God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[SkepticThinker]

Well what is your definition of an ideal family life? Where should a child get their values? Who should be a leader in the home? Who should provide protection? Who, biologically is better capable to nurