"The Voters have Spoken!"

[LightHorseman]

Then say that when people run around claiming there is no difference between being raised by a gay couple and being raised by a straight couple.

I am already on record on these boards supporting the idea of a gay union that depends on them actually having children to take care of. That's not what they normally want. What they want is benefits, shared insurance, the whole nine yards despite the fact that they do not need them since they both should be able to take care of themselves, and certain rights that I have to admit I can't imagine why they do not already qualify for them out of hand.

But the bottom line is we need to concentrate more on the health of the natural family and less on ways of getting around it.

So...

A. Who's trying to get around it?
B. How does recognition of homosexual unions and granting of equality effect in the slightest way "the health of the natural family"?

 

[Polycarp1]

You're doing it as a distraction. Nothing more. When gays that have struggled and overcome homosexuality do speak out they are mocked by gay activists. If someone has not had such an experience the argument is that they are speaking out of turn.

Just another rhetorical trap like the whole "orientation" theme. Any preference can be termed an "orientation".

All of this is based on fiddling with words and confusing people not savvy enough to see through it. That's what I'm talking about.



There's no magic unavoidable temptation. And yes, if you succumb to temptation there is forgiveness available. That's the Christian aspect.

From the purely secular view, there is no science that distinguishes between a preference you can and cannot change, therefore the point is moot. One could have a productive discussion about the possibility, but that is never the point at which gay activists are willing to start. They speak as if it is a settled issue.

Just for the record, no, I'm not. (And, FYI, I have been happily married to the same woman since you were in second grade -- my commitment here is to follow my Lord's command to stand in defense of His GLBT children.) I realize you won't believe that -- but others who know my honesty will.

The word is "orientation," not "preference." And it has reference to the documented fact that some people find themselves attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, not as a fleeting pubertal-curiosity effect, but as a full-on desire, of the sort that most others conceive towards people of the opposite sex -- and that this attraction is unchangeable by human effort.

Note the word fact. This has been documented in study after study, and not ones conducted by biased groups either. Unlike most people on the "pro-gay" side of the argument, I believe that there are a few "ex-gay" people around -- but a very few. And the interesting thing about them is that they were singled out for intervention by God Himself -- not the Rev. Billy Bob Deliverance Ministries, U.S.A., Inc.'s "new life for gays in Christ" program but a direct divine intervention in their lives. And without that, they are as powerless to change themselves as -- well, as we are to save ourselves without God's grace mediated through Christ's Atonement.

So you can say "homosexuality means a behavior" until you're blue in the face -- but most of the rest of the world will go on and treat it as an orientation, And ignore you.

 

[Shane Roach]

Just for the record, no, I'm not. (And, FYI, I have been happily married to the same woman since you were in second grade -- my commitment here is to follow my Lord's command to stand in defense of His GLBT children.) I realize you won't believe that -- but others who know my honesty will.

The word is "orientation," not "preference." And it has reference to the documented fact that some people find themselves attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, not as a fleeting pubertal-curiosity effect, but as a full-on desire, of the sort that most others conceive towards people of the opposite sex -- and that this attraction is unchangeable by human effort.

Note the word fact. This has been documented in study after study, and not ones conducted by biased groups either. Unlike most people on the "pro-gay" side of the argument, I believe that there are a few "ex-gay" people around -- but a very few. And the interesting thing about them is that they were singled out for intervention by God Himself -- not the Rev. Billy Bob Deliverance Ministries, U.S.A., Inc.'s "new life for gays in Christ" program but a direct divine intervention in their lives. And without that, they are as powerless to change themselves as -- well, as we are to save ourselves without God's grace mediated through Christ's Atonement.

So you can say "homosexuality means a behavior" until you're blue in the face -- but most of the rest of the world will go on and treat it as an orientation, And ignore you.

No, it is not a fact, and if that is your argument -- that you are correct because you say so -- then please understand the reason I do not believe you is not because of some error in my logic, it is because of the total lack of an actual argument coming from you.

Race is race. Gender is gender. Behavior is behavior. Try as hard as you like, reality is not going to bend to make things any different.

 

[Shane Roach]

So...

A. Who's trying to get around it?

Just... when you see it said, rebuff it. I've never seen you do it. It gets said here several times a day.

B. How does recognition of homosexual unions and granting of equality effect in the slightest way "the health of the natural family"?

You've read these already. At the very least people need to retain arguments from day to day and quit trying to force the rehash of old issues so that they can toss out another non-response coupled with an accusation.

