What value is Homosexuality to society?

[b&wpac4]

No I didn't. You put your own spin on it unless you can show me where I said that believers are suddenly granted divine wisdom at the moment of belief. I know what I said and it wasn't that.

Read what I quoted. < Staff Edit > < Staff Edit >

 

[max1120]

I do not think it matters what you may think as far if or if not there is a "benefit" to society from homosexuality to justify it's existence as as "lfiestyle". The truth is that its "benefit" would be the pleasure or happness that those who practice that lifestyle derive from it. We do not ask others to justify there pleasures so why should we do that to homosexuls. You are intitled to your own views / beliefs regarding homosexuality, but its existence should not depend upon those who are homosexual somehow demonstarating some societal "benefit" to homosexuality.

 

[IzzyPop]

Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk
A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias.

The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families. However, no amount of scholarly legerdemain contained in an accumulation of flawed studies can obscure the well-established and growing body of evidence showing that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.

In addition, Patterson acknowledges that "research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, & Wilson, 1993)." She adds, revealingly:
Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.5

In a study published in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, P. Belcastro et al. reviewed fourteen studies on homosexual parenting according to accepted scientific standards. Their "most impressive finding" was that "all of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."6 Similarly, in their study of lesbian couples in Family Relations, L. Keopke et al. remark, "Conducting research in the gay community is fraught with methodological problems."7

Psychologist David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values and author of Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, criticized such attempts to rely upon behavioral studies of non-human primates to draw conclusions about the character of human families:

I always appreciate critical articles, because they can focus your argument and point out weaknesses. But [Silverstein and Auerbach's] article was unusually silly. Not one thing they said was what I would call a serious insight."27 In their thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai found little evidence to support the oft-repeated mantra that homosexual households are "just like" traditional families: "We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about 'homosexual vs. heterosexual' parenting. Their claims have no basis."28

Comparison of Homosexual 'Couples' and Heterosexual Spouses
Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing: In Sex in America, called by the New York Times "the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports," Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.36

A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.37

In The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, E. O. Laumann et al. conducted a national survey that found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.38

A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.39

While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."45

A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.46

A study in Adolescence found: A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent...Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.60

Reprinted by permission. (there is much more material than this).

The author of this screed, Dr. Timothy J. Daily, has his Ph.D. in Theology. While he may be correct in his assessment, I find the analysis of someone without a science degree to be pretty lacking when looking at scientific studies.

If Dr. Daily is qualified to render judgment for how science got it wrong, is my medical doctor qualified to render judgment on what is wrong with Artificial Intelligence?

 

[Zebra1552]

Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995 regarding homosexual murders that homosexual murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another female.[1] In 2005, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, and Dr. Dhattarwal reported in the Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine in regards to homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are quite common and that these murders may involve both sexes either as victims or as assailants.[2]

According to the New York Times, Dr. William Eckert was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Charles Manson murders.[3] Dr. Eckert founded the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology.[3] [4] According to Time magazine, Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and forensics teams.[4]

Dr. Eckert wrote regarding homosexual murders the following:
&#8220; Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...[5]

Bernard Knight CBE, MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, FHKCPath, DMJ (Path) was a Professor of Forensic Pathology in the University of Wales until he retired in 1996.[6] In 1993 he was made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) for his services to forensic medicine.[6][7] Dr. Bernard Knight has been involved in many notorious murder cases, including Fred West and Rosemary West, Roberto Calvi (the Vatican banker), the child killer Mary Bell, and the Truscott case in Canada.[6] Dr. Pekka Saukko is Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turku in Finland.[7] Dr. Saukko is also the editor of Forensic Science International.[8] Doctors Knight and Saukko coauthored a pathology textbook entitled Knight's Forensic Pathology in 2004 which stated the following:

&#8220; As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.[9]

The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton reports the following regarding the issue of homosexuality and murders:
&#8220; Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of &quot;overkill&quot; and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to &quot;gay bashing&quot; violence by bigoted &quot;straights,&quot; they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.[10]

And how does this prove that homosexuality is the cause of any of this?

 

[Zebra1552]

So you want to redefine words to suit your own purposes? so much for logic

Logic? You want to talk logic with me? How logical is it to use an English dictionary's definition of a word that was originally in Greek and used differently than its English dictionary definition in determining what the word means? I'm afraid it is you who is being illogical by accusing me of 'using my own definitions', I'm using the Bible's definitions to define a word that- guess what?- is in the Bible.

 

[Zebra1552]

Very good point Gods child. These atheists have this strange idea that we are in awe of their supposedly superior intelligence and somehow what God says is subject to their understanding of things.
​

Please don't use my posts to insult anyone.

Of course it only serves to emphasise that puny man is his own worst enemy when it comes to facing reality, having this weird idea that we are all going to fall in line with their carnal thinking because they see themselves as the fount of all wisdom.

Of course it is not surprising because they are arguing from a purely foolishness of man position whereas the born again believer has the added wisdom of an almighty God who transcends anything that man might conjure up.

So you're saying that God is above logic? Oh, well, you have fun with that. I highly disagree.

That is why we don't pay any attention to anything they say. Why would we? Take the word of a mere mortal over that of an omnipotent and infinite God!! Just not logical don't you think?

Added to that there are those who call themselves christian and they spend all their time attacking christians. Must consider himself a christian atheist!!!LOL.

That's rather rude of you. Ignoring people isn't the way to reach them.

 

[Zebra1552]

I was under the impression that when Miss Elly referred to homosexuality being &quot;against nature&quot;, it was in reference to the more commonly accepted definition of the term rather than a theological one.

I doubt that impression was correct.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Again, I was under the impression that she was using biblical references to comment on real life issues when such comments were (again, in my understanding) contrary to reality.

You are not discussing with your non-theistic friends, you are discussing with Christians. While it may be illogical to use the Bible in societal issues of morality, you must keep your audience- or opponent if you prefer the term- and their background in mind.

The Bible may be truthful in some of its representations of historical occurrences, but its seeming departure from reality (Noah's Ark, resurrection, parting waters) are contrary to reality and undermine its credibility. It is also a book of opinion and impositions: do not eat shellfish or pork, homosexuality is uncool, God is the only God, God exists. To cite the Bible as a manual of ideal personal views for on politics, opinion, and society for EVERYONE because &quot;you'll go to hell if you don't&quot; is unreasonable without arguments relevant to the modern day, non-Christians, or practical life.

Well, good for you and your biased opinion, but there's nothing in the Bible about 'going to hell' for not following the Bible to the letter, that's called legalism and in fact was condemned by Jesus. Saying that it disagrees with reality assumes that you know that reality has nothing metaphysical to it, and that is a big assumption.

I'm alright with that.

Then I'll group you with one of the non-Christians on these forums that's actually polite. Call my cynical.

I see Miss Elly's points as warnings not only to Christians, but to non-Christians as well, and the implied threat of God destroying our country for our moral differences struck me as offensive but not limited to Christians, meriting a response back from me. However, I agree that in comparison to this thread's topic, it is but trifling. Back on track.

Indeed.

 

[marksman007]

Thankyou to all of you that have reposted my posts and given me more coverage. Much appreciated.

 

[marksman007]

The truth is that its "benefit" would be the pleasure or happness that those who practice that lifestyle derive from it.

If that was the truth your statement may have some validity. I have found over the years that with the homosexual community, the truth is usually the opposite as in 'gay' really meaning 'sad'.

There is a homosexual radio station called 'joy' which really is a cover up for their unhappiness.

A two year study of 200 homosexuals was done to investigate the reality of their way of living. The researchers major finding was that they certainly were not gay. Sad would be a better description. There are exceptions to every rule, but they do not make the rule.

Another study found that there was higher incident of violence and murder amongst homosexual partners than in the general population. That sort of thing doesn't happen if you are 'gay' as in happy.

 

[Polycarp1]

If that was the truth your statement may have some validity. I have found over the years that with the homosexual community, the truth is usually the opposite as in 'gay' really meaning 'sad'.

There is a homosexual radio station called 'joy' which really is a cover up for their unhappiness.

A two year study of 200 homosexuals was done to investigate the reality of their way of living. The researchers major finding was that they certainly were not gay. Sad would be a better description. There are exceptions to every rule, but they do not make the rule.

