Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[Wake]

Should have posted this in the CDZ, because people can't behave like adults. Lesson learned. Pardon the frustration, please.

 

[Pop23]

You haven't asked a question...you just keep going on about how gays and straights are different. Okay, gays and straights are different, what is your fucking point?

The point is, as the condom example shows, the dynamics of the two groups are remarkably (not slightly, as the argument that the difference is simply the color of the car per RKBrown) different. Just as the dynamics involved in driving a car is different than those in flying an airplane. Both are modes of transportation, but that's just about where the similarities end.

Take the example of the sailor handing out condoms to those disembarking. Add to that a Skin color, a gender or a national origin, the dynamics of the example does not change.

Flip the sexualities and you now have same sex couples using condoms for birth control? It is simply silly to say that the two are even close to being similar.

You have not made any point beyond "gays and straights are different". Other than procreation, no we are not. Since you seem to like analogies, it's like saying I don't get a drivers license because my car runs on the sun not fossil fuels.

My brother and his wife and my grandfather and his girlfriend can have all the sex they want...and not have to consider the possibility of pregnancy occurring...do they get a "different license" in your odd little world of analogies?

You keep wanting to deflect. In their lifetime, your grandfather obviously had the burden of whether or not he was fertile, in her lifetime, his girlfriend had the burden as to if she was fertile or not. In there lifetime, both your brother and his wife had the burden of whether they were fertile or not. That shaped who they are. A same sex couple never has had to, in the history of the world had the burden of whether they are fertile or not, it is a moot point to them.

Again, the dynamics of their lifetime are far different than the dynamics of a same sex couple.

In one case fertility has been a dynamic within their lifespan, in the other it has never been. It simply shows even clearer that the two demographics are more different than they are the same.

Now, to be clear, I am one that believes that the concept of a same sex unity, recognized by the state is important so that they are not discriminated on an economic level, yet I am not clear as to why this MUST be a same kind license when the two relationships are not equal to begin with. Again, the example of the sailor handing out the condoms shows one of those dynamics quite well.

I guess we could go to the point of comparing senior heterosexuals to same sex couples, or those with reproductive disabilities to same sex couples if you wish.

 

[Seawytch]

The point is, as the condom example shows, the dynamics of the two groups are remarkably (not slightly, as the argument that the difference is simply the color of the car per RKBrown) different. Just as the dynamics involved in driving a car is different than those in flying an airplane. Both are modes of transportation, but that's just about where the similarities end.



Take the example of the sailor handing out condoms to those disembarking. Add to that a Skin color, a gender or a national origin, the dynamics of the example does not change.



Flip the sexualities and you now have same sex couples using condoms for birth control? It is simply silly to say that the two are even close to being similar.

You have not made any point beyond "gays and straights are different". Other than procreation, no we are not. Since you seem to like analogies, it's like saying I don't get a drivers license because my car runs on the sun not fossil fuels.



My brother and his wife and my grandfather and his girlfriend can have all the sex they want...and not have to consider the possibility of pregnancy occurring...do they get a "different license" in your odd little world of analogies?

You keep wanting to deflect. In their lifetime, your grandfather obviously had the burden of whether or not he was fertile, in her lifetime, his girlfriend had the burden as to if she was fertile or not. In there lifetime, both your brother and his wife had the burden of whether they were fertile or not. That shaped who they are. A same sex couple never has had to, in the history of the world had the burden of whether they are fertile or not, it is a moot point to them.



Again, the dynamics of their lifetime are far different than the dynamics of a same sex couple.



In one case fertility has been a dynamic within their lifespan, in the other it has never been. It simply shows even clearer that the two demographics are more different than they are the same.



Now, to be clear, I am one that believes that the concept of a same sex unity, recognized by the state is important so that they are not discriminated on an economic level, yet I am not clear as to why this MUST be a same kind license when the two relationships are not equal to begin with. Again, the example of the sailor handing out the condoms shows one of those dynamics quite well.



I guess we could go to the point of comparing senior heterosexuals to same sex couples, or those with reproductive disabilities to same sex couples if you wish.

So we are finally getting to what you have been dancing around..,gays shouldn't be legally married because they can have sex without babies. Argument tried before the SCOTUS and failed. Procreation is not a requirement for legal marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Adults can fight and argue which scientist, which doctor, which professor, psychiatrist or psychologist is right all they want, but all that does not mean shit to a child that is now being government regulated into having two homosexuals acting as father-father, all the cleverness of the "educated" will not theorize away the reality, that homosexual father-father is a disappointment to put it mildly, to the wretched child who must live in a "family", defined by dictatorial powers of government int he form of the rules, regulations and law.

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straight parents. Gay parents give the children some straight couple didn't want or couldn't keep and give them stable, loving homes.

 

[Pop23]

You have not made any point beyond "gays and straights are different". Other than procreation, no we are not. Since you seem to like analogies, it's like saying I don't get a drivers license because my car runs on the sun not fossil fuels.



My brother and his wife and my grandfather and his girlfriend can have all the sex they want...and not have to consider the possibility of pregnancy occurring...do they get a "different license" in your odd little world of analogies?

You keep wanting to deflect. In their lifetime, your grandfather obviously had the burden of whether or not he was fertile, in her lifetime, his girlfriend had the burden as to if she was fertile or not. In there lifetime, both your brother and his wife had the burden of whether they were fertile or not. That shaped who they are. A same sex couple never has had to, in the history of the world had the burden of whether they are fertile or not, it is a moot point to them.



Again, the dynamics of their lifetime are far different than the dynamics of a same sex couple.



In one case fertility has been a dynamic within their lifespan, in the other it has never been. It simply shows even clearer that the two demographics are more different than they are the same.



Now, to be clear, I am one that believes that the concept of a same sex unity, recognized by the state is important so that they are not discriminated on an economic level, yet I am not clear as to why this MUST be a same kind license when the two relationships are not equal to begin with. Again, the example of the sailor handing out the condoms shows one of those dynamics quite well.



I guess we could go to the point of comparing senior heterosexuals to same sex couples, or those with reproductive disabilities to same sex couples if you wish.

So we are finally getting to what you have been dancing around..,gays shouldn't be legally married because they can have sex without babies. Argument tried before the SCOTUS and failed. Procreation is not a requirement for legal marriage.

Oh, I agree, the battle is over, I am not so sure the war is. As in many cases arguments change as do decisions.

I think the marketing of this as a civil rights issue has been masterful. I always give credit where credit is due, yet I do not see it as such as it does not seem to stand up to the test.

"Loving" seems to be a test. When I pointed out former civil rights demographics in the condom example, all those seemed to stand up to that test. Put a black man into the test (or whatever race you wish), all make sense. The same was not true when you change sexuality.

 

[GreenBean]

Adults can fight and argue which scientist, which doctor, which professor, psychiatrist or psychologist is right all they want, but all that does not mean shit to a child that is now being government regulated into having two homosexuals acting as father-father, all the cleverness of the "educated" will not theorize away the reality, that homosexual father-father is a disappointment to put it mildly, to the wretched child who must live in a "family", defined by dictatorial powers of government int he form of the rules, regulations and law.

Any statistics or cases you would like to cite ?

 

[bodecea]

The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. There was a time when some of you were just like that but now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God; and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
1 corinthians 6:9

Yeah...we know what people like you think of women....particularly strong, independent women. Your ilk used to burn them. Your cousins in the middle east cover them up and beat them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Adults can fight and argue which scientist, which doctor, which professor, psychiatrist or psychologist is right all they want, but all that does not mean shit to a child that is now being government regulated into having two homosexuals acting as father-father, all the cleverness of the "educated" will not theorize away the reality, that homosexual father-father is a disappointment to put it mildly, to the wretched child who must live in a "family", defined by dictatorial powers of government int he form of the rules, regulations and law.

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straight parents. Gay parents give the children some straight couple didn't want or couldn't keep and give them stable, loving homes.

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.

But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Adults can fight and argue which scientist, which doctor, which professor, psychiatrist or psychologist is right all they want, but all that does not mean shit to a child that is now being government regulated into having two homosexuals acting as father-father, all the cleverness of the "educated" will not theorize away the reality, that homosexual father-father is a disappointment to put it mildly, to the wretched child who must live in a "family", defined by dictatorial powers of government int he form of the rules, regulations and law.

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straight parents. Gay parents give the children some straight couple didn't want or couldn't keep and give them stable, loving homes.

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.

But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

In your opinion, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straight parents. Gay parents give the children some straight couple didn't want or couldn't keep and give them stable, loving homes.

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.

But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

In your opinion, right?

In my opinion and in the opinion of many experts on the subject.

 

[Seawytch]

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.



But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

In your opinion, right?

In my opinion and in the opinion of many experts on the subject.

No, the experts on the subject say what I said...the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to the children of straights.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.

But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

In your opinion, right?

In my opinion and in the opinion of many experts on the subject.

I am not entirely sure that a person like Zack Wahls would agree with you, but I certainly respect your opinion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.

But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

In your opinion, right?

In my opinion and in the opinion of many experts on the subject.

Oh! Many experts!

Now I am convinced.

 

[Pop23]

Adults can fight and argue which scientist, which doctor, which professor, psychiatrist or psychologist is right all they want, but all that does not mean shit to a child that is now being government regulated into having two homosexuals acting as father-father, all the cleverness of the "educated" will not theorize away the reality, that homosexual father-father is a disappointment to put it mildly, to the wretched child who must live in a "family", defined by dictatorial powers of government int he form of the rules, regulations and law.

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straight parents. Gay parents give the children some straight couple didn't want or couldn't keep and give them stable, loving homes.

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.

But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

Not seeing the controversy of the above.

 

[GreenBean]

You have not made any point beyond "gays and straights are different". Other than procreation, no we are not. Since you seem to like analogies, it's like saying I don't get a drivers license because my car runs on the sun not fossil fuels.



My brother and his wife and my grandfather and his girlfriend can have all the sex they want...and not have to consider the possibility of pregnancy occurring...do they get a "different license" in your odd little world of analogies?