If you were to actually explain WHY you do not believe the various reasons people present for that, there would be more to say, but I have posted them many times in threads I know you were in because you posted, often in response to the very issues I raised.

 

[Shane Roach]

J

The word is "orientation," not "preference." And it has reference to the documented fact that some people find themselves attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, not as a fleeting pubertal-curiosity effect, but as a full-on desire, of the sort that most others conceive towards people of the opposite sex -- and that this attraction is unchangeable by human effort.

"Unchangeable by human effort"

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatis

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

"Most people (not all) experience little or no (not none ever) choice about their sexual orientation."

A significant number of various types of criminals report not being able to control themselves either.

Willful people often discover self discipline when it no longer becomes an issue of argument and becomes an issue of requirement. Accountability is deteriorating in this country. Not just in this issue at all, really, but in every sphere, society has lost its bearings concerning the very real necessity to stop daydreaming amongst the clouds and take responsibility.

In order to change feelings, you have to change your attitude. And sometimes that is HARD, but people do it every day.

 

[LightHorseman]

Just... when you see it said, rebuff it. I've never seen you do it. It gets said here several times a day.





You've read these already. At the very least people need to retain arguments from day to day and quit trying to force the rehash of old issues so that they can toss out another non-response coupled with an accusation.

If you were to actually explain WHY you do not believe the various reasons people present for that, there would be more to say, but I have posted them many times in threads I know you were in because you posted, often in response to the very issues I raised.

Wow, really? I've never seen a single argument that suggests to me that recognising homosexual unions will have the least impact on heterosexuals getting married. I'm sorry I missed it!

 

[CruciFixed]

Christian ATTACKING Christian.
Christian DENIGRATING Christian.
Gotta love it j/k
You know, considering the so-called "One Faith"
Variance....even AV1611Vet tries to avoid it.

Im just SHOCKED that homosexuality (those supporting and those opposing ) dominates this sub forum, especially among the responses by the right wing fundamentalist republican literalists.
Abortion, however seems to be an historical second on this forum.

Yeah it's a big issue (for some idiotic reason), but there are bigger and more important issues (o, gee, let's talk DIVORCE among Christians, shall we? , Murder perhaps.............gee no, let's just keep harping on about homosexual marriage is THE evil of the USA )

Of course, as PCF likes to say, there are 800 pound gorilllas in the room, that the evangirighfundaconservatives mostly ignore.
But let's just keep on talking the "ghey" thing, shall we?
Right, fundamentalist-literalists?
Right?
Right?

I havent seen anyone correct you and I checked but its not right wing fundamentalist Christians who flood this subforum with homosexuality debates. These homosexuality threads are started by either leftists atheists who have no standard for morality or liberal Christians who don't believe the Bible is Holy Inspired by God or some such thing as "It was written by men 2,000 years ago so its not really relevant and we can do what we want."

Typically conservative or Fundaentalists are found REPLYING to these threads but most of them are started by left wing liberals trying to push the gay agenda or trying to round up anti-Christian support.

Also I'd like to note that sense you are obviously making a sarcastic statement about fundamentalists or right wing and conservatives that most of us "Right wingers" do consider abortion to be a very important issue and we do consider it murder. It kind of goes hand in hand, you see? So we don't hold murder above abortion since most of us (cant speak for everyone) believe abortion is murder.

Just thought you might be new and thats why you assumed these homosexual threads littered the ethics section because of conservatives or whatever....thats not true.

We are not half as obsessed with the topic.

 

[Shane Roach]

Wow, really? I've never seen a single argument that suggests to me that recognising homosexual unions will have the least impact on heterosexuals getting married. I'm sorry I missed it!

........... See what you did there.................

Whatever.

 

[Shane Roach]

Gotta go. Been a better than usual day, at least to me, thanks for the discussion.

 

[LightHorseman]

........... See what you did there.................

Whatever.

Huh?

Isn't that we're talking about? Didn't you say that you were concerned about the health of natural families? I understood that to mean "heterosexual" familes...

wierd.

 

[Maren]

I havent seen anyone correct you and I checked but its not right wing fundamentalist Christians who flood this subforum with homosexuality debates. These homosexuality threads are started by either leftists atheists who have no standard for morality or liberal Christians who don't believe the Bible is Holy Inspired by God or some such thing as "It was written by men 2,000 years ago so its not really relevant and we can do what we want."

Typically conservative or Fundaentalists are found REPLYING to these threads but most of them are started by left wing liberals trying to push the gay agenda or trying to round up anti-Christian support.