Another study found that there was higher incident of violence and murder amongst homosexual partners than in the general population. That sort of thing doesn't happen if you are 'gay' as in happy.

When you conclude your comedy routine on the irony of gay terminology, would you consider doing your Christian duty by them?

 

[roflcopter101]

Thankyou to all of you that have reposted my posts and given me more coverage. Much appreciated.

And a gracious thank-you to you too for ignoring many of our refutations that prove your arguments and sources erroneous.

 

[marksman007]

When you conclude your comedy routine on the irony of gay terminology, would you consider doing your Christian duty by them?

And what is my christian duty?

 

[marksman007]

And a gracious thank-you to you too for ignoring many of our refutations that prove your arguments and sources erroneous.

I am at a loss as to where you get this idea that what you say has more authority than what God says? As God is the creator of the universe we live in, the God who loved the world so much that he sent his son to die for us so that if we believe in him, we will not perish but have everlasting life.

That dear boy is an offer too good to refuse and until I can find something better, I will stick with what I have got. So far, 55 years have not uncovered anything remotely as good.

 

[marksman007]

The author of this screed, Dr. Timothy J. Daily, has his Ph.D. in Theology. While he may be correct in his assessment, I find the analysis of someone without a science degree to be pretty lacking when looking at scientific studies.

These are not scientific studies they are socialogical and you need to be careful whay you say. On the basis of this comment, no atheist should be commenting on theological matters unless they have a theological degree.

I suggest you revisit the post as it includes data from about ten different sources many of whom, have no religious background or application as in government bodies and books written by homosexuals.

One final point, how can someone be lacking if you aggree with his assesment. It is a bit like a politician saying in parliament "I agree with what you say but cannot accept it because you are not a Democrat." How stupid is that?

 

[LittleNipper]

What lifestyle? The fact of BEING something provides nothing in itself to society. Should heterosexuals who make a choice NOT to marry or have children have their lifestyles "invalidated" because they don't contribute anything to the fantasy "traditional" family?

Individuals can and do contibute to society; however, having sex outside of marriage is not the way they do it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Whom one loves and builds a life with is not a behavior

Yes, it is.

 

[LittleNipper]

And - as I've pointed out before - homosexuality per se isn't the same as having sex. It's not a behavour pattern. It's just a state of being likely to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

David.

Without the sex, there is is not homosexuality. I can enjoy the companionship of anyone I choose and that is called friendship. It is the sexual contact that is a problem.

 

[IzzyPop]

These are not scientific studies they are socialogical and you need to be careful whay you say. On the basis of this comment, no atheist should be commenting on theological matters unless they have a theological degree.

Sociology is a science. And as for the other part, there is a difference between comment and analysis. If I am sick, I don't go to a physicist. If I have questions regarding the methodology of a sociological study, I go to a sociologist, not a thoelogian.

I suggest you revisit the post as it includes data from about ten different sources many of whom, have no religious background or application as in government bodies and books written by homosexuals.

Cherry picked data. Whether from NARTH or PFLAG, I take these pronouncements with a grain of salt and prefer to peruse the actual study for myself. However, NARTH and their ilk have a much longer and more consistant track record of cherry picking a couple of stats from a larger study and ingoring or even contradicting that study's actual findings.

One final point, how can someone be lacking if you aggree with his assesment. It is a bit like a politician saying in parliament "I agree with what you say but cannot accept it because you are not a Democrat." How stupid is that?

I don't understand. Whether or not I agree with the findings holds no bearing on if the study is methodologically sound. In fact, such findings have a much better chance of swaying my opinion than anything else.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Without the sex, there is is not homosexuality. I can enjoy the companionship of anyone I choose and that is called friendship. It is the sexual contact that is a problem.

...to you.

 

[Zebra1552]

I am at a loss as to where you get this idea that what you say has more authority than what God says? As God is the creator of the universe we live in, the God who loved the world so much that he sent his son to die for us so that if we believe in him, we will not perish but have everlasting life.

That dear boy is an offer too good to refuse and until I can find something better, I will stick with what I have got. So far, 55 years have not uncovered anything remotely as good.

Go ahead, ignore them in favor of preaching the Bible they don't believe in.