Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[BigBadWlf]

and you have no evidence to claim all this just speculations and your own reflections on the source let the readers decide you do not need to try so hard to "defame" them. Or then you underestimate the average reader's ability to discern for themselves? :o I think you do.

No, just facts.

Note the references.
First the essay from Mass Resistance that you provided
And the reporting form the Boston Globe, a reputable journalistic source

 

[Braunwyn]

and you have no evidence to claim all this just speculations and your own reflections on the source let the readers decide you do not need to try so hard to "defame" them. Or then you underestimate the average reader's ability to discern for themselves? :o I think you do.

As a MA resident, I can say that any claim to fame Mass resistence has is via poor quotations on internet forums. Even our fox news talk radio largely ingores it.

 

[nesian]

I have a couple of gay friends.
The thought of them perishing in hell for eternity because of their sexuality disturbs me.

It's just not fair.
Then again, what is.

 

[Veyrlian]

Actually they have offered many, and you have repayed their time and effort at trying to communicate with you with accusations concerning their motives and a seemingly purposeful refusal to acknowledge simple, obvious points of distinction.

I have yet to see anyone suggest any alternate reason why gay marriage has not already dominated for all of history all across the globe except to make the weak assertion that all of history, people have been more evil than socialists are now.

It has been as it has been for the simple reason that there was no reason to regulate gay relationships in the same terms as heterosexual relationships.

I am really sorry but just because people waste time and effort to communicate their arguments to me does not make them valid. All the arguments against gay marriage are either unsupported cockamamey prophecies as to how it might affect our culture, or some strange elaborate explanations why it is okay to discriminate because they are different from you. Add in a mind-staggering mix of various accusations and demonizations and generalizations of the LGTB people, the reason of which is apparently to say that they don't DESERVE equal rights. Most of you seem to have eye-bulgingly ignorant views on gay people, and practically as many of you refuse to listen when someone tries to correct you.

Your "obvious points of distinction" say nothing as to why we should discriminate those with distinctive differences. I have yet to understand what the difference is, except that they are not a man and a woman. People have repeatedly told you that yes, gay people can and are reproducing, yet you insist that they don't. People have repeatedly told you that gay marriage exists, yet you insist that it does not.

Now I admit that I lack patience and this means I am pervious to quick bursts of frustration which manifest in a rather acidic tone when people just don't listen, or when they repeatedly use fallacious forms of argumentation. Perhaps I am a bit too quick to stereotype people to motives I have seen elsewhere, in similar instances. It would help if the persons arguments would be something other than: "they are different and thus un-deserving, and this marriage thing will destroy our culture".
It really would!
It would also help if when people run out of arguments they wouldn't immediately segue to conspiracy theories. I think my questioning of motives is rather small compared to the myriad of socialist, environmentalist, feminist and gay agendas I apparently work for in my "war against Christianity".

The only war I could see myself fighting for is against ignorance and discrimination. If people think those are descriptive of Christianity than fine. Let's have at it.

 

[Veyrlian]

I have yet to see anyone suggest any alternate reason why gay marriage has not already dominated for all of history all across the globe except to make the weak assertion that all of history, people have been more evil than socialists are now.

Why would gay marriage dominate anything in history? Gay people have always been a minority, and in many places, for many reasons an oppressed minority. I don't understand how this is relevant, unless you are formulating some kind of Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

(Eah, I don't know how to neatly insert those urls into text.)



And silly of me to forget these arguments from tradition which are also rampant in gay marriage threads.

 

[Veyrlian]

Oh man, reading 20+ pages of this thread I might have inflicted me with a mild case of brain hemorrhage.

oh...here we go with the logic: if my neighbour is a criminal it is okay for me to be one also. Now that truly helps for proving that homosexual lifestyle is "problem free"?

How did you squeeze this one out of what she said? Who is trying to prove that homosexual lifestyle is "problem-free"? Her point was that there are stupid people everywhere, and they can be homosexual as well as Christian or both at the same time. I find it hard to imagine anyone's life as "problem-free".

Actually it is proven that domestic violence that gets unreported is hgher indeed than that of heterosexual couples and the list goes on with how many years a homosexual couple stays together the AIDS /HIV cases and so forth...

Citation and source please.

The fact is that the problems are there and they are first and foremost experimenting with child rearing since there is no available data to agree that these children would be well "adjusted" members of the society... It is zero pass one generation if any...

How are gay people "experimenting" with child rearing any more than say, a couple of young heterosexuals? Do you think gay people have been living in caves their whole childhoods? Is child-rearing some innate ability which exist only in heterosexuals? Are you saying that heterosexuals are more likely to be better at it? Because I'd really like some further info on this.

As I see it, the only obvious reason as to why the children of same-sex couples might not grow into well adjusted members of society, comes from certain, mainly religious, organizations who do not wish to give them equal rights.
Why don't YOU think of the children?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

oh...here we go with the logic: if my neighbour is a criminal it is okay for me to be one also. Now that truly helps for proving that homosexual lifestyle is "problem free"?

If we tolerate your neighbour doing something, then by all rights we should tolerate you doing that same thing too.
Try not to read more into what people say than is actually written.

