Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
God was taken out of our schools, and look what has happened. Now slowly God is being taken out of marrige. I'm glad i'm saved
Really? So if a Christian enters a public school, your God abandons them? If a Christian bows his head and prays silently, your God doesn't hear him?
This sort of nonsense is ridiculous. If your God abandons his followers because of a rule against school led prayer, he wasn't much of a god to begin with.
The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,
in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.
By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.
lol.
much of sex is for pleasure. reproduction occurs because sex is pleasurable.
Humans, chimps, and dolphins are the only animals shown to have sex for fun. But chimps and dolphins only do it with the opposite sex.
Then you concede that the reproduction argument is bullshit. That was my point.
BTW, priests and nuns vow to be celibate. That's abnormal according to the nonsense being tossed around here;
why don't deny religious rights and protections to churches that revere an abnormal sexual lifestyle?
Since I didn't make that argument I can only lol at your lol. But at least you got the main point, that you do understand what genders are for. I don't know where you got your 99% figure from, probably your ass, but that wasn't the point. Male/female pairing is a natural pairing since it follows what nature designed. Same genders aren't no matter how you try to spin it.The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,
in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.
By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.
lol.
Sorry, but parental gender does matter. Boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model.
If that were true, then the State would have a justifiable case for removing children from single parent homes and placing them with adoptive one man/one woman couples. Involuntarily.
Do you support that?
of course not, but it has been shown that children of single parents have a much harder time in life.
the real answer is that we need policies that encourage marriage and encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children.
I've had friends that thought they were infertile but many years later had kids, so you never know. Also, they can adopt or foster. Yes gays can too but the male/female relationship is what makes the family what it is. I know this is hard...but females and males are different. They bring different things to the table, different strengths and weaknesses, where the two combined make a better sum that the two parts. It's interesting stuff, you should look into it sometime.
I know science is hard, but it doesn't support your statements.
Extending their prior work on gender and family, Dr. Biblarz and Dr. Stacey of New York University, analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. Their review included 30 studies that compared two-parent lesbian couples to heterosexual coparents, 1 compared gay male to heterosexual coparents, and 2 compared lesbian to gay male coparents. They also reviewed 48 studies of single male or female parents.
In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success. They found there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.
And, it's not like we raise our children in bubbles. There are these things called families...and they extend beyond just the couple and their children. Despite being raised by two women, my son has managed to reach the age of 14 doing ALL the same things his friends do...with one small exception, he doesn't split his time between his divorced parents like all his friends do. Poor him.
Flawed Studies Used For Promoting Same-Sex Marriage, Says Policy Institute
Gay activists have used flawed research in promoting the legalization of gay marriage, according to a recent paper published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
Writing in "Do Mothers and Fathers Matter?" by Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, the authors claim that thousands of studies done over the past thirty years overwhelmingly show that children thrive best in intact, two-parent families consisting of a mother and a father.
Yet pro-gay researchers are using their own data to prove that children can be reared in same-sex households without any negative consequences, their paper says.
Gallagher and Baker point out a notable flaw in most of the research designs: most of the research does not directly compare children with a married mother and father, to children raised from birth by homosexual couples. Instead, the typical comparison made was between single heterosexual mothers--whose families are typically stressed by divorce conflict, absent fathers, and economic problems--to lesbian mothers.
Pro-gay researcher Judith Stacey claims that "...the research demonstrates that children of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted, and at least as educationally and socially successful, as children raised by heterosexual parents." In 1996, Stacey authored "The Father Fixation," an article critiquing the idea that fathers are necessary to children, which was published in the Utne Reader.
"Not One Study Conducted
According to Generally Accepted Research Standards"
But Stacey is incorrect, according to Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia. Nock has studied several hundred studies on same-sex parenting. He observes that each of the studies he surveyed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution, and not one of them was conducted according to generally accepted standards of research.
The greatest flaw in many of these studies, he says, was that single lesbian mothers were compared to single heterosexual mothers. As Gallagher and Baker note, "Most of the gay parenting literature thus compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms." They conclude, "Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father."
Same-Sex Parenting and Junk Science
“No one should pay any attention to studies that are poorly done. They are just some stories, they really are not science.” Dr. Linda Waite
One the misleading claims commonly made by homosexual activists and their allies is that social science research proves that there are no significant differences in the social and psychological outcomes for children raised by same-sex “parents” when compared to those raised by heterosexual parents. (The term “parent” will be used for convenience, but with the recognition that no more than one member of a same-sex couple raising a child can be the biological parent.) However, independent evaluation of the studies commonly used to support these assertions have concluded that all of them fall far short of the minimum standards the social science disciplines require to be met for research findings to have any validity.
To make matters even more serious, these independent analysts find that the results of this research are often misrepresented by the researchers themselves, and even more often by those, such as these homosexual activists and their allies, who try to use them to make their case. In short, this whole body of research has to be considered as little more than “junk science,” that is often misapplied and misrepresented. Because these flawed studies are constantly being used to try to support such policies as legalizing same-sex marriage, promoting same-sex adoption, same-sex foster care and technologically-assisted conception for same-sex couples, it is important to more fully understand the criticisms of these studies.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When held to the minimum standards of social science research, virtually all of the same-sex parenting research studies published to date have been found by other social scientists to be deficient for a wide range of reasons. Many of the researchers in this area are themselves homosexuals as well as activists for “gay rights.” This could be a source of subconscious bias even
in investigators who want to be as objective and professional as possible. Other problems with this body of research include using very small size samples in some of these studies or relying on “self reporting” by the same-sex parents themselves of the traits or characteristics of their children.
Meet the:Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,
in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.
By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.
lol.
much of sex is for pleasure. reproduction occurs because sex is pleasurable.
Humans, chimps, and dolphins are the only animals shown to have sex for fun. But chimps and dolphins only do it with the opposite sex.
And you're incorrect.
Since I didn't make that argument I can only lol at your lol. But at least you got the main point, that you do understand what genders are for. I don't know where you got your 99% figure from, probably your ass, but that wasn't the point. Male/female pairing is a natural pairing since it follows what nature designed. Same genders aren't no matter how you try to spin it.The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,
in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.
By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.
lol.
Meet the:Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediamuch of sex is for pleasure. reproduction occurs because sex is pleasurable.
Humans, chimps, and dolphins are the only animals shown to have sex for fun. But chimps and dolphins only do it with the opposite sex.
And you're incorrect.
one species of monkey, BFD. maybe you can move to the Congo and join their group.
Really? So if a Christian enters a public school, your God abandons them? If a Christian bows his head and prays silently, your God doesn't hear him?
This sort of nonsense is ridiculous. If your God abandons his followers because of a rule against school led prayer, he wasn't much of a god to begin with.
no one said any of that, you made it up
jknowgood claims God was taken out of our schools. Exactly how did someone manage to remove an all-powerful, omnipotent being?
one species of monkey, BFD. maybe you can move to the Congo and join their group.
We're also the only species that builds motor vehicles and drives them around. Should we cease that practice because we can't find any monkeys that do it?
Since I didn't make that argument I can only lol at your lol. But at least you got the main point, that you do understand what genders are for. I don't know where you got your 99% figure from, probably your ass, but that wasn't the point. Male/female pairing is a natural pairing since it follows what nature designed. Same genders aren't no matter how you try to spin it.The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,
in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.
By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.
lol.
Yes you did make that argument in your gay/mental illness thread. But don't feel bad, all you people run away from that argument once you're confronted with an unassailable rebuttal.
Male female is natural by design ONLY for one single aspect of 'pairing'. Reproduction.
Do you want to make an argument that more than 1% of all human sex acts are done for the explicit purpose of reproduction?
I'll help you. First you eliminate ALL sex acts involving contraception, ALL sex acts not involving penis in vagina, ALL sex acts after a woman is already pregnant, all sex acts after menopause or a hysterectomy or a vasectomy, all sex acts where either partner is known to be sterile for any other reason.
Now, go ahead and argue that what's left is more than 1% of all sex.
Since I didn't make that argument I can only lol at your lol. But at least you got the main point, that you do understand what genders are for. I don't know where you got your 99% figure from, probably your ass, but that wasn't the point. Male/female pairing is a natural pairing since it follows what nature designed. Same genders aren't no matter how you try to spin it.The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,
in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.
By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.
lol.
Yes you did make that argument in your gay/mental illness thread. But don't feel bad, all you people run away from that argument once you're confronted with an unassailable rebuttal.
Male female is natural by design ONLY for one single aspect of 'pairing'. Reproduction.
Do you want to make an argument that more than 1% of all human sex acts are done for the explicit purpose of reproduction?
I'll help you. First you eliminate ALL sex acts involving contraception, ALL sex acts not involving penis in vagina, ALL sex acts after a woman is already pregnant, all sex acts after menopause or a hysterectomy or a vasectomy, all sex acts where either partner is known to be sterile for any other reason.
Now, go ahead and argue that what's left is more than 1% of all sex.
What you forget is that parents are not the only role models. We don't raise our children in bubbles. My son can pee standing up, shoot a gun and play video games until his eyes fall out. My daughter played with dolls, wears pink, plays video games until her eyes fall out and can shoot a gun and a bow. They both do all the exact same things that all their friends do...except have to split their time between two houses.
And no, we don't have the "butch/fem" thing going on. Your fantasy is not my reality, sorry to disappoint you.