Also I'd like to note that sense you are obviously making a sarcastic statement about fundamentalists or right wing and conservatives that most of us "Right wingers" do consider abortion to be a very important issue and we do consider it murder. It kind of goes hand in hand, you see? So we don't hold murder above abortion since most of us (cant speak for everyone) believe abortion is murder.

Just thought you might be new and thats why you assumed these homosexual threads littered the ethics section because of conservatives or whatever....thats not true.

We are not half as obsessed with the topic.

Actually, this isn't true. If you really go back and look, it typically works out to about half of the "gay" threads started by people in favor of gay rights and half by fundamentalists/conservative Christians. To be honest, at the moment there are far fewer threads on homosexuality here than there normally are. Part of the reason is that there have been a couple of long threads (one was up to about 1000 posts and locked yesterday for cleanup, started by a Baptist) that have been getting most of the attention recently, and an effort to confine the gay threads to just a few threads. If you go back a couple of pages in the history, you see several posted by conservative Christians -- on a single page you have "gay" threads started by jmverville, Shane Roach, allhart, Autumnleaf, CreedisChrist, lawtonofeagle, and andross77.

Not to mention, if the Fundamentalists/Conservative christians weren't "interested", the threads (no matter who started them) would not have the attention that they do. As an example, a thread on Christian views of drug use was started 5 days ago and has 44 posts, a thread about questions for pro-choicers was also started 5 days ago and has only 32 posts; by contrast this thread was started 3 days ago and already has 211 posts (as I write this) -- not to mention the thread I mentioned earlier that was closed yesterday with almost 1000 posts. So obviously, some Christians are apparently quite interested in gay threads, moreso than abortion or other more mainstream problems, or else there would not be the glut of gay threads; nor would the gay threads typically run longer than threads of any other topic.

 

[SughaNSpice]

.

The constitution says we should follow the law and that we are law abiding citizens, and the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)) is federal law





The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

I wonder if there was a similar law in the 1950’s and 60’s saying states didn’t have to recognize marriages between individuals of different races

This argument isn't about hermeneutics. How does legalizing gay marriage even have to do with biblical interpretation? You are using a false premise because you are using something that is against the US law and against the bible and forcing Christians to act against they're own conscience by answering a dishonest question.

If it has nothing to do with biblical interpretations then how in the world could it be “against the bible”?

I imagine the reformers are probably rolling in they're graves as to whats happening in they're own denominations,

The emancipation of slaves
Civil rights
Woman’s suffrage
Equal protection under the law for minoriites
Blacks counted as full citizens
They must be spinning in those graves

however its an enormous disservice to do that to the laity. Especially the faithful laity who make an effort to follow the bible. And I can almost guarantee that if Gay marriage becomes legal it will open the door to the more suing of churches and religious organizations.

Just like it has in The Netherlands and in Spain - oh wait – that hasn’t happened at all

Its a private business and they can deny to who they want. You are forcing people to act against they're own consciences and put they're souls in jeopardy.

Actually they can’t. It is illegal for a public business to refuse service based on minority status. They got into trouble because they specifically refused to serve a minority. They got into exactly the same trouble as they would have if they refused services to a couple because they were black or if they refused services to a couple who happens to be Jewish.

your putting words in my mouth. And of course children won't be screaming and crying. However they do not know the long term damage a gay couple can do to the development of the child.

All the research and all the evidence says that ch8ildren raised by gay parents are happy, healthy and well adjusted and remain so well into adult hood.
If you have legitimate studies saying different please reference them so we can all have a look at what they are saying.

A child deserves a mother and a father. Are you gonna deny the child that right?

So you are saying that the children of someone in the military who is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan should be removed form the custody of their surviving parent and placed up for adoption because to do otherwise would be to deprive that child of a father or mother.

Do you know how many parents are out there that would love to adopt a child?

If there are so many waiting potential parents why are there over 134,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United Sates? (ref: US department of health and Human Services)

You need to stop using hypothetical scenarios to try to prove a point. It makes a bad case for a solid argument. Secondly they don't just teach children "we exist, don't make fun of us". They get into the details of same-sex marriage and propaganda. They also put children in a situation where they have to agree with them otherwise they make them look like they're ignorant or narrow-minded.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puI4pfRB0w0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J67ZhinTokI&feature=response_watch

You complain about propaganda then post this stuff?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Of course the Supreme Court should overturn it because Judges are imbued with divine right, right? How dare any group of people assume that any group of people could know what's right. (In other words, how could democracy have any value?)

A small elite held outside of the sway of the masses is the better leader of the two.

