Homosexual Marriages

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So FBM, describe to me how the children of our society are harmed by allowing gays to get married.


Describe how they are not, with unbiased resarch.

In fact, give us a conclusive report on all the pro's and cons of gay marriage over several generations.

Otherwise all we have is children at risk from social experiments.

[Nemo]

Texas recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: “Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.â€�Â*Â*Interestingly, Texas is one of the few states that have recognized “common-lawâ€� marriage (viz., where a couple have held themselves out as being married); and one wonders how the new amendment will affect those who have failed to fulfill the necessary formalities of “getting hitched.â€�

[NortheastCynic]

Flea, you're engaging in another logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.

It was your statement that gay marriage would cause a societal harm, then you go on to ask underdawg to prove otherwise. That's not how it works. If YOU make a statement then YOU have to back it up with facts...I'll be looking forward to seeing them.

-NC

[Newscaster]

Think of all the changes that have come about in the world that were accompanied by risk but because someone took a chance, the world has benefitted. What in this wrld does not have a risk associated with it. We thumb our noses at risk every day and the world has not fallen apart.
There is no discernible risk in same sex marriage unless that risk comes in the form of violence by those opposed to such marriage. We have mixed race marriages today and only those with miniscule brains are the only ones still throwing fits. But mixed race marriages have not harmed the institution of marriage and it has not changed our moral code and people still get married.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Flea, you're engaging in another logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.

It was your statement that gay marriage would cause a societal harm, then you go on to ask underdawg to prove otherwise.



You are misrepresenting what took place, as is your want.

I said there is a risk to any social change, you agreed to this.

Obviously since gay marriage carries a risk, and has no large benefit to society, it should not be allowed.

That isn't Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Now, some people are continually trying to muddy the waters, to obscure this simple point because they have no direct argument against it. We know who these people are.

If you can't stay on point, you have lost the debate.

[lily]

Flea, you're engaging in another logical fallacy.Â*Â*

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.

It was your statement that gay marriage would cause a societal harm, then you go on to ask underdawg to prove otherwise.Â*Â*That's not how it works.Â*Â*If YOU make a statement then YOU have to back it up with facts...I'll be looking forward to seeing them.

-NC


NC.........This is his common tactic, in fact the only one he has. I don't know why you always fall for it!

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Think of all the changes that have come about in the world that were accompanied by risk but because someone took a chance, the world has benefitted.


Like what for instance?

Think of all the things that have had detrimental effects.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Flea, you're engaging in another logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.

It was your statement that gay marriage would cause a societal harm, then you go on to ask underdawg to prove otherwise. That's not how it works. If YOU make a statement then YOU have to back it up with facts...I'll be looking forward to seeing them.

-NC


NC.........This is his common tactic, in fact the only one he has. I don't know why you always fall for it!



This is a common tactic, agreeing with an invalid argument to try to lend weight to the loser of a debate and make it appear as if he has made a valid point.

lily is attacking the debater instead of the points. I invite her to stop the ad hominum and actually debate the points.

[NortheastCynic]

You are misrepresenting what took place, as is your want.Ha.Â*Â*Actually Flea, if you were paying attention at all, you'd know that I wasn't refferring to the exchange between the two of us, but the exchange between you and Underdawg.Â*Â*Let's go over that again so I don't have to deal with weak personal jabs.

So FBM, describe to me how the children of our society are harmed by allowing gays to get married. Give specific examples if you can?
Describe how they are not, with unbiased resarch.

That was the Argument ad Ignorantiam.Â*Â*You claimed to underdawg that gay marriage harms children, he then asked you how it would do so, in response you asked him to show you how it wouldn't...So again, spare me the personal jabs, they're petty and add nothing to the debate, and neither do your logical fallacies.

Obviously since gay marriage carries a risk, and has no large benefit to society, it should not be allowed.Equal rights isn't a benefit?Â*Â*Again, in order for me to coment on your "the risk isn't worth it" comment, I would have to know what your criteria is for a change being worth it...But you won't tell me, probably because my response to it may challenge your beliefs.Â*Â*That's fine though, I can't say I haven't done that before, it's been a while, but I've been guilty of it too.

Now, some people are continually trying to muddy the waters, to obscure this simple point because they have no direct argument against it. We know who these people are.The single funniest word in that paragraph is "we"...Who is "we"?Â*Â*YOU think I'm trying to muddy the water [which isn't true] and YOU don't think I have a direct argument against it.Â*Â*You convince yourself of this by not answering my question knowing full well that my response to your answer would be applicable in this debate.Â*Â*

If you can't stay on point, you have lost the debate. Stop hiding behind rhetoric Flea.Â*Â*Answer my question.


This is his common tactic, in fact the only one he has. I don't know why you always fall for it!Fall for it?Â*Â*I think I've pointed it out every time he's used it.Â*Â*I certainly don't fall for it for one second.

This is a common tactic, agreeing with an invalid argument to try to lend weight to the loser of a debate and make it appear as if he has made a valid point.The "loser" of the debate.Â*Â*It's sad that you think of debate as "winning" and "losing" instead of learning Flea, not surprising, but sad.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You claimed to underdawg that gay marriage harms children,


I see what happened now, you are basing an argument on something I never said, putting words in my mouth.

Of course I won't call you a liar just because you said I said something that I didn't.

Why don't you go back now and start with what I actually said.

[NortheastCynic]

I see what happened now, you are basing an argument on something I never said, putting words in my mouth. Oh, I'm sorry, so you never said:

Unless you are sure otherwise, and can prove it, how can you be so selfish as to throw children under the wheels of the gay agenda? Are you really that heartless?
and
You didn't know the most vulnerable members of society are children? How could you not realize that?
and then when underdawg said:So FBM, describe to me how the children of our society are harmed by allowing gays to get married.
you didn't respond with this: Describe how they are not, with unbiased resarch.

In fact, give us a conclusive report on all the pro's and cons of gay marriage over several generations.

Otherwise all we have is children at risk from social experiments.Â*Â*
You've done a lot of strange things with your arguments, Flea, but denying something that actually happened is a new trick.

Of course I won't call you a liar just because you said I said something that I didn't.Wow, Flea, you're a class act...To thank you I won't call you a liar just because you denied something that you actually said.

Why don't you go back now and start with what I actually said. Well, since I did start with something you said, why don't you answer my question?

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Wow, Flea, you're a class act...To thank you I won't call you a liar just because you denied something that you actually said.


I never actually claimed that gay marriage harms children, again you are misrepresenting what I actually said and putting words in my mouth.

Maybe you just didn't read it properly the first time? Maybe this isn't deliberate on your part?

[NortheastCynic]

I never actually claimed that gay marriage harms children, again you are misrepresenting what I actually said and putting words in my mouth.So then you didn't actually say the the things I quoted you as saying?Â*Â*


Maybe you just didn't read it properly the first time? Maybe this isn't deliberate on your part?I didn't read it properly the first time? Hehe..ahahahahahahahahahahah...

Will you answer my question now?

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So then you didn't actually say the the things I quoted you as saying?


No where did you quote me saying "gay marriage harms children".

[NortheastCynic]

Watch this Flea.

I'm not a huge Flea_Bit_Monkey fan.

Now, did I say anywhere in that statement "I don't like you."

No, I didn't say "I don't like you"...But the message conveyed is "I don't like you".Â*Â*All of your quotes conveyed the message "children are at risk" and in fact, you said legalizing gay marriage would "throw them under the wheels"...If you're willing to be dishonest about that, that's fine, but don't insult my inteligence by saying that you haven't said in some way shape or form that gay marriage harms children.

Disclaimer: I actually am a huge Flea_Bit_Monkey fan, what's not to like?

Will you answer my question now?

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Watch this Flea.

I'm not a huge Flea_Bit_Monkey fan.

Now, did I say anywhere in that statement "I don't like you."


Yes, but that isn't what I said.

My argument has been that there are risks brought about by making changes to societal structures. I made the second point that children are the must vulnerable members of society, so it is obvious in context that my comments are referring to throwing children under the bus by ignoring the risk to them.

I suspect you knew this already and I shouldn't have to explain this.