Actually it is proven that domestic violence that gets unreported is hgher indeed than that of heterosexual couples and the list goes on with how many years a homosexual couple stays together the AIDS /HIV cases and so forth...

Source?

We allow heterosexual couples to marry, even though there exists a risk for infection and violence, so by all rights we should allow homosexual couples to marry, despite the same risk.

The fact is that the problems are there

What problems, precisely?

and they are first and foremost experimenting with child rearing since there is no available data to agree that these children would be well "adjusted" members of the society... It is zero pass one generation if any...

Actually, there have been four decades of studies, the unanimous conclusion of which is that same-sex couples are no better or worse than opposite-sex couples at child-rearing. Indeed, children raised by female-female couple have a slight statistical advantage.

Moreover, the APA states "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…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….".

The Canadian Department of Justice concluded: "The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion."

So... who's experimenting? People have been raising children outside of the traditional nuclear '1 mother + 1 father + 2.3 children' family since families first began.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I am really sorry but just because people waste time and effort to communicate their arguments to me does not make them valid. All the arguments against gay marriage are either unsupported cockamamey prophecies as to how it might affect our culture, or some strange elaborate explanations why it is okay to discriminate because they are different from you. Add in a mind-staggering mix of various accusations and demonizations and generalizations of the LGTB people, the reason of which is apparently to say that they don't DESERVE equal rights. Most of you seem to have eye-bulgingly ignorant views on gay people, and practically as many of you refuse to listen when someone tries to correct you.

Your "obvious points of distinction" say nothing as to why we should discriminate those with distinctive differences. I have yet to understand what the difference is, except that they are not a man and a woman. People have repeatedly told you that yes, gay people can and are reproducing, yet you insist that they don't. People have repeatedly told you that gay marriage exists, yet you insist that it does not.

Now I admit that I lack patience and this means I am pervious to quick bursts of frustration which manifest in a rather acidic tone when people just don't listen, or when they repeatedly use fallacious forms of argumentation. Perhaps I am a bit too quick to stereotype people to motives I have seen elsewhere, in similar instances. It would help if the persons arguments would be something other than: "they are different and thus un-deserving, and this marriage thing will destroy our culture".
It really would!
It would also help if when people run out of arguments they wouldn't immediately segue to conspiracy theories. I think my questioning of motives is rather small compared to the myriad of socialist, environmentalist, feminist and gay agendas I apparently work for in my "war against Christianity".

The only war I could see myself fighting for is against ignorance and discrimination. If people think those are descriptive of Christianity than fine. Let's have at it.

A truly great post

 

[BigBadWlf]

If we tolerate your neighbour doing something, then by all rights we should tolerate you doing that same thing too.
Try not to read more into what people say than is actually written.


Source?

We allow heterosexual couples to marry, even though there exists a risk for infection and violence, so by all rights we should allow homosexual couples to marry, despite the same risk.


What problems, precisely?


Actually, there have been four decades of studies, the unanimous conclusion of which is that same-sex couples are no better or worse than opposite-sex couples at child-rearing. Indeed, children raised by female-female couple have a slight statistical advantage.

Moreover, the APA states "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…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….".

The Canadian Department of Justice concluded: "The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion."

So... who's experimenting? People have been raising children outside of the traditional nuclear '1 mother + 1 father + 2.3 children' family since families first began.

Nice job. Thanks for the facts and references

 

[BigBadWlf]

Actually it is proven that domestic violence that gets unreported is hgher indeed than that of heterosexual couples

Nice job. Thanks for the facts and references

The fact is that the problems are there and they are first and foremost experimenting with child rearing since there is no available data to agree that these children would be well "adjusted" members of the society... It is zero pass one generation if any...

All the available data says you are wrong

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nice job. Thanks for the facts and references

Np. I find it helps your position if you can support it with something concrete - maybe that's why we always win .

 

[Philothei]

Nice job. Thanks for the facts and references



All the available data says you are wrong

You have no evidence as there is none to prove otherwise.. We said that Homosexual couples' violence get "unreported" so it much much higher... so case closed. There is no evidence that "proves" it gets reported actually there is evidence that proves homosexuality is such a 'high risk" lifstyle that yes it makes sense that the family that children are raised from would be at risk of been raised with similar problems or related to problems

 

[Philothei]

four decades of studies

that is hardly enough time to draw any conclusions about for anthropology and sociologists who do some serious comparative studies in that area. We are showing evidence of what I had said before that homosexual familes do not even succeed one generation.... My point excatly. It is 'experimentation' trial and error.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You'll notice, dear lurker, that Philothei ignores the questions asked of her ("Citation and source please"; "Source?"; "What problems, precisely?"), and the facts presented to her.

And yet she still claims that there is no data supporting the efficacy of same-sex parenting, and continues to talk about this as-yet unnamed 'scientific proof'.

Besides the epistemological impossibility of science proving anything, referencing mysterious proofs without ever once giving details or specifics is unconvincing at best - and telling of a baseless argument at worst.

In other words: put up, or shut up.

 

[Philothei]

It has been already brought about by other posters in this thread no reason to bring these sources again up.... and the end result will be to "poisong the well" like numerous times before such methods were used to 'defend' homosexual families as "healthy". Like you posted that four decades are not adequate time to counteract the thousands years of recorded history. It is indeed a today's phenomenon both single parenthood and homosexual families.

 

[Veyrlian]

Yeah, four decades of studies is hardly enough time to draw conclusions, but we should just accept it when "We said that Homosexual couples' violence get "unreported"".
Who are "We"? You and your hubby? You and Shane? What does "unreported" mean? Is it something that doesn't really go unreported after all?
Put up or shut up seconded.

 

[Philothei]

The source that was recorded (the unreported violence that exists) is from a site that supports homosexuality and ecourages homosexual couples to report such incidents. That is the actual proof It also states the reason why violence gets unreported because it is "an embarassment" to their social and family circle.

And BTW the responsibility to bring evidence is with those who say othewise I already presented the "evidence" now your turn to disprove it.

 

[Braunwyn]

Um, I don't see why there's an argument IRT violence. Some humans are violent. Orientation certainly doesn't matter. I also imagine there is no greater incidence among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. Well, maybe more for men and less for women. That's just a guess on my part.

 

[Veyrlian]

Oh, my brain trauma apparently made me miss this.

without any 2nd and 3rd generation data easy to prove isn't it? The hard part is to see how well these familes do with domestic violence

also why would they need these laws...(also calling it sodomy!!!) if the homosexual couples were such a tranquil and harmonious couples?

Abstracts: Final reckoning: states allow victims' families to watch executions. 'It's just a quarrel;' some states offer no domestic violence protection to gays



why do they "reflect the heterosexual marriage"? Is that again a card blank for being such a "successful life style" as the supporters of such life style claim it to be?

What do you think might be the reason why some states offer no domestic violence protection to gays? Hmm?
Why wouldn't they reflect heterosexual marriage? What are the distinctive differences which makes homosexual couples different from heterosexual couples? Why are you going on about this succesful life style? Are you somehow offended by it? Or do you mistakenly think that since statistics say that gay people are on average more succesful in some parts of the country, that this means that every gay person is succesful? How is this relevant again to anything? I don't really care whether they are succesful or not.

What the heck do "sodomy laws" have to do with anything, does that kind of thing still exist?? I find it really distasteful. And you are using this as an argument FOR oppressing gay people even more? Amazing.

Gay Domestic Violence
why the Goverment calls it sodomy if sodomy means ... malakos???

I guess they mistranslated too...eh? oh well ... too many coinsedences...

???

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]SAME-SEX BATTERING[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships with the same statistical frequency as in heterosexual relationships.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 25. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Battering among Lesbians crosses age, race, class, lifestyle and socio-economic lines. Lobel, ed., Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering, 183 (1986). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Each year, between 50,000 and 100,000 Lesbian women and as many as 500,000 Gay men are battered.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Murphy, Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 335 (1995). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]While same-sex battering mirrors heterosexual battering both in type and prevalence, its victims receive fewer protections. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 24. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-sex victims;[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]* thus findings are skewed* [/FONT]

*Don't you think this would call for a redefinition of domestic violence so as not to exclude same-sex couples and better help them?*
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]21 states have sodomy laws that may require same-sex victims to confess to a crime in order to prove they are in a domestic relationship. Barnes, It's Just a Quarrel', American Bar Association Journal, February 1998, p. 24. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]It is a myth that same-sex battering is mutual. Murphy, Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 335 (1995). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]By 1994, there were over 1,500 shelters and safe houses for battered women. many of these shelters routinely deny their services to victims of same-sex battering. Murphy, Queer Justice: Equal Protection for Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 335 (1995). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Same-sex batterers use forms of abuse similar to those of heterosexual batterers. they have an additional weapon in the threat of "outing" their partner to family, friends, employers or community. Lundy, Abuse That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Assisting Victims of Lesbian and Gay Domestic Violence in Massachusetts, 28 New Eng. L. Rev. 273 (Winter 1993). [/FONT]


So.... having that extra burden (*notice the text in red) is good for the children and it is normal...to live in such an enviorment of misstrust and black mail...daily. Nice that is what we dream of our children to be in a "safe" family setting... I think not...



And do not bother finding claims in that site to "poison the well" I am only quoting what I need I am not saying all that site claims to be true it will be a waste of your time.

Why do you think "such an [environment] of misstrust and black mail" is possible? Why do you give additional weapons to gay couples to black mail each other by treating them as an un-deserving and lesser minority which should be scorned?

If you are trying to argue that domestic violence should be grounds for denying homosexuals the right of marriage, then you should argue the same for heterosexuals.

I'm actually not at all surprised that I missed this post before, it is not a pretty read. You are actually using incidences where gay people's rights and protections are slighted as an argument for why they should be denied those rights and protections. NICE.

 

[Braunwyn]

"states have sodomy laws that may require same-sex victims to confess to a crime in order to prove they are in a domestic relationship"

That's one of the most assinine things I've ever read.