 

[CruciFixed]

In order to change feelings, you have to change your attitude. And sometimes that is HARD, but people do it every day.

I totally agree. I've been there. My attitude had to change when I was atheist in order for my mind to open and my perspectives and feelings changed.

 

[SughaNSpice]

Studies have shown kids need a father and a mother.

No – none have
(If you know of a legitimately published study showing this please reference it)

You may be trying to make a claim about a misinterpretation of some studies claiming that children form two parent families somehow do better in school and socially than children raised by a single mother. However making the claim that a child raised by single parent (which is not the same as a same gendered couple raising a child) is somehow worse off doesn’t hold up to scrutiny as when one adjust for socioeconomic differences the supposed poorer performance of the single parent child disappears. It is not the number of parents in a household that is the causative factor - it is the financial resources available to the parent(s)

Also, one would assume that until you are done destroying the underlying fabric of our society, social pressures outside the home will mitigate the effect of gay parents on adoptees sexuality, but history makes it clear that acceptance of any number of behaviors, from human sacrifice to pederasty, eventually increases their frequency.

So you just know this damming evidence exists but it is somehow disguised and no one is able to see it.

The pressure Americans have put on themselves to be financially well off before starting a family has led to this perversion of priorities. We don't need gay marriage. We need people to be able and willing to start their families and pay for them comfortably before they turn 30.

Why the age limit?

 

[SughaNSpice]

Do a search. I am tired of providing references that are specific to a question and then being bombarded with references most of which have nothing to do with the issue.

If you honestly think kids don't benefit from having a father or a mother, I am perfectly content for that to be your public statement.





The claim that homosexuals do not cause their kids to behave homosexually. Society does not yet accept it, so naturally there is still a great deal of pressure not to adopt gay guardian's sexuality, but the more we tear up the fundamental fabric of our society the less encouragement there is to maintain healthy practices, and eventually your society declines.

It has been demonstrated to happen. You can't make a legitimate claim that mainstreaming homosexuality is not eventually going to increase its occurrence based on a study stating that so far kids are not turning gay 90% of the time if raised by a gay couple.

The children of gays and lesbians are no more and no less likely to grow up to be homosexual than heir heterosexually raised peers.
Stacey and Biblarz, How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2

 

[SughaNSpice]

Then say that when people run around claiming there is no difference between being raised by a gay couple and being raised by a straight couple.

Not by any legitimately published study

I am already on record on these boards supporting the idea of a gay union that depends on them actually having children to take care of. That's not what they normally want.

Yet about one third of same sex couples have children. And that number is rising.

What they want is benefits, shared insurance, the whole nine yards

Just like hetero couples

despite the fact that they do not need them since they both should be able to take care of themselves, and certain rights that I have to admit I can't imagine why they do not already qualify for them out of hand.

Who says they don’t need equal rights and equal legal protections?

 

[LightHorseman]

The children of gays and lesbians are no more and no less likely to grow up to be homosexual than heir heterosexually raised peers.
Stacey and Biblarz, How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2

Not to mention the fairly obvious counterpoint that heterosexual parents have been raising children that turn out homosexual for eons, so why assume that homosexual parents are somehow going to effect their children's sexuality, when the sexuality of heterosexuals doesn't ?

 

[Shane Roach]

The children of gays and lesbians are no more and no less likely to grow up to be homosexual than heir heterosexually raised peers.
Stacey and Biblarz, How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2

The claim that homosexuals do not cause their kids to behave homosexually. Society does not yet accept it, so naturally there is still a great deal of pressure not to adopt gay guardian's sexuality, but the more we tear up the fundamental fabric of our society the less encouragement there is to maintain healthy practices, and eventually your society declines.

It has been demonstrated to happen. You can't make a legitimate claim that mainstreaming homosexuality is not eventually going to increase its occurrence based on a study stating that so far kids are not turning gay 90% of the time if raised by a gay couple.

(i.e. the very post you quoted.)

 

[Shane Roach]

Not to mention the fairly obvious counterpoint that heterosexual parents have been raising children that turn out homosexual for eons, so why assume that homosexual parents are somehow going to effect their children's sexuality, when the sexuality of heterosexuals doesn't ?

Because cultures where it was more accepted, it was more prevalent.

Common knowledge really. You can safely throw any study to the contrary in the trash because it's in the books already. There's a pretty sound reason why you do not yet see the effect -- most of society still frowns on homosexuality.

Nor is there any reason to suspect that there is anything wrong with society frowning on homosexuality.