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, but that isn't what I said.I was using an example Flea. You've said in different fashions that gay marriage puts children at risk. The question underdawg was getting at was "how does it put children at risk"...What is your answer to that question? And while your at it, what is your answer to my question?

My argument has been that there are risks brought about by making changes to societal structures. I made the second point that children are the must vulnerable members of society, so it is obvious in context that my comments are referring to throwing children under the bus by ignoring the risk to them.I know, what risk does gay marriage present to children in particular?

I suspect you knew this already and I shouldn't have to explain this. It's more or less what I've been saying for the last few posts.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

what risk does gay marriage present to children in particular?


Who knows? Without an exhaustive, unbiased study we may not know at all.

The risk dictates that before we continue down this road we understand the consequences.

[Thirdparty]

Yes, but that isn't what I said.I was using an example Flea.Â*Â*You've said in different fashions that gay marriage puts children at risk.Â*Â*The question underdawg was getting at was "how does it put children at risk"...What is your answer to that question?Â*Â*And while your at it, what is your answer to my question?

My argument has been that there are risks brought about by making changes to societal structures. I made the second point that children are the must vulnerable members of society, so it is obvious in context that my comments are referring to throwing children under the bus by ignoring the risk to them.I know, what risk does gay marriage present to children in particular?

I suspect you knew this already and I shouldn't have to explain this. It's more or less what I've been saying for the last few posts.

-NC



Maybe many recent studies that have showed us that children with two dads or two moms are not as stable emotionally or mentally than those in a nuclear family. The same goes for single parents. Flea has a point, there are consequences. Doesn't make the people involved evil, but does say that gay marriage undermines family as we know it and have defined it.

[Elrathin]

Maybe many recent studies that have showed us that children with two dads or two moms are not as stable emotionally or mentally than those in a nuclear family. The same goes for single parents. Flea has a point, there are consequences. Doesn't make the people involved evil, but does say that gay marriage undermines family as we know it and have defined it.


The thing you don't realize is that there are ALREADY children being raised by gay couples, the fact whether they are married or not changes nothing of this.

You are generally correct in saying that a family is the most stable, so are you for outlawing single parents to raise their children then?

The argument against gay marriage is pathetic at best.

[Thirdparty]

Maybe many recent studies that have showed us that children with two dads or two moms are not as stable emotionally or mentally than those in a nuclear family. The same goes for single parents. Flea has a point, there are consequences. Doesn't make the people involved evil, but does say that gay marriage undermines family as we know it and have defined it.


The thing you don't realize is that there are ALREADY children being raised by gay couples, the fact whether they are married or not changes nothing of this.

You are generally correct in saying that a family is the most stable, so are you for outlawing single parents to raise their children then?Â*Â*

The argument against gay marriage is pathetic at best.


I do realize that, only you said I did not. If you read my post , you will see that I noted that people are not evil or immoral, but that when you CHANGE the nuclear definition of family it creates instability in children. You going to try to argue that, I will be glad to blast your arguments aways with tons of data.

As for single parents, many times they have no choice over their single status, due to death, abuse, etc. That is a whole different issue than saying we should change the concept and institution of marriage to gay marriage as well. That is a strawman argument, most pathetic of all, they are two different issues. And for teh record, yes, single parents also have more issues with their children, simply because they don't have a mom or dad at home . That was my point.

THe argument against gay marriage is pathetic? I have seen far more data here that supports not approving gay marriage than the opposite. Your opinion is one thing, try giving me some facts. What facts support gay marriage?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The thing you don't realize is that there are ALREADY children being raised by gay couples, the fact whether they are married or not changes nothing of this.



You are off point, changes to society don't happen in a vacuum. Unless you can show that gay marriage has no long term negative impact it is not worth the risk to children.

[Elrathin]

You are off point, changes to society don't happen in a vacuum. Unless you can show that gay marriage has no long term negative impact it is not worth the risk to children.


Sorry in America it is up to YOU to prove something is harmful to make it illegal. The proof is not up to me, it is up to YOU to prove.

Given that gays have successfully raised children is the proof I need to say that gay marriage should be legal.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Sorry in America it is up to YOU to prove something is harmful to make it illegal.


No one is making it illegal, gay marriage is not something that existed and is now being outlawed, your whole premise is flawed with no connection to reality.

If the proponents of something want a major change to society it is up to them to convince society of the need and mitigate any risk. That has not yet happened.

[Thirdparty]

You are off point, changes to society don't happen in a vacuum. Unless you can show that gay marriage has no long term negative impact it is not worth the risk to children.


Sorry in America it is up to YOU to prove something is harmful to make it illegal.Â*Â*The proof is not up to me, it is up to YOU to prove.

Given that gays have successfully raised children is the proof I need to say that gay marriage should be legal.


Ah, and where do we have proof of this? You are using strawman techniques, saying we need proof, it is provided, then dismissing it, while saying you don't need any. Huh?

[slappy]

...when you CHANGE the nuclear definition of family it creates instability in children. You going to try to argue that, I will be glad to blast your arguments aways with tons of data.
I'd be interested in seeing some of that data, having been raised in a one-parent family myself.

I doubt anyone will challenge me to provide data to show that there are a large number of children awaiting adoption in the United States. Wouldn't we rather see these children placed in permanent, loving homes (regardless of the orientation or number of the parents)?

I'm far more concerned with the instability caused by mentally challenged, mentally ill or addict parents than I am over any sort of gender issues. Long term effects of homosexual parents worry me far less than short term consequences of the foregoing trio of problem parents.

[underdawg]

The only thing that article you provided showed was that gay marriage and social changes were happening at the same time. That article never did polling or conducted any sort of tests on heterosexuals to find out why they decided to abandon the more traditional view of family and marriage. They only provided biased speculation at most.

[Thirdparty]

...when you CHANGE the nuclear definition of family it creates instability in children. You going to try to argue that, I will be glad to blast your arguments aways with tons of data.
I'd be interested in seeing some of that data, having been raised in a one-parent family myself.

I doubt anyone will challenge me to provide data to show that there are a large number of children awaiting adoption in the United States.??Wouldn't we rather see these children placed in permanent, loving homes (regardless of the orientation or number of the parents)?

I'm far more concerned with the instability caused by mentally challenged, mentally ill or addict parents than I am over any sort of gender issues.??Long term effects of homosexual parents worry me far less than short term consequences of the foregoing trio of problem parents.


Here is some, for both you and underdawg. Happy reading!

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/ti_13.pdf

Key quote:The researchers estimate that slightly fewer
than one-third of children who were not
born to cohabiting mothers will be part of
a cohabiting household at some time
before age 16. Among children born to
single mothers, the proportion who are
likely to see their parent move in with an
unmarried partner rises to 76 percent.
Among children born to married parents,
20 percent will live in a cohabiting
household before they turn age 16."


Underdawg-you keep dismissing the Weekly Standard article, yet I see no support for your position with facts. Try some links, I would like to see something other than your opinion, which is just repeating previous posts.

[slappy]

Ah, I see. I thought that, by "instability", you meant something other than simply the child's chances of continuing in a non-traditional family structure. On the face of it, I still don't see why this is something to be terribly worried about. It seems to me that the education of the parents, their levels of income, their mental and psychological stability are far more important factors in determining a child's long-term welfare. The mere fact that a child with a decent mother ends up having to adjust to a string of live-in boyfriends is far from ideal, I'll grant you that, but it doesn't quite raise a red flag about the child's long term physical or emotional well being.

At any rate, what does this particular study have to do with two committed lesbians wanting to adopt a baby? Assuming they live in a state where their civil union is recognized, they wouldn't qualify for inclusion in a study about cohabiting mothers, would they?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Wouldn't we rather see these children placed in permanent, loving homes


So the point is that a home has to prove it is permanent and loving before it can adopt a kid? Sounds like a good idea to me.

[slappy]

Aren't those criteria already in place in most jurisdictions?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Not that I'm aware. How does one prove a home is permanent?

[underdawg]

This last article you presented did not even mention homosexual marriage or gays what so ever. There was no discussion about how they thought gay marriages had an influence on straight people cohabiting with each other. This article describes what you would see as a social problem, but no evidence to link it with gay marriage.

