in Chicago, my dad warns my brother and I to watch ourselves as she lives in a very popular area for gays.

I think homophobic accurately describes the fear, but I do think there are some people who do not fear the GLBT community but still act in a discriminatory manner towards its members. Heterosexism, I think, describes it better... only because the term accurately implies discrimination, instead of just "fear."

[Hobgoblin]

Ok, got it.

[Yerzrinot]

Actually, I think the term homophobic is pretty accurate. Yes, it means fear, which is exactly the impression of the mindset of I get from those who discriminate against gays. Whenever my family visits my aunt in Chicago, my dad warns my brother and I to watch ourselves as she lives in a very popular area for gays.

LOL, so he actually thinks you two are gonna be gang raped or something? May be confusing homosexuality with prison life.

[The Lizard]

I think any church has a right to not allow gay weddings. So long as that church stays the hell out of the political arena.


One response that I've seen religious anti-gay rights people give to this is the following:
They are afraid that if gay marriage is against their religion and gay marriage becomes legal, then any gay couple can demand that particular church recognize their marriage. If a certain church or religion doesn't recognize gay marriages or allow married gay couples membership, does that leave that particular church open to lawsuit or some kind of punishment from the government?

I'm honestly asking, as I don't know if this is a legitimate fear or if the anti-gay marriage crowd is just blowing smoke again.

[Marx]

One response that I've seen religious anti-gay rights people give to this is the following:
They are afraid that if gay marriage is against their religion and gay marriage becomes legal, then any gay couple can demand that particular church recognize their marriage. If a certain church or religion doesn't recognize gay marriages or allow married gay couples membership, does that leave that particular church open to lawsuit or some kind of punishment from the government?

I'm honestly asking, as I don't know if this is a legitimate fear or if the anti-gay marriage crowd is just blowing smoke again.

Every church should have the right to accept or deny gay marriage. The government should not regulate church policy, just as the church should not regulate government policy. No advocate of gay rights would lobby that all churches must recognize gay marriage according to the law.

[Mr Sparkle]

One response that I've seen religious anti-gay rights people give to this is the following:
They are afraid that if gay marriage is against their religion and gay marriage becomes legal, then any gay couple can demand that particular church recognize their marriage. If a certain church or religion doesn't recognize gay marriages or allow married gay couples membership, does that leave that particular church open to lawsuit or some kind of punishment from the government?

I'm honestly asking, as I don't know if this is a legitimate fear or if the anti-gay marriage crowd is just blowing smoke again.


well, seems like a strange observation on the part of the particular church that holds this fear.
just because a marriage is LEGAL doesn't mean it HAS to be recognized bya given religion, hence the fact that the ceremonies are separate.
If you are a catholic, other faiths are not BOUND to recognize your marriage are they?
last time I checked, the Jewish faith marries a certain way, and such marriages aren't recognized by other faiths so, what makes them think a LEGAL marriage would be different.

[The Lizard]

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

It seems very unlikely that a church that didn't support gay marriages would get its tax-exempt status revoked (as is the oft-claimed fear of the anti-gay rights crowd). After all, if the Catholic church doesn't get punished for refusing to perform marriages for Jews or Jehovah's Witness, why would it be penalized for doing the same for gays?

But it's not stopping that claim from still being made of course. “The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.” This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide “commitment ceremonies” to homosexuals. - http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3098/Matt_Barber

[Mr Sparkle]

aren't these people supposed to be against lying?

[cerealkiller182]

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

It seems very unlikely that a church that didn't support gay marriages would get its tax-exempt status revoked (as is the oft-claimed fear of the anti-gay rights crowd). After all, if the Catholic church doesn't get punished for refusing to perform marriages for Jews or Jehovah's Witness, why would it be penalized for doing the same for gays?

But it's not stopping that claim from still being made of course.

Just to add to the point

In my human resource management class, I learned a religious organization can discriminate hiring practices by only hiring those that share their beliefs.

Religious organizations can be left to themselves as long as they stay out of the grand government scheme.

[Mr Sparkle]

yeah, like, don't the boy scouts deny entry (hahahahahaha) to gay guys all the time?

[USMC]

I'm not, btw.

Thanks for clarifying... :huh:

[RAMORE]

Can anyone who's against gay rights list a single reason (aside from the puritanical belief that it's the government's job to legislate morality) that we shouldn't give gays full marriage rights?

I'm not against rights just against them getting married because marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. I think they should have rights as a couple (although I don't agree with that lifestyle choice), they just can't get married because that is not the definition you'll have to call it something else. IMHO.

[Marx]

I'm not against rights just against them getting married because marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. I think they should have rights as a couple (although I don't agree with that lifestyle choice), they just can't get married because that is not the definition you'll have to call it something else. IMHO.

Where does the definition of marriage come from RAMORE?

[Mr Sparkle]

yeah, Lord knows it's easier to create an entire new name for the exact same idea than simply broadening the definition.

[USMC]

I'm not against rights just against them getting married because marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. I think they should have rights as a couple (although I don't agree with that lifestyle choice), they just can't get married because that is not the definition you'll have to call it something else. IMHO.

That is not the definition of "marriage". That is your definition.

Marriage between only a man and woman is not an exclusive Christian idea nor is it an exclusive world view. Same-sex marriage is recognized by other countries, as is POLYGAMY.

Just because your own personal view of what it should be, does not make it so.

Oh, and it's not a "lifestyle choice" either.

EQUAL rights among ALL human beings, not SPECIAL rights among the exclusive self-righteous.

[RAMORE]

yeah, Lord knows it's easier to create an entire new name for the exact same idea than simply broadening the definition.

If it's not the same thing you give it a new name.

[RAMORE]

That is not the definition of "marriage". That is your definition.

Marriage between only a man and woman is not an exclusive Christian idea nor is it an exclusive world view. Same-sex marriage is recognized by other countries, as is POLYGAMY.

Just because your own personal view of what it should be, does not make it so.

Oh, and it's not a "lifestyle choice" either.

EQUAL rights among ALL human beings, not SPECIAL rights among the exclusive self-righteous.



It is the definition the oldest one standing is that is between a man and a woman. I don't think polygamy should be referred to as Marriage either it should be referred to as polygamy or a polygamist marriage just not marriage cause it's not.

Not a lifestyle choice is your opinion I have yet to see any concrete evidence of a gay gene. It's environment. (This is completely my opinion I cannot -obviously- prove this)

I said they should have equal rights just can't be called something they are not which is married:yay:

[Marx]

It is the definition the oldest one standing is that is between a man and a woman. I don't think polygamy should be referred to as Marriage either it should be referred to as polygamy or a polygamist marriage just not marriage cause it's not.

Not a lifestyle choice is your opinion I have yet to see any concrete evidence of a gay gene. It's environment. (This is completely my opinion I cannot -obviously- prove this)

I said they should have equal rights just can't be called something they are not which is married:yay:

So you honestly believe that gays make a choice to be gay? To be ridiculed and ostricized from society? Wow...that certainly tells me alot about where you stand, and why. :whatever:

[cerealkiller182]

I said they should have equal rights just can't be called something they are not which is married:yay:

Why? For all intents and purposes they are married.

[USMC]

I said they should have equal rights just can't be called something they are not which is married:yay:

Lol, I've been married to my husband for two years, more than alot of straight couples. And I can assure you, use any word you want, I am as married as everyone else. :yay: