A Study Says It All.

[radlad72]

I suggest you prove the study wrong factually, or move on.

Right back at ya. Why don't you prove it is correct or get rid of your post entirely?

 

[Brieuse]

Right back at ya. Why don't you prove it is correct or get rid of your post entirely?

Well, you first, you said it's a lie, now prove it factually. Until then I call your bluff.

 

[radlad72]

Nice cop out.

Rad

 

[ghs1994]

The facts speak for themselves. The research has proven no issue on topic at hand. That proves you are misrepresenting God's Word. Deal with it.

the research only proves that the country is condoning sinful behavior. deal with it.....

 

[Brieuse]

the research only proves that the country is condoning sinful behavior. deal with it.....

That's your opinion. So, how did they fake the study?

 

[ghs1994]

That's your opinion. So, how did they fake the study?

i don't see that i said the study was fake, only biased.

could you show me where i said that?

 

[catlover]

i don't see that i said the study was fake, only biased.

could you show me where i said that?

No-it would be biased if it stated, "White, Christians households where traditional gender roles are observed are the ONLY households which can raise well adjusted children."

Instead the study states, children of gay parents can turn out well adjusted.

 

[cheese007]

Right back at ya. Why don't you prove it is correct or get rid of your post entirely?

Burden of proof lies on the person who made the assertion initially. Since you were the one who said it was incorrect in the first place, prove it.

 

[KCKID]

1. homosexuality lifestyle is NOT God's design - it is sin.

So, my advice to you is ...don't live a homosexual lifestyle as long as you feel that it is NOT God's design and that it's a sin.

See how easy that was?

By the way, is born blind, born deaf, born handicapped, born mentally impaired, etc. NOT God's design either? Do you know that there are Christian groups that believe such people were born that way because of the sins of either themselves or their parents? Sometimes devout Christian=devout ignoramus.

2. if Christians don't follow the natural design (see Romans 1:26-27) - we are our own worst enemy giving immoral lifestyles ground to stand against us and point the finger.

But, wasn't the 'natural design' to choose a 'helpmate' (of the opposite gender, of course) and marry 'until death us part'? The guy who wrote Romans didn't follow the 'natural design' himself. I'm sure that Paul was a human male and had natural sexual desires. Did he ever have 'impure' thoughts, do you think? If so, wouldn't that have been kind of naughty ...scripturally speaking?

There's a saying that goes: there are just two kinds of men ...those that have impure thoughts (I've cleaned it up a bit) and those that lie.

i think studies lie most of the time and are biased on "christians" who aren't really Christians - but go to a "christian" based church.

So, you are a REAL Christian with a capitol 'c' I presume, ghs? My, you ARE a rare breed.

 

[Phinehas2]

Immediately I read this study I have to ask the following question.
There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent,
Children are conceived by a man and a woman, not a straight and a gay. Indeed straight and gay are sexual attractions, a straight would be therfore only be attracted sexually to a gay of the opposite sex. Therefore the question is if the conception occured bewteen a gay man and a straight woman, how is the man 'gay' if his sexual attraction is not for the woman?
I suggest that there havent been enough sames-sex couples thinking they are gay or lesbian raising children, or a long enough time, for any evidence to be meaningful. I also suggest that the study shows it hasnt got a clue what it is studying.

 

[Phinehas2]

In the past parents were the biological or step parents. Since the gay thinking has forced its way in, parents are anyone who looks after children and the biological factor is sidelined. This is a key ungodly issue which undermines the foundation of creation as God created man and woman to be united.

 

[Brieuse]

In the past parents were the biological or step parents. Since the gay thinking has forced its way in, parents are anyone who looks after children and the biological factor is sidelined. This is a key ungodly issue which undermines the foundation of creation as God created man and woman to be united.

No, in the past, present, and hopefully future there are biological parents, step parents, guardians and adoptive parents.

 

[ghs1994]

By the way, is born blind, born deaf, born handicapped, born mentally impaired, etc. NOT God's design either? Do you know that there are Christian groups that believe such people were born that way because of the sins of either themselves or their parents? Sometimes devout Christian=devout ignoramus.

easy bro. no need to call people names.

in the John 9, Peter had questioned Jesus about a man who was born blind - did he sin or his parents? Even tho it was neither who sinned but so God's glory could be shown by the man being healed, there is evidence in the OT - (i'll have to look later on.) of children being under the consequences of their parents sin.

But, wasn't the 'natural design' to choose a 'helpmate' (of the opposite gender, of course) and marry 'until death us part'? The guy who wrote Romans didn't follow the 'natural design' himself. I'm sure that Paul was a human male and had natural sexual desires. Did he ever have 'impure' thoughts, do you think? If so, wouldn't that have been kind of naughty ...scripturally speaking?

i'm sure paul had sexual feelings, no doubt. did he act upon them? idk - it's not mentioned, but we do know he did not have a wife (1 cor. 9:5)

My, you ARE a rare breed.

i'm sure that won't be the last time i'll ever hear that.

 

[catlover]

In the past parents were the biological or step parents. Since the gay thinking has forced its way in, parents are anyone who looks after children and the biological factor is sidelined. This is a key ungodly issue which undermines the foundation of creation as God created man and woman to be united.

By your "reasoning" foster parents are undermining God's, alleged, foundation.

 

[ghs1994]

honestly, there are lifestyles out there that are more damaging to a child than being raised by two gay guardians.

i most certainly don't condone gay lifestyles, but i have also seen parents who do just as much if not more damage than a gay couple could.

some studies are ok - but a study doesn't cover every situation either. the "average" or "common" response from any study is to prove the study right - generally.

but then again - how is this particular study measured?
is it in light of how the world views love and righteousness or how the Bible teaches what is right and wrong? there are always two sides to any story.

 

[BigBadWlf]

honestly, there are lifestyles out there that are more damaging to a child than being raised by two gay guardians.

i most certainly don't condone gay lifestyles, but i have also seen parents who do just as much if not more damage than a gay couple could.

some studies are ok - but a study doesn't cover every situation either. the "average" or "common" response from any study is to prove the study right - generally.

but then again - how is this particular study measured?
is it in light of how the world views love and righteousness or how the Bible teaches what is right and wrong? there are always two sides to any story.

What is this “gay lifestyle”?

 

[BigBadWlf]

i don't see that i said the study was fake, only biased.

could you show me where i said that?

Please tell us all exactly how this study was “biased”.

The only thing I can see is that it came to conclusions you don’t like about a minority you don’t like. That doesn’t make the study biased

 

[ghs1994]

What is this “gay lifestyle”?

when two people of the same gender are having sex on a regular basis. when two people of the same gender are promoting homosexual principles and ideas - condoning homosexuality and its behavior.

 

[ghs1994]

Please tell us all exactly how this study was “biased”.

The only thing I can see is that it came to conclusions you don’t like about a minority you don’t like. That doesn’t make the study biased

if you read post #35, you'll see why i think it is biased. they did not reveal the results of all tests and i'm curious as to what constitutes the statement - "not hurt". how is that defined? studies will only show the results that the researchers want to reveal. therefore, it is biased.

it's not about disliking a minority - it's about disliking the principle - the lifestyle and the behavior linked to that lifestyle.