I am not afraid of gay marriage. You are asking for proof of why I am unafraid of gay marriage. I think that I can find no article or scientific study to explain why I am not afraid of something I see nothing wrong with.

But people who fear gay marriage either have an unexplainable irrational fear of gay marriage or they either have a legitimate, concrete, and explainable fear that can be documented with proof.

[slappy]

Not that I'm aware. How does one prove a home is permanent?

I doubt that any adoption agencies or overseeing state authorities require "proof" of anything like permanence or love, but surely there are "look fors" that agents use to guide them in determining whether a home will be good for a prospective adoption. I'd wager that, if you asked the policy wonks who wrote up that look-for list what values were guiding their hand at the time, they'd confirm that a loving, permanent home (i.e. a long-term bond with a loving parental figure) was the ultimate goal for each child in foster care.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I'd wager that, if you asked the policy wonks who wrote up that look-for list what values were guiding their hand at the time, they'd confirm that a loving, permanent home (i.e. a long-term bond with a loving parental figure) was the ultimate goal for each child in foster care.



Isn't a long term bond with a set of parents even better? A strong male and female role model?

[slappy]

On the previous page I listed a number of concerns that, for me at least, clearly outrank the binary heterosexual couple on the list of desirable "look-fors". Decent income, decent education, no mental health issues, no major addictions, bare minimum mental capacity to care for another human being....

My mother scored off the charts as a caregiver and role model, both before and after my father passed away. From the age of five, I only had the one parent. I'd wish a single mom like her, or a gay couple including just one person like her, on any kid before I'd place him or her with many of the traditional hetero couples out there.

[Elrathin]

Isn't a long term bond with a set of parents even better? A strong male and female role model?


I don't know, a child down the street with an alcoholic father and a mother that sleeps around on the father isn't better than a loving gay couple that is raising the child to do well in school and life?

Just because it is a mother and father does not equate to better.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Isn't a long term bond with a set of parents even better? A strong male and female role model?


I don't know, a child down the street with an alcoholic father and a mother that sleeps around on the father isn't better than a loving gay couple that is raising the child to do well in school and life do you?


And that is your idea of a strong male and female role model? It does explain a lot.

[Elrathin]

No that explains YOUR belief that a mother and father is better than gay parents in any situation.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No that explains YOUR belief that a mother and father is better than gay parents in any situation.



Well since I never said that it appears that you feel the need to put words in my mouth to make a point that really has no bearing on the discussion.

Sad really.

[underdawg]

I wonder how FBM would feel about the types of marriage where a gay man marrys a lesbian just to get the benefits of marriage, yet the man has sex with his boy friend and the woman has sex with her girlfriend. They can have a family in your definition of a man and woman and raise children.

[Elrathin]

Well since I never said that it appears that you feel the need to put words in my mouth to make a point that really has no bearing on the discussion.

Sad really.


Yes, you do that to alot of people, so you should stop. Sad Really.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well since I never said that it appears that you feel the need to put words in my mouth to make a point that really has no bearing on the discussion.

Sad really.


Yes, you do that to alot of people, so you should stop.


How do I stop? By not making a point that you have no answer to and so you feel compelled to misrepresent and invent what I said?

Sorry, but I'm not posting to prove you right. Learn to deal with it.

[Newscaster]

You keep asking for research figuresd....to...here they are: These are the very latest results on gay adoptions. The figures can also be used in relation to children born into gay families.
Parenting Issues
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
*************************
Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

January 22, 2004

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is "to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being." We promote "a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly." The College further notes, "that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being."

ENDNOTES

1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,� Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.

2 Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.

3 P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.

4 J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.

5 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45

6 Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.

7 Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.

8 Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.

9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

11 D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.

12 Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.

13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.

15 David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.

16 M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

17 M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.

18 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

19 Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

20 A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.

21 "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.

22 Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,� AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships� reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]

23 J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

24 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.

25 Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."

26 Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244

27 R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.

28 Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.

29 Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

30 Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.

31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.

32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129

33 Ibid., pp. 127, 128.

34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.

35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.

36 D. Fergusson et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).

© 2004 American College of Pediatricians

[Newscaster]

Here are the results of a study done looking at the results of other studies on the issue. You will see a different conclusion.
******************
Does Science Show Homosexuality is Healthy?

The view that homosexuality is not a mental illness but is a healthy lifestyle is often given as the basis for changing the traditional Christian stance on homosexuality. But does science really show that homosexuality is healthy? This article will consider the findings of science.

There is no absolute standard for judging what is normal or abnormal. But there are some common empirical criteria that are commonly used to decide whether a behaviour is healthy:

Emotional health
Psychological health
Physical health


Emotional Health

A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women�, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314

Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many.

73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110- 111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker).

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison conducted a non-random study of 156 stable committed male homosexual couples. They found that none of the over 100 couple that had been together for more than 5 years had been sexually monogamous or exclusive. The authors, themselves a gay couple, argued that for male couples, sexual monogamy is a passing stage of homophobia and that many homosexuals separate emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity. What matters for male couples is emotional not physical faithfulness.D McWhirter and A Mattison, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop�, (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall).

Many studies have shown that children of homosexual households are 2 to 4 times as likely to become homosexual themselves as compared to the general population. Timothy J. Daily, “Family Research Council: Insight: Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk�. See www.frc.org/get/is01j3.cfm.



Psychological Health

In a national health care survey 75% of the nearly 2000 lesbian respondents reported they had pursued psychological counselling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

Homosexual men are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men. Study by Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities…�, Table 21.12

Studies indicate that between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics. Study by Robert J. Kus, “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men�, Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 14, No.2 (1987), p.254

Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.Bell and Weinberg p 308

The same study revealed that homosexual men have to a great extent separated sexuality from relationship. The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309. It should be noted that this survey was drawn from the San Francisco area at the height of the celebration by that gay community of its freedom from the restraints of “puritanical, middle-class values� and before the AIDS epidemic struck.

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners. "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.

Surely these are indications of either deep dissatisfaction, or else terribly destructive hedonism.



Physical Health

90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one of more acts of verbal aggression from their partners during the year prior to the study, and 31% reported experiencing physical abuse (Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469–492. ) and in another reference we see that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.� Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59.

The Medical Institute for Sexual Health further reported: “It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.� Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.

Lesbians are 3 times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviours. Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238–244

A study of homosexual twins found that they are more likely to have attempted suicide than there heterosexual twin. R. Herrell et al., "A Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867–874

The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for men in general. Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

“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.� P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772



Conclusions

Scientific studies show there is a correlation between homosexuality and personal distress. There is clear evidence that many live unhealthy lifestyles. But not all homosexuals are distressed. Not all homosexuals experience personal distress nor can it be concluded that such distress is an inevitable part of the homosexual experience even if it is very common. Further there is effort to muddy the waters by hiding this kind of data. The mental health community, rather than reflecting the majority view, seems to have committed itself to revising the predominant public response, to normalizing behaviour that is rejected by the public.

It is comforting to share a common understanding with most of the people in society about what is good and bad behaviour, healthy and unhealthy patterns of living. However, we are heading into a time where more and more people disagree on what is a healthy person. An increasing number of the people and institutions around us have very different understandings about good & bad behaviour and healthy & unhealthy living.

We must also recognize that right and wrong are not always the same as healthy and unhealthy. Psychological abnormality and immorality are two different things although they sometimes overlap. Sometimes they are not related at all. Many conditions that are sins are not pathologies (idolatry, pride, sorcery, lust, fornication). Many conditions that are pathologies are not in themselves sins (anxiety, depression, psychosis).

Christians must recognize that neither society’s consensus or judgement of whether a behaviour is healthy has to match God’s view or the church’s moral judgement. New Testament Christians were clearly out of step with their society's understanding of what made a good character, a good person and a good life. Morality is not usually decided by democratic vote. By contemporary standards, a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy but God evaluates such a life and finds it lacking.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Exodus Global Alliance. All rights reserved

[slappy]

Interesting read. The first paper comes from the web site of the American College of Pediatricians (http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50) which may well have done a very unbiased job of researching and composing the above paper, but it bears mentioning that its political bent is unquestionably anti-gay:

Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks/)

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians) is the Wikipedia article where I found the above link.

Again, I'm not necessarily gainsaying the ACP's findings, but I am drawing attention to their political agenda.

[Alonzo]

The first article presents a critique of the dominant psychological opinion, the second one cites sources such as the family research council, which no reputable researcher would do.

But, it should be noted, that the american college of pediatricians is a small organization devoted to conservative values.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But these two sources pretty much describe what I've been saying all along.
2. Newscaster just verified what I have been saying my studies have proven.
3. Thanks Newscaster.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

chess, both sources are from politically motivated groups. They're not cutting edge or mainstream research.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

chess, both sources are from politically motivated groups. They're not cutting edge or mainstream research.


Then prove them wrong with new, cutting edge unbiased research.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But some one agrees with me, Exodus Global Alliance, who ever they are.
2. I will take it!
3. Sure you poo poo them.
4. But they verify me, and my views, and studies.
5. Look, Newscaster knows I'm right, and secretly he is pulling for me.
6. But doesn't want to be bold in saying it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Here is another look at the issue with different conclusions.
*****************
Successful Homosexual Families

Lesbian couples raise well-adjusted teenagers

New Scientist
Nov 04

Teenagers raised by lesbian mothers show no developmental differences compared to those brought up by heterosexual parents, according to the first large national study in the US.

Previous research has focused mainly on younger children and found no significant disparities in child welfare between same-sex and heterosexual families.

But few studies have been done on adolescents, who some researchers think may be more prone to - or conscious of - discrimination against their families. Others have speculated whether a teens' own sexuality is affected by that of their parents.

"There's been this debate about whether being raised by single-sex couples is good or bad for children," says Stephen Russell, a sociologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, US. "We would call into question suggestions that growing up with single-sex parents is somehow problematic."


12,000 interviews
Russell and colleagues Charlotte Patterson and Jennifer Wainright at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, US, came to this conclusion after sifting through interviews from 1995 with about 12,000 US teenagers and their families. The teens were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the largest and most comprehensive study of the age group in the US.

"This is the best available evidence to date about how adolescent children fare in families with single-sex parents," Russell told New Scientist.

The researchers found 44 teens being raised by two women in a "marriage-like" relationship. Only six teens reported living with two gay men, so male single-sex families were excluded from the study.

Each teen studied was matched with a counterpart from a heterosexual family, who shared the same sex, age, ethnicity, adoption status and family income, among other factors.


Same-sex attractions
The researchers found no differences between the two groups in terms of depression, anxiety, self-esteem and school grades. Exactly the same proportion of both groups also reported having had sex (34%).

But while a previous study suggested children of gay parents were more likely to consider homosexual relationships, this study was unable to provide such information because so few teens reported same-sex attractions and romances.

The single most important predictor of the teens' well being, the study showed, was their relationship with parents - regardless of family type. “What's really important is the quality of the relationship," Russell told New Scientist.

As a result, the authors write that their findings "provide no justification for limitations on child custody or visitation by lesbian mothers" and "do not support the idea that lesbian and gay adults are less likely than others to provide good adoptive or foster homes".

Russell says future studies could see how the same group of teens fared in young adulthood.

Journal reference: Child Development (vol 75, p 1886)

[Thirdparty]

The first article presents a critique of the dominant psychological opinion, the second one cites sources such as the family research council, which no reputable researcher would do.

But, it should be noted, that the american college of pediatricians is a small organization devoted to conservative values.


They also provided 36 endnotes from a variety of sources, which is a heck of a lot more than any data I have seen supporting gay marriage or parenting, even on subsequent posts. The research is solid, you just don't like the results , Alonzo.

[Alonzo]

Some sources are biased (citations 2 and 3 are good examples), some cite sources where the source itself disputes the idea that there is any evidence showing potential for harm (the american academy of pediatrics being one). And it does not do a good job of using sources to baCK up a point.

But 36 sources isn't odd when looking at things like this.

I have spent days searching through academic databases looking through info on same sex adoption. There is no evidence of harm that I have seen, and the largest psychiatric, psychological and pediatric groups agree with that assesment. Even the christian groups can't dig up anything linking problem with children of homosexuals, they simply attack homosexuals. If you want to show me one of these studies cited and explain why it's valid fine, I'll respond to that. But I've done enough recent research , both for reports and out of personal interest, to satisfy myself. But, if the research is solid, as you claim, then that shouldn't be hard.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I can guarantee that now that I am gay my parenting ability has not changed one iota!

[Thirdparty]

Some sources are biased (citations 2 and 3 are good examples), some cite sources where the source itself disputes the idea that there is any evidence showing potential for harm (the american academy of pediatrics being one). And it does not do a good job of using sources to baCK up a point.

But 36 sources isn't odd when looking at things like this.

I have spent days searching through academic databases looking through info on same sex adoption. There is no evidence of harm that I have seen, and the largest psychiatric, psychological and pediatric groups agree with that assesment. Even the christian groups can't dig up anything linking problem with children of homosexuals, they simply attack homosexuals. If you want to show me one of these studies cited and explain why it's valid fine, I'll respond to that. But I've done enough recent research , both for reports and out of personal interest, to satisfy myself. But, if the research is solid, as you claim, then that shouldn't be hard.


Well, Harvard isn't a community college or JC, and major studies conducted in Australia and this country regarding families and violence and sexuality are not copied term papers. Face it, there is a lot of solid stuff here, but we have different opinons on what it says.




Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.



9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Newscasters next post implies that homosexual women are better parents than homosexual men.
2. This says to me that homosexual women have the mother instinct, that is expected of women anyway.
3. Problem that always faces these homosexuals is they are not a real married unit.
4. And seeing thats how it is, there is strife at times, violence at times, and soon to be break ups.
5. That's bad for the children.
6. The shear shame of having two men or women as parents is crushing on the self esteems of any child.
7. The first thing that these unfortunate children have to deal with.
8. Its just plain bad all around, so don't try it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Chess, you are right, the women are not part of a traditional man-woman married unit and yet, they still have the ability to parent. And there are still coutless children who need parenting. Instead of blocking those with ability, clear the way for them to use their God given abilities.
Takew a look at the military today. How many soldiers have been kicked out of the military because they are gay but now, that there are serious manpower problems among the guys in uniform, the government is now saying scrap the "dont ask, dont tell" policy. When there is a need, you dont get rid of the people who can fill tahe need. If two men or two women want to raise a child and believe they have the necessary skills, dont stand in their way. Check them out and if they do meet the requirements, get out of their way. Some children who has no parents will thank you. And having two men or two women as parents, biological or otherwise, is no shame. Especially to the kid who needs someone to care for him.

[Sherri]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Newscasters next post implies that homosexual women are better parents than homosexual men.
2. This says to me that homosexual women have the mother instinct, that is expected of women anyway.
3. Problem that always faces these homosexuals is they are not a real married unit.
4. And seeing thats how it is, there is strife at times, violence at times, and soon to be break ups.
5. That's bad for the children.
6. The shear shame of having two men or women as parents is crushing on the self esteems of any child.
7. The first thing that these unfortunate children have to deal with.
8. Its just plain bad all around, so don't try it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1. & 2. Bul-loney !Â*Â*I know some wonderful "soccer dads", who not only show up for the games, but also serve as grest coaches !

3. Not yet !

4. There is not only strife in gay relationships, but there happens to be a 50 % divorce rate in the hetero community.

5.Â*Â*From someone who has worked with the county, and their Foster-Care Program, what is bad is allowing children to linger within the county and not be placed within a loving home?

6.Â*Â*I know children with gay parents, who's self-esteem has not been affected.

7.Â*Â*What is unfortunate about growing up in a home where the child is well loved ?

8.Â*Â*Your opinion, only.Â*Â*Are you familiar with the 14th Amendment ?

[Alonzo]

Some sources are biased (citations 2 and 3 are good examples), some cite sources where the source itself disputes the idea that there is any evidence showing potential for harm (the american academy of pediatrics being one). And it does not do a good job of using sources to baCK up a point.

But 36 sources isn't odd when looking at things like this.

