The Homosexual Dilemma

[Seawytch]

Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".

And so it goes. I personally believe that most leftist sources lie, and are not to be believed. But, rather than "kill the messenger", maybe we should see what a link says and refute it with one of our own.

Unless you think debate is just using links YOU believe to be correct.

Mark

Major medical associations and universities are not "leftist sources", they are reputable, peer reviewed sources. That is an alien concept to people who rely on the debunked and extremely biased research from places like I mentioned above.

Do you know what happens when the "research" presented from those places gets presented in a court of law? It get's dismissed as the garbage it is.

“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”​

 

[80zephyr]

Uh huh....

'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial

Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.

And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.

Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light. Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples. All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.

What statistics?

Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]

Family Research Council

Family Research Council? Seriously?

First of all - Pedophilia, if that is what you are referring to - is it's own category. Offenders are neither hetero nor homo but are attracted to prebuscent children and do not typically have or are able to sustain normal relationships with adults.

Second of all - "Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases" - well...sounds like you are making an argument that adoption should be limited to single women or lesbian couples only then

Why is pedophilia in its own category? Could it be that the left needs it to be, otherwise it would shed a bad light on the gays?

Why should I believe you when you say its a separate category? Why is it that many pedophiles will ONLY attacks boys and not girls?

I reject your "category" classification. Logic and reality tell me it has no basis in fact.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.

Mark

Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.

It's not only outdated, it's not even true. Marriage was never about reproduction. Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.

If you were correct, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women. Know what I think? I think arguments like this are simply one more way that the left lies about history to make what they want more palatable to the "sheep".

There is plenty of history, you just don't know it, or want to, because it would mean that your mentality is based upon a lie, which it is. And even if marriage once was only meant for reproduction it now no longer is and hasn't been for a very long time, so you're fucked from all sides, and apparently can't deal with like an adult and accept that You Have Lost, period. You will just have to move on because we ain't going back.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.

not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.

This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots.

From the American Psychiatric Association:

What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

b.s. its clear as day. An abused child has more chance of becoming gay because they were abused by a same sex parent- they get confused and depressed and angry; then they grow up and inflict that pain on their child, cycle never stops. They try to recreate it also with their homo partner. One is the alpha, one is the lesser.

No, that is not true at all. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support your claim. How you "feel" about it is not science.

I was never abused. My spouse was never abused. In all my 32 years as a gay women I've known exactly one person who had ever been abused and she knew she was gay before he started abusing her. She actually thinks he started abusing her because she was the "tomboy". Out of four girls, she's the only one grandpa "diddled" with.

Get your head out of anti gay sites and go look at some actual scientific studies done by reputable organizations.

You talk about science and then leap into anecdotal evidence. Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound?

Except I've provided both. The scientific evidence supports my anecdotal evidence.

 

[Skylar]

"Between two consenting adults", see you're already applying your own arbitrary opinion on what criteria should decide who somebody can marry.

More accurately, we're applying the requirements of marriage as our standard for who can get married. And there's no requirement that anyone have children or be able to have them. Rendering any restriction that is based on that standard uselessly arbitrary. As it doesn't exist nor is applied to anyone.

And you're drifting away from the legal argument because you don't have on that merits consideration.

Actually, its an explicitly legal argument. And has been used many, many times in court. No one is legally required to be able to procreate in order to get married. Rendering the inability to procreate an invalid basis to legal basis to deny someone the right to marry.

If you're going to restrict marriage only to hetero couples, you'll need a compelling state interest and a very good reason. And as the utter lack of any requirement to be able to procreate in order to get married demonstrates, you lack both.

Which is why you'll abandon the legal argument and go back to the arbitrary 'moral' claims, based on nothing but your religious belief. Which no one really gives a shit about.

You insist that gay "marriage" doesn't weaken society, but again, it's just an opinion. And if these things are decided by opinion, which they should, then most Americans disagree with you and have passed laws requiring marriage be between a man and a woman. Hence the state marriage laws.

There's simply no evidence of harm to society. You've made a claim of harm you can't support, based on religious reasoning and void of a logical or rational reason. Your religious beliefs are yours. They don't stand as a valid reason for anyone who doesn't already believe exactly as you do.

And most people don't.

And has been explained to you repeatedly, the States lack the ability to pass laws that abrogate individual rights. Thus your 'if you can pass the laws, they must be right' standard is indefensible clap trap. As the Loving V. Virginia rulings overturning interracial marriage bans demonstrated nearly 50 years ago.

What I want to know is why the Left is so terrified of democracy? If you think you're right, prevail upon your fellow man to convince them. But using Leftist hack ideologue judges to legislate from the bench sans any sound legal argument is the path you've chosen and the reason that people are starting to hate gay people like they never have before in this country.

Rights trump powers. You're literally arguing that any rights should be able to be voted away with a 50% plus 1 vote. And that's the beating heart of the tyranny of the majority. Which the founders despised. And which most thinking people do as well.

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.

 

[Coyote]

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

 

[Iceweasel]

Texan:that is incorrect, It was states that wrote ban laws that have been affirmed Unconstitutional. No one forced the states to write those laws. the Attorneys General of each of those states did the states a disservice by allowing those states to follow through in their unconstitutional legislation...no one forced that states to do that.

There is nothing unconstitutional about states defining what marriage means. AG's don't run any legislative branch, they enforce the laws they write.

Everyone is mocked...Why should Christians be treated more sacrosanct than they are now? Christians are one of the protected classes...but no where in the Constitution does it say they must be free of Mockery.

You missed my point by a country mile. No one said Christianity can't be mocked, just that it is. Much more so than gays and there are a LOT more Christians.

 

[80zephyr]

Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".

And so it goes. I personally believe that most leftist sources lie, and are not to be believed. But, rather than "kill the messenger", maybe we should see what a link says and refute it with one of our own.

Unless you think debate is just using links YOU believe to be correct.

Mark

Major medical associations and universities are not "leftist sources", they are reputable, peer reviewed sources. That is an alien concept to people who rely on the debunked and extremely biased research from places like I mentioned above.

Do you know what happens when the "research" presented from those places gets presented in a court of law? It get's dismissed as the garbage it is.

“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”​

Because one study is dismissed, doesn't mean they all are. Each should be taken on its own merit. And just for your information, I believe there is a serious counter movement that tries to discredit every study on this subject that doesn't jive with their own beliefs, on both sides.


Mark

 

[Iceweasel]

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.

Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?

 

[Seawytch]

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?

 

[80zephyr]

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

Unless every subject can be observed 24/7, the claim is ALWAYS made that a study is poorly done. As a matter of fact, I find it funny that the left views science as a solid science, unless it disagrees with a result. Then the scientist is an idiot.

Mark

 

[Carib Gyal]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda. Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website. If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.

And so it goes with everything else.

The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with. There's no scandal here. The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself. Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.

Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?

Where in the Constitution are civil rights for the *******? Oh right, not in there. In the Constitution they are property. Grow up and stop looking for doesn't exist.

 

[Seawytch]

Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".

And so it goes. I personally believe that most leftist sources lie, and are not to be believed. But, rather than "kill the messenger", maybe we should see what a link says and refute it with one of our own.

Unless you think debate is just using links YOU believe to be correct.

Mark

Major medical associations and universities are not "leftist sources", they are reputable, peer reviewed sources. That is an alien concept to people who rely on the debunked and extremely biased research from places like I mentioned above.

Do you know what happens when the "research" presented from those places gets presented in a court of law? It get's dismissed as the garbage it is.

“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”​

Because one study is dismissed, doesn't mean they all are. Each should be taken on its own merit. And just for your information, I believe there is a serious counter movement that tries to discredit every study on this subject that doesn't jive with their own beliefs, on both sides.


Mark

Yes, dear, they have all been dismissed....This was the one they chose to use in court which means the other ones must have been even worse. They've all been discredited. There is no credible study that shows our children at ANY disadvantage to yours, none. All the major child welfare, medical, and psychological organizations have come to the same conclusion, that there is no difference in outcomes between our kids and yours. None, zero, zip zilch. Our kids are fine. We're raising great ones. One will be President someday...the kid of gay parents. Worry about the kids of divorce...they're the ones that are fucked up.

 

[Seawytch]

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda. Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website. If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.

And so it goes with everything else.

The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with. There's no scandal here. The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself. Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.

The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.

Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda. Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website. If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.

And so it goes with everything else.

The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with. There's no scandal here. The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself. Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.

It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.

 

[80zephyr]

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?

Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.

Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?

Where in the Constitution is your right to interstate travel? Do you believe the only rights you have are expressly enumerated in the Constitution? If so, your education fell short. Google "Fundamental Rights" and then Google:

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Wisconsin.

Then get back to us if you still have questions.