Since I didn't make that argument I can only lol at your lol. But at least you got the main point, that you do understand what genders are for. I don't know where you got your 99% figure from, probably your ass, but that wasn't the point. Male/female pairing is a natural pairing since it follows what nature designed. Same genders aren't no matter how you try to spin it.
Yes you did make that argument in your gay/mental illness thread. But don't feel bad, all you people run away from that argument once you're confronted with an unassailable rebuttal.
Male female is natural by design ONLY for one single aspect of 'pairing'. Reproduction.
Do you want to make an argument that more than 1% of all human sex acts are done for the explicit purpose of reproduction?
I'll help you. First you eliminate ALL sex acts involving contraception, ALL sex acts not involving penis in vagina, ALL sex acts after a woman is already pregnant, all sex acts after menopause or a hysterectomy or a vasectomy, all sex acts where either partner is known to be sterile for any other reason.
Now, go ahead and argue that what's left is more than 1% of all sex.
You're a complete numskull. Sex reinforces the bond between male and female thereby helping to insure that the male sticks around to help raise the offspring.
You're shallow and idiotic presentation of the issue only fools those who want to be fooled.
That was just the starting point. The truth doesn't matter to you I see? I didn't think that it would.Meet the:Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediamuch of sex is for pleasure. reproduction occurs because sex is pleasurable.
Humans, chimps, and dolphins are the only animals shown to have sex for fun. But chimps and dolphins only do it with the opposite sex.
And you're incorrect.
one species of monkey, BFD. maybe you can move to the Congo and join their group.
What you forget is that parents are not the only role models. We don't raise our children in bubbles. My son can pee standing up, shoot a gun and play video games until his eyes fall out. My daughter played with dolls, wears pink, plays video games until her eyes fall out and can shoot a gun and a bow. They both do all the exact same things that all their friends do...except have to split their time between two houses.
And no, we don't have the "butch/fem" thing going on. Your fantasy is not my reality, sorry to disappoint you.
You're not just talking to me about the butch/femme thing. It's so commonly seen in the church of LGBT partnering that it's virtually an icon of their movement. You aren't fooling anyone by telling them the elephant isn't sitting directly in the middle of the living room...
No one has ever seen a version of this, right? What's really going on here? Inside their minds, not what's just superficially going on? Some part of them knows it's wrong, that there's a better arrangement. And they are manifesting that in their clothing and manners. You still have to wonder what the gal in the gown is seeing in the one dressed like a man. Closet heterosexuality anyone?
Yes you did make that argument in your gay/mental illness thread. But don't feel bad, all you people run away from that argument once you're confronted with an unassailable rebuttal.
Male female is natural by design ONLY for one single aspect of 'pairing'. Reproduction.
Do you want to make an argument that more than 1% of all human sex acts are done for the explicit purpose of reproduction?
I'll help you. First you eliminate ALL sex acts involving contraception, ALL sex acts not involving penis in vagina, ALL sex acts after a woman is already pregnant, all sex acts after menopause or a hysterectomy or a vasectomy, all sex acts where either partner is known to be sterile for any other reason.
Now, go ahead and argue that what's left is more than 1% of all sex.
You're a complete numskull. Sex reinforces the bond between male and female thereby helping to insure that the male sticks around to help raise the offspring.
You're shallow and idiotic presentation of the issue only fools those who want to be fooled.
Yours is the shallow and idiotic portrayal....the male only sticks around because of sex?
Hilarious.
That was just the starting point. The truth doesn't matter to you I see? I didn't think that it would.
one species of monkey, BFD. maybe you can move to the Congo and join their group.
What you forget is that parents are not the only role models. We don't raise our children in bubbles. My son can pee standing up, shoot a gun and play video games until his eyes fall out. My daughter played with dolls, wears pink, plays video games until her eyes fall out and can shoot a gun and a bow. They both do all the exact same things that all their friends do...except have to split their time between two houses.
And no, we don't have the "butch/fem" thing going on. Your fantasy is not my reality, sorry to disappoint you.
You're not just talking to me about the butch/femme thing. It's so commonly seen in the church of LGBT partnering that it's virtually an icon of their movement. You aren't fooling anyone by telling them the elephant isn't sitting directly in the middle of the living room...
No one has ever seen a version of this, right? What's really going on here? Inside their minds, not what's just superficially going on? Some part of them knows it's wrong, that there's a better arrangement. And they are manifesting that in their clothing and manners. You still have to wonder what the gal in the gown is seeing in the one dressed like a man. Closet heterosexuality anyone?
I think seawytch is the one dressed as a male.
Good find. I'm always suspicious of activist's "research" papers."Not One Study Conducted
According to Generally Accepted Research Standards"