I have spent days searching through academic databases looking through info on same sex adoption. There is no evidence of harm that I have seen, and the largest psychiatric, psychological and pediatric groups agree with that assesment. Even the christian groups can't dig up anything linking problem with children of homosexuals, they simply attack homosexuals. If you want to show me one of these studies cited and explain why it's valid fine, I'll respond to that. But I've done enough recent research , both for reports and out of personal interest, to satisfy myself. But, if the research is solid, as you claim, then that shouldn't be hard.


Well, Harvard isn't a community college or JC, and major studies conducted in Australia and this country regarding families and violence and sexuality are not copied term papers. Face it, there is a lot of solid stuff here, but we have different opinons on what it says.




Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.



9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.


You go on the assumption that the researchers in the cited studies would all agree that their study supported the authors conclusions about their research.

For example, david popenoe's book explain the significance of fathers. But, while he does argue there are ingrained sex differences, these differences are why it's important to have both. What he does not do is show that, if there are two fathers or two mothers, these roles aren't fulfilled. He primarily deals with one parent or two heterosexual ones. Studies have not shown that lacking one parent, but replacing it by a parent that's the same sex as the other one, affects these roles in any way that results in a handicap for the childs development.

David popenoe, in an interview on his book stated:

DAVID POPENOE, Author, Life Without Father: The best evidence is that children coming from non-intact families have a risk factor of two to three times various problems befalling them as they become teenagers and young adults, compared to children from intact families. And that means juvenile delinquency. It means dropping out of school. It means having a bad marriage when they become adults. It means for girls having teenage pregnancy. That means if you have, let's say 10 percent of the kids from intact families becoming delinquents, to pick a percentage--this may not be quite accurate--you have from non-intact families, single-parent families and fatherless families 20 or 30 percent, so that's really a staggering difference.

MR. GERGEN: Yeah. It doesn't happen in all families, as you say, but it was interesting, you used the idea it's comparable to taking the risk of smoking two to three packs of cigarettes a day.

DAVID POPENOE: Exactly. I mean, I've heard that if a man, for example, has two choices, to stop smoking or to stay married, by far the best thing is to stay married if he wants to live a healthy, rich life.

MR. GERGEN: Right. Right. Well, that was the other interesting point. You came to the conclusion this was not only damaging for the children but for the men, themselves, who do not have a spouse, do not stay around with their kids, that they too suffer consequences.

DAVID POPENOE: Indeed. I mean, that's one of the overlooked dimensions of this whole thing. I mean, in general, I think you can say that a society that has a lot of single men running around without family responsibility. You got to worry about that society, and that's more or less what we're becoming.

MR. GERGEN: That marriage, in effect, has a civilizing impact--

DAVID POPENOE: Absolutely--

MR. GERGEN: --on the man.

DAVID POPENOE: --civilizing, yeah. I just read the other day adults--it's not that adults produce children, it's that children produce adults.

MR. GERGEN: It's a nice idea, but men who are single tend to live a shorter life, tend to be less happy, and they tend to have less--less satisfying sexual lives.

DAVID POPENOE: You know, the data are just overwhelming now about that, and, and surprising. Most people don't know that.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/popenoe.html

He's not commenting on intact families.

And domestic violence has been, and will be, a substantial problem in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. But homosexual violence is difficult to address, since many homosexuals fear that admitting to the issue, and taking serious steps to combat it (like has been done in heterosexual relationships, to some extent anyway), requires giving ammo to people who would use it to attack them, yet wouldn't do the same to heterosexuals. And, with gay men, there's the added issue of the myth that men aren't abused.

But abuse is part of the reason, along with various others concerning care, that screening is conducted before allowing adoption.

Can you come up with a reasonably reputable study (not family research institute for example, though last I checked they didn't have on anyway), that shows a correlation between same sex parents and future problems?

[Thirdparty]

Some sources are biased (citations 2 and 3 are good examples), some cite sources where the source itself disputes the idea that there is any evidence showing potential for harm (the american academy of pediatrics being one). And it does not do a good job of using sources to baCK up a point.

But 36 sources isn't odd when looking at things like this.

I have spent days searching through academic databases looking through info on same sex adoption. There is no evidence of harm that I have seen, and the largest psychiatric, psychological and pediatric groups agree with that assesment. Even the christian groups can't dig up anything linking problem with children of homosexuals, they simply attack homosexuals. If you want to show me one of these studies cited and explain why it's valid fine, I'll respond to that. But I've done enough recent research , both for reports and out of personal interest, to satisfy myself. But, if the research is solid, as you claim, then that shouldn't be hard.


Well, Harvard isn't a community college or JC, and major studies conducted in Australia and this country regarding families and violence and sexuality are not copied term papers. Face it, there is a lot of solid stuff here, but we have different opinons on what it says.




Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.



9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.


You go on the assumption that the researchers in the cited studies would all agree that their study supported the authors conclusions about their research.

For example, david popenoe's book explain the significance of fathers. But, while he does argue there are ingrained sex differences, these differences are why it's important to have both. What he does not do is show that, if there are two fathers or two mothers, these roles aren't fulfilled. He primarily deals with one parent or two heterosexual ones. Studies have not shown that lacking one parent, but replacing it by a parent that's the same sex as the other one, affects these roles in any way that results in a handicap for the childs development.

David popenoe, in an interview on his book stated:

DAVID POPENOE, Author, Life Without Father: The best evidence is that children coming from non-intact families have a risk factor of two to three times various problems befalling them as they become teenagers and young adults, compared to children from intact families. And that means juvenile delinquency. It means dropping out of school. It means having a bad marriage when they become adults. It means for girls having teenage pregnancy. That means if you have, let's say 10 percent of the kids from intact families becoming delinquents, to pick a percentage--this may not be quite accurate--you have from non-intact families, single-parent families and fatherless families 20 or 30 percent, so that's really a staggering difference.

MR. GERGEN: Yeah. It doesn't happen in all families, as you say, but it was interesting, you used the idea it's comparable to taking the risk of smoking two to three packs of cigarettes a day.

DAVID POPENOE: Exactly. I mean, I've heard that if a man, for example, has two choices, to stop smoking or to stay married, by far the best thing is to stay married if he wants to live a healthy, rich life.

MR. GERGEN: Right. Right. Well, that was the other interesting point. You came to the conclusion this was not only damaging for the children but for the men, themselves, who do not have a spouse, do not stay around with their kids, that they too suffer consequences.

DAVID POPENOE: Indeed. I mean, that's one of the overlooked dimensions of this whole thing. I mean, in general, I think you can say that a society that has a lot of single men running around without family responsibility. You got to worry about that society, and that's more or less what we're becoming.

MR. GERGEN: That marriage, in effect, has a civilizing impact--

DAVID POPENOE: Absolutely--

MR. GERGEN: --on the man.

DAVID POPENOE: --civilizing, yeah. I just read the other day adults--it's not that adults produce children, it's that children produce adults.

MR. GERGEN: It's a nice idea, but men who are single tend to live a shorter life, tend to be less happy, and they tend to have less--less satisfying sexual lives.

DAVID POPENOE: You know, the data are just overwhelming now about that, and, and surprising. Most people don't know that.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/popenoe.html

He's not commenting on intact families.

And domestic violence has been, and will be, a substantial problem in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. But homosexual violence is difficult to address, since many homosexuals fear that admitting to the issue, and taking serious steps to combat it (like has been done in heterosexual relationships, to some extent anyway), requires giving ammo to people who would use it to attack them, yet wouldn't do the same to heterosexuals. And, with gay men, there's the added issue of the myth that men aren't abused.

But abuse is part of the reason, along with various others concerning care, that screening is conducted before allowing adoption.

Can you come up with a reasonably reputable study (not family research institute for example, though last I checked they didn't have on anyway), that shows a correlation between same sex parents and future problems?


I doubt, because it is a relatively recent phenomenen, that anything significant is present, although I do have some friends in academia and will do some digging when I get a moment or two.