You keep wanting to deflect. In their lifetime, your grandfather obviously had the burden of whether or not he was fertile, in her lifetime, his girlfriend had the burden as to if she was fertile or not. In there lifetime, both your brother and his wife had the burden of whether they were fertile or not. That shaped who they are. A same sex couple never has had to, in the history of the world had the burden of whether they are fertile or not, it is a moot point to them.



Again, the dynamics of their lifetime are far different than the dynamics of a same sex couple.



In one case fertility has been a dynamic within their lifespan, in the other it has never been. It simply shows even clearer that the two demographics are more different than they are the same.



Now, to be clear, I am one that believes that the concept of a same sex unity, recognized by the state is important so that they are not discriminated on an economic level, yet I am not clear as to why this MUST be a same kind license when the two relationships are not equal to begin with. Again, the example of the sailor handing out the condoms shows one of those dynamics quite well.



I guess we could go to the point of comparing senior heterosexuals to same sex couples, or those with reproductive disabilities to same sex couples if you wish.

So we are finally getting to what you have been dancing around..,gays shouldn't be legally married because they can have sex without babies. Argument tried before the SCOTUS and failed. Procreation is not a requirement for legal marriage.

Queer couples are quick to endorse
The spread of gay marriage, of course.
But the happiest folks
Are these dastardly blokes
Hungry lawyers who handle divorce.

Would you like to be wed to a cat?
Or a horse, or a goat, or a bat?
Or just a jack ass?
Simply move out to Mass.
Where they say it’s okay. So that’s that.

You married your cousin ! - You Swine.
You pretend not to know it - divine.
Just go beat on your meat
or eat something sweet
But gay marriage is really jus fine

 

[Seawytch]

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straight parents. Gay parents give the children some straight couple didn't want or couldn't keep and give them stable, loving homes.

Certainly gay parents can be and are good parents and provide loving, stable homes for children that don't have any alternative. I would rather see a child with a loving natural parent in a gay relationship than farmed out to people who will likely not care about him/her or love him/her as much. Likewise many single parents can do and do provide great homes and parenting for their children.

But children of gay parents are in fact at a disadvantage, as are children of single parents, when compared to children who have the advantage and dynamics of a loving traditional home with a mom and dad as role models. All children, whether they are gay or straight, will benefit from having a loving mom AND dad in the home.

Not seeing the controversy of the above.

I bolded it for you. It was an untrue statement.

Here's what the actual experts have to say:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

"All decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest on the interest of the child. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are per se superior or inferior from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns, and parent-child attachments when compared with heterosexual parents. There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child.

American Academy of Pediatrics

"Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1-9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

American Psychoanalytic Association

"The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is the best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. With the adoption of this position statement, we support research studies that further our understanding of the impact of both traditional and gay/lesbian parenting on a child's development."

American Psychological Association

“WHEREAS 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 (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999);

“WHEREAS 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 (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);

 

[GISMYS]

Sick minded sexual perverts are not fit parents, THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND!!PERIOD!!!

 

[Seawytch]

You keep wanting to deflect. In their lifetime, your grandfather obviously had the burden of whether or not he was fertile, in her lifetime, his girlfriend had the burden as to if she was fertile or not. In there lifetime, both your brother and his wife had the burden of whether they were fertile or not. That shaped who they are. A same sex couple never has had to, in the history of the world had the burden of whether they are fertile or not, it is a moot point to them.



Again, the dynamics of their lifetime are far different than the dynamics of a same sex couple.



In one case fertility has been a dynamic within their lifespan, in the other it has never been. It simply shows even clearer that the two demographics are more different than they are the same.



Now, to be clear, I am one that believes that the concept of a same sex unity, recognized by the state is important so that they are not discriminated on an economic level, yet I am not clear as to why this MUST be a same kind license when the two relationships are not equal to begin with. Again, the example of the sailor handing out the condoms shows one of those dynamics quite well.



I guess we could go to the point of comparing senior heterosexuals to same sex couples, or those with reproductive disabilities to same sex couples if you wish.

So we are finally getting to what you have been dancing around..,gays shouldn't be legally married because they can have sex without babies. Argument tried before the SCOTUS and failed. Procreation is not a requirement for legal marriage.

Queer couples are quick to endorse
The spread of gay marriage, of course.
But the happiest folks
Are these dastardly blokes
Hungry lawyers who handle divorce.


Would you like to be wed to a cat?
Or a horse, or a goat, or a bat?
Or just a jack ass?
Simply move out to Mass.
Where they say it’s okay. So that’s that.

You married your cousin ! - You Swine.
You pretend not to know it - divine.
Just go beat on your meat
or eat something sweet
But gay marriage is really jus fine

Nope...despite marriage equality having come to Massachusetts over 10 years ago, still no animal marrying. You and the sheep will have to move elsewhere.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZzBh9ezZo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZzBh9ezZo[/ame]

 

[GISMYS]

Sick minded sexual perverts are not fit parents, THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND!!PERIOD!!!
God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 132

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

My opinion is that if gays want to live together and get married, then let it be so. It's not actually a threat to the institution of marriage, as heterosexuals can still get married.
About the only thing I prefer not to see is two males slobbering over each other in public. It's kind of nauseating.