[Alonzo]

Well, discrimination in adoption has been illegal since 1989 in massachusetts. Catholic charities has adopted to same sex couples since 1985, and other organizations before that. Studies on the development of children with same sex parents can be found dating back to the 1970's.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpchildren.html

That gives a summary on the america psychological associations summary on the outcome of same sex parenting. Studies cited on issues of psychological well being and sexual identity go all the way back to 1972.

There isn't as much research done on this as other things. But, it is noteworthy that none of the available research done that dealt directly with children has shown harmful effects.

[Thirdparty]

[quote=alonzomourning23]
Well, discrimination in adoption has been illegal since 1989 in massachusetts. Catholic charities has adopted to same sex couples since 1985, and other organizations before that. Studies on the development of children with same sex parents can be found dating back to the 1970's.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpchildren.html

That gives a summary on the america psychological associations summary on the outcome of same sex parenting. Studies cited on issues of psychological well being and sexual identity go all the way back to 1972.

There isn't as much research done on this as other things. But, it is noteworthy that none of the available research done that dealt directly with children has shown harmful effects.

Well, here is something that details some different findings

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-03-09-gay-parents_x.htm

It states at the end the likelihood that some children raised by gay parents are more likely to be sexually adventerous and/or gay themselves.

There are positives noted in the article, but the reality is that different studies will find different conclusions, based on who is funding them.

Â*Â*

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It states at the end the likelihood that some children raised by gay parents are more likely to be sexually adventerous and/or gay themselves.


Which is good! If the whole world was gay we would have no wars or religion, just sex all the time!

What a wonderful world it would be!

[Thirdparty]

It states at the end the likelihood that some children raised by gay parents are more likely to be sexually adventerous and/or gay themselves.


Which is good! If the whole world was gay we would have no wars or religion, just sex all the time!

What a wonderful world it would be!


Maybe wonderful for you. I would be a tad lonely! :cool:

[Alonzo]

It states at the end the likelihood that some children raised by gay parents are more likely to be sexually adventerous and/or gay themselves.

There are positives noted in the article, but the reality is that different studies will find different conclusions, based on who is funding them.

First, it does not say they are more likely to be gay (the british study you're referring to even stated that). It says they are more likely to experiment. That's true, likely because they have no moral reservations against such behavior. But, the same studies which show that have not found an increased tendency to be homosexual.

Second, as for being more sexually adventerous, that term is ambiguous. I'm not sure what it means. Does it mean that they are more willing to engage in homosexual acts? If so, that's really a restating of the previous point. Does it mean more sexual activity? If so, I'd really like to see that study as I haven't run across a study showing that. I can't type "british study", which is all they use as a description, into a psychological database and take a look at the study myself. Though I suspect the term adventerous has more to do with cnn's difficulty in understanding a scientific study than anything else.

[Thirdparty]

Alonzo stated:
First, it does not say they are more likely to be gay (the british study you're referring to even stated that). It says they are more likely to experiment. That's true, likely because they have no moral reservations against such behavior. But, the same studies which show that have not found an increased tendency to be homosexual.

Thirdparty:
"The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. "

What part of that don't you understand?

[piratemonkey]

Alonzo stated:
First, it does not say they are more likely to be gay (the british study you're referring to even stated that). It says they are more likely to experiment. That's true, likely because they have no moral reservations against such behavior. But, the same studies which show that have not found an increased tendency to be homosexual.

Thirdparty:
"The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. "

What part of that don't you understand?


I don't know if you've been to college or not, but having an intimate encounter with a same-sex partner doesn't make a young woman homosexual.

Half the girls I knew in college had hooked up with another girl. Good memories! ;)

[Thirdparty]

Alonzo stated:
First, it does not say they are more likely to be gay (the british study you're referring to even stated that). It says they are more likely to experiment. That's true, likely because they have no moral reservations against such behavior. But, the same studies which show that have not found an increased tendency to be homosexual.

Thirdparty:
"The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. "

What part of that don't you understand?


I don't know if you've been to college or not, but having an intimate encounter with a same-sex partner doesn't make a young woman homosexual.

Half the girls I knew in college had hooked up with another girl. Good memories! ;)


Yes, masters degree, PM. How is the dentistry?


Weird college you went to!

[piratemonkey]

Yes, masters degree, PM. How is the dentistry?


Weird college you went to!


Great... teaching 80% of the time now. Doing more research. It's really good to have you back, TP. Seriously.

Great memories! And girl/girl experimentation in college isn't nearly as rare as you might think.

[Thirdparty]

Yes, masters degree, PM. How is the dentistry?


Weird college you went to!


Great... teaching 80% of the time now. Doing more research. It's really good to have you back, TP. Seriously.

Great memories! And girl/girl experimentation in college isn't nearly as rare as you might think.


Thank you. Good to be back, in one piece.

What is your basis for your comments on girl on girl other than your own experience (S) ;)

[piratemonkey]

What is your basis for your comments on girl on girl other than your own experience (S) ;)


That's about it, to be honest.Â*Â*I dug up this survey, but it's on the general population, not college-educated folks.Â*Â*I'll keep looking.

It may very well be that I tended to hang out with the kind of women that were a bit more open minded. ;)

The survey, released Thursday by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, found that 11.5% of women, ages 18 to 44, said they've had at least one sexual experience with another women in their lifetimes, compared with about 4% of women, ages 18 to 59, who said the same in a comparable survey a decade earlier.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-09-15-womenbisexuality_x.htm

Here's one for high school kids... 26%!
74.1 percent of older boys (“older� was defined as 15 years of age or older) and 26.9 percent of older girls reported sexual experience with a female

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0013.html

[Alonzo]

Alonzo stated:
First, it does not say they are more likely to be gay (the british study you're referring to even stated that). It says they are more likely to experiment. That's true, likely because they have no moral reservations against such behavior. But, the same studies which show that have not found an increased tendency to be homosexual.

Thirdparty:
"The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. "

What part of that don't you understand?


I'm not sure what's wrong here. Either you don't understand sexual orientation, or you can't comprehend a simple usa today article, one that you yourself posted.

In one small British study, the analysis found children raised by lesbians were no more likely to identify themselves as homosexual than those brought up in heterosexual households.

The analysis touches on the third rail of gay parenting research: sexual behavior. The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. Boys raised by lesbians, however, were less sexually adventurous than those raised in straight households.

[Thirdparty]

What is your basis for your comments on girl on girl other than your own experience (S) ;)


That's about it, to be honest.Â*Â*I dug up this survey, but it's on the general population, not college-educated folks.Â*Â*I'll keep looking.

It may very well be that I tended to hang out with the kind of women that were a bit more open minded. ;)

The survey, released Thursday by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, found that 11.5% of women, ages 18 to 44, said they've had at least one sexual experience with another women in their lifetimes, compared with about 4% of women, ages 18 to 59, who said the same in a comparable survey a decade earlier.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-09-15-womenbisexuality_x.htm

Here's one for high school kids... 26%!
74.1 percent of older boys (“older� was defined as 15 years of age or older) and 26.9 percent of older girls reported sexual experience with a female

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0013.html


I still see inconsistency. YOu said half the girls in your college experimented with another woman. These studies say 11 to 26%. I am doubting the 26%.

[Thirdparty]

Alonzo stated:
First, it does not say they are more likely to be gay (the british study you're referring to even stated that). It says they are more likely to experiment. That's true, likely because they have no moral reservations against such behavior. But, the same studies which show that have not found an increased tendency to be homosexual.

Thirdparty:
"The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. "

What part of that don't you understand?


I'm not sure what's wrong here. Either you don't understand sexual orientation, or you can't comprehend a simple usa today article, one that you yourself posted.

In one small British study, the analysis found children raised by lesbians were no more likely to identify themselves as homosexual than those brought up in heterosexual households.

The analysis touches on the third rail of gay parenting research: sexual behavior. The British study said young girls raised by lesbians were more apt to be sexually adventurous than those raised by heterosexual parents and more likely to have had intimacy with a same-sex partner. Boys raised by lesbians, however, were less sexually adventurous than those raised in straight households.





And what I said is true and clear: They are more likely to experiment with same sex adventures. That was my whole point, but what the heck, this thread is getting way too long anyway.

[Alonzo]

You said they're more likely to be homosexual, which isn't true. They're more likely to try homosexual behavior, just like I'm sure any group that is tolerant of homosexuals would be. I'm pretty sure there's more heterosexuals trying homosexual sex in boston than in salt lake city. It's due to a more tolerant belief system. It does not reflect itself in long term orientation.

[Thirdparty]

You said they're more likely to be homosexual, which isn't true. They're more likely to try homosexual behavior, just like I'm sure any group that is tolerant of homosexuals would be. I'm pretty sure there's more heterosexuals trying homosexual sex in boston than in salt lake city. It's due to a more tolerant belief system. It does not reflect itself in long term orientation.


Yeah, in Salt Lake City they just have 20 wives.............:cool:

[Buck Laser]

You said they're more likely to be homosexual, which isn't true. They're more likely to try homosexual behavior, just like I'm sure any group that is tolerant of homosexuals would be. I'm pretty sure there's more heterosexuals trying homosexual sex in boston than in salt lake city. It's due to a more tolerant belief system. It does not reflect itself in long term orientation.


Yeah, in Salt Lake City they just have 20 wives.............:cool:

I doubt very seriously that you'll find anyone in Salt Lake City with 20 wives. East Overshoe, UT, maybe. But the orthodox Mormons haven't approved of polygamy for a hundred years or so.

[Thirdparty]

You said they're more likely to be homosexual, which isn't true. They're more likely to try homosexual behavior, just like I'm sure any group that is tolerant of homosexuals would be. I'm pretty sure there's more heterosexuals trying homosexual sex in boston than in salt lake city. It's due to a more tolerant belief system. It does not reflect itself in long term orientation.


Yeah, in Salt Lake City they just have 20 wives.............:cool:

I doubtÂ*Â*very seriously that you'll find anyone in Salt Lake City with 20 wives.Â*Â*East Overshoe, UT, maybe.Â*Â*But the orthodox Mormons haven't approved of polygamy for a hundred years or so.


Doesn't stop it from happening, Buck. Many orthodox Mormons in rural Arizona , Nevada, and Colorado are polygamists, not just the Warren Jeffs variety ,either.

[alias]

We have a few of "those people" up here. One of em told me that homosexuality is natural because male animals hump other male animals. I guess bestiality must be okay also because my male cocker spaniel humps my male cat.

There was a guy over near Seattle who let a stallion hump him and tore him a new asshole and he landed in the hospital. They just passed a law this past year making beastiality illegal. I just assumed it was illegal, but I guess not. Thank God it is now. You never know what those people will do next. Mentally ill if you ask me.

[Thirdparty]

We have a few of "those people" up here.Â*Â*One of em told me that homosexuality is natural because male animals hump other male animals.Â*Â*I guess bestiality must be okay also because my male cocker spaniel humps my male cat.

There was a guy over near Seattle who let a stallion hump him and tore him a new asshole and he landed in the hospital.Â*Â*They just passed a law this past year making beastiality illegal.Â*Â*I just assumed it was illegal, but I guess not.Â*Â*Thank God it is now.Â*Â*You never know what those people will do next.Â*Â*Mentally ill if you ask me.


Gives a whole new meaning to "saddle up"! :cool:

[alias]

We have a few of "those people" up here.Â*Â*One of em told me that homosexuality is natural because male animals hump other male animals.Â*Â*I guess bestiality must be okay also because my male cocker spaniel humps my male cat.

There was a guy over near Seattle who let a stallion hump him and tore him a new asshole and he landed in the hospital.Â*Â*They just passed a law this past year making beastiality illegal.Â*Â*I just assumed it was illegal, but I guess not.Â*Â*Thank God it is now.Â*Â*You never know what those people will do next.Â*Â*Mentally ill if you ask me.


Gives a whole new meaning to "saddle up"! :cool:


Maybe they should make a western out of that story. They could call it "brokebutt mounting".

[NortheastCynic]

So a guy has sex with a horse...Therefore gay marriage should be illegal. Someone help me out.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So a guy has sex with a horse...Therefore gay marriage should be illegal. Someone help me out.

-NC


You looking for someone to loan you a horse? :lol:

[NortheastCynic]

Hey, you know us libertarians, we value the free market...
lol

-NC

[lily]

So a guy has sex with a horse...Therefore gay marriage should be illegal.Â*Â*Someone help me out.

-NC


It's the Santorum theory.

[Pookie]

I am puzzled. Why in the world would gays being married affect me? I am secure in my relationship and my marriage, and it is none of my business what goes on in other peoples' bedrooms. If I need to concern myself with that, I need to get a real life. I am secure and happy, and I am ONLY responsible for my own life. Let others live and let live.
Hugs,
Pookie

[Thirdparty]

I am puzzled. Why in the world would gays being married affect me? I am secure in my relationship and my marriage, and it is none of my business what goes on in other peoples' bedrooms. If I need to concern myself with that, I need to get a real life. I am secure and happy, and I am ONLY responsible for my own life. Let others live and let live.
Hugs,
Pookie


Pookie,

Because maybe it does affect you if you have kids. Because changing the very nature of marriage will have a profound impact on our society. Because children raised by two moms or two dads is not natural.

[Pookie]

But honey, perhaps what is not natural to us is natural to them. If they can raise children in a loving home and all, why do I as a heterosexual need to bother myself with it? I am in love, they are in love. I am secure and happy and so you see, I say not only live and let live, but love and let love.
Plus, last I looked, I'm not to judge my neighbor. I just love people anyway and I really don't want to know their stuff.
Hugs,
Pookie

[underdawg]

Children raised in orphanges , raised by a grandparent, raised in foster homes are not exactly ideal, but sometimes it is what life deals you. Being raised by two moms or two dads is indeed natural. If it happens in the real world it is natural. They might not together be able to conceive a child, but they certainly can raise one. As far as I know, many children all through the ages have been raised by people other than than both biological parents and society have not collapsed as a result. These fears that people have concerning gay marriage leading to the downfall of society is just irrational fear based upon preconceived bias against homosexuality.

[Thirdparty]

Children raised in orphanges , raised by a grandparent, raised in foster homes are not exactly ideal, but sometimes it is what life deals you. Being raised by two moms or two dads is indeed natural. If it happens in the real world it is natural. They might not together be able to conceive a child, but they certainly can raise one. As far as I know, many children all through the ages have been raised by people other than than both biological parents and society have not collapsed as a result. These fears that people have concerning gay marriage leading to the downfall of society is just irrational fear based upon preconceived bias against homosexuality.



You can't prove that, underawg-that gay parents are natural. You can't prove there are not issues with kids.

Rome fell from the inside, not the outside, due to a collapse of the moral fiber.

[Alonzo]

We can't even prove that smoking causes cancer. Science proves very little, and it is virtually impossible to prove something does not exist.

But, not a single study has shown any harm whatsoever. And I challenge anyone to come up with a study showing homosexual parents are harmful. I don't care if it's from the "christians for the genocide of homosexuals research group", just come up with a study.

Though the idea that rome fell due to moral decay is one of the biggest BS myths out there. Economic decay, lack of funds (their wealth was largely based on conquering others), expansion of germanic tribes and other groups, overreliance on conquered lands for soldiers etc. But moral decay? Not even close.

I'm not really even sure of the argument there. I mean rome fell under christian rule, and the rome didn't even truly fall until much later, as half of rome continued for centuries as the byzantine empire. And residents of that empire simply viewed their empire as the roman empire, and themselves as romans.

[underdawg]

Yes, anything that happens in nature is natural. Anything that exists in the real world is natural. As a gay man, if I were to have sex with a woman and she were to conceive a child, I would therefore become a gay parent. That seems pretty much within the realms of the natural world to me.

There are going to be issues with raising kids no matter who is raising them. Homosexuals are already parents and raising children right now whether you allow gay marriage or not. This shouldn't even be concidered an issue in determining gay marriage because it is already happening. People do not need to be married to have children. People keep talking about how children would get hurt by gay marriage, but most gay marriages wouldn't even have children involved in it anyway.

[Newscaster]

Children being raised by adults seems rather normal and natural to me. Now, if there are kids who were raised by wolves, rabbits or parakeets...well, then you might have an argument but adults raising children is a no brainer.

[Elrathin]

due to a collapse of the moral fiber.


Sorry TP, but you really need to polish up your history if you think that. There were a multitude of social and economical issues, but morality? That wasn't the reason.

[Elrathin]

You can't prove there are not issues with kids.


I can't prove that the drinking of alcohol in the household at all by the parents doesn't cause issues with the kids either, however it is still perfectly legal for the parents to do so.

Again, the "Oh the poor children" excuse is getting old when in fact there have been quite a number of successful gay parents raising perfectly healthy, social, heterosexual children.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But to the Gawd-less there is no shame.
2. So in this thing that they do, raising children in a Gawd-less union, they ruin the lives of these adopted children.
3. Where they could of been adopted by some normal people, who feared Gawd, and taught those children to likewise have a respect for Gawd, and was able to be saved.
4. But those children who learnt to laugh at Gawd, those children were sold short.
5. And they learnt to scoff at Gawd, by living in a reality of a Gawd-less family, seeing Gawd does not support homosexuality, it is written in the Bible that Gawd condemns homosexuals, and these children live with parents who scoff at Gawd, and do whats evil in Gawds sight.
6. That's what is happening to these children, they are morally being dragged through the gutter, and for sure most if not all are ruined for life.
7. My study shows that 98.42% of all children raised in a homosexual settings are till this day living outside of Gawds plan for them.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Pookie]

If the kids are well-adjusted and doing well in school and society, as are many I know, how is this a threat to me? Looks like these kids are A-OK and A students, well-adjusted, socially acceptable and normal. What is wrong with that?
Now I am OFF to bed, this is kind of odd, I know several kids like this and they are terrffic.
Hugs,
Pook

[Saigio]

Marrige is a human right, thanks to the UN.
Our constitution protects equal rights for all.
Do the math.
America is not a christian nation, ergo, we should not push christian theology on the citizens through the government.

[Saigio]

I want to see proof that God himself says "Being gay is bad", chesswarsnow.

[Newscaster]

God never said being gay is bad. In fact, God must love the Gays.
Consider this......if we are ALL God's children, then so are homosexual people.
God makes us all. Now, if God doesnt like Gays, he would stop making them or, if you will, he would stop them from being made. But homosexuals are born every day or every week, 52 weeks a year, every year without interruption. That ought to tell you something about God's feelings about gays. He apparently likes them and likes to have them around and probably would not look with favor on those eho give gays a hard time.
Think about it.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But with that thinking, Gawd made sin, by making man, so its His problem not mans.
2. So there's no reason to get right with Gawd.
3. This is man made mumbo jumbo, sorry bout that, won't float.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Sin is man made. Anything you dont like, you label as a sin and you start everybody shaking in their boots.
I dont believe God miscromanages the world. There a5re worlds other than just Earth to take care of or do you believe we are the only planet inhabited by intelligent beings? That of course is the height of arrogance. We are not special in tne overall scheme of things and believe me, God does care one bit if you jaywalk or pick your nose in public. God set down ten rules to live your life by. If you cant do that, you've got problems. If you can, there is nothing to worry about.
Life is tough enough without you making it more so.

And I repeat.....this world would be a deadly dull place if it were not for gays. I have served in the military with gays and worked along side of them and are are good guys and scumbags among them just as there are among straights. We dont own the patant on goodness.

[Saigio]

Marrige also grants a thouand+ rights that civil unions don't. Is that fair? One of those rights is the right to visit a dying loved one in the hospital.

[ticbeast]

Um.
2 homosexuals getting married will NOT affect any of you at all. It will not harm you, or impede on your ability to live your life. So why impede on their lives?

You may argue that it is "morally wrong" for two homosexuals to marry. Ok. That is YOUR moral code. YOURS. NOT theirs. They don't have to follow your moral code. You don't have to like it, but you have no right to force them to like your views. Why should they be denied the right to love because you think it's wrong? Seriously. Consider that. Because of your views, people can be denied the right to love each other. Is that logical? By no means. Gay marriage is perfectally fine. Heck they adopt. Would you rather have more homeless kids living in an orphanage or would you rather have them in a loving home? No brainer. Sure theres the arguement that a child raised in a homosexual enviorment will turn homosexual too. How is that a problem? First off, theres no proof for a claim like that, secondly, how is having more homosexuals a bad thing? Jeez...

To all conservative christians opposed- marriage was around far longer than your religion was. Your religion by no means defines it. Your god may or may not like it. But they don't have to believe in your god. You can say god created all. That means he created homosexuals too. He created all of us equal you may say. Doesn't that mean that they deserve the same rights we do? Yes indeed. Homophobia in on the way out. It's about time people start to tolerate other humans so we can finally advance as a race.

Marriage is not about age, ethnicity, religion, morals, beliefs, or GENDER. Marriage is about LOVE.

[lily]

Excellent first post, ticbeast. Welcome.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But homosexuals, infiltrated the neolib party.
2. In so doing they have supplanted this party to believe their cause.
3. There is nothing good coming from homosexuals.
4. Its bad and sinful on so many levels.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Chess, you are amazing. I have come to the conclusion dirt is smarter.
__________________________________________________ ____________
Chess writes:
1. But homosexuals, infiltrated the neolib party.
2. In so doing they have supplanted this party to believe their cause.
3. There is nothing good coming from homosexuals.
4. Its bad and sinful on so many levels.
__________________________________________________ _____________

I am curious as to how homosexuals infiltrated the neolib party, which to the best of my recollection is still a conservative appelation. How do you infiltrate a group that is not trying to keep you out? And then they supplant the party to make the party believe as they do. Chess, you dont have a clue what gay men believe.

Then you say nothing good comes from homosexuals. Thats right. Nothing good, except music, art, fashion, law, literature, military service, and participation is ever single profresion in this country. Why Chess, I bet your skivvies were designed by a gay man. But nothing good comes from it. Gays can be found in every profession, in every endeavor and every corner of everyday life.

Chess.........grow up.

[underdawg]

People can use the Bible and point to certain passages to hate almost anyone they don't like. To label a whole group of people as evil and undeserving of God's grace sounds a bit hateful and evil to me. Isn't that kinda the way Hitler felt about the Jews? Early in our nations history our ancestors treated the native Americans and blacks as if they were less than human and even used the Bible to justify their warped reasoning.

I would like to think that the more people are exposed to homosexuals the more they will be accepted into the general population as being normal. I tend to think that people who hate gays are a dying breed. You are like the Archie Bunkers of our time. Staying rigid and firm to old hateful bias perhaps learned from your parents. There will always be those hateful people in every generation, but I think by and large the public is starting to accept homosexuality as normal and maybe not in my lifetime, but perhaps someday soon we will have the right to marry the person we love, be able to show affection in public without fear of being attacked, able to serve openly in the armed forses, and able to be out at work without fear of losing your job.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But when Voodoo is thought of being normal and excepted in everyday life as a good thing, then and only then will Homosexuality be done the same.
2. Being a homosexual is against nature, and Gawd.
3. Okay now that excludes Homosexuals from any hope of living on Earth in a satisfactory way.
4. I do not think there is another planet to run to, and or another reality to escape too.
5. Crime of sin, and the legalization of such lays on the shoulders of the neolib party.
6. Likewise does many other sins in America.
7. Including but not limited to *Abortions*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Saigio]

Sorry bout that,

1. But when Voodoo is thought of being normal and excepted in everyday life as a good thing, then and only then will Homosexuality be done the same.
2. Being a homosexual is against nature, and Gawd.
3. Okay now that excludes Homosexuals from any hope of living on Earth in a satisfactory way.
4. I do not think there is another planet to run to, and or another reality to escape too.
5. Crime of sin, and the legalization of such lays on the shoulders of the neolib party.
6. Likewise does many other sins in America.
7. Including but not limited to *Abortions*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


1. Or, people could open their eyes and see the truth, that homosexuals are people that deserve rights.
2. Prove it.
3. Prove it.
4. And that has what to do with this topic?
5. Prove that homosexuality is a sin.
6. Such as?
7. And that is the derailing attempt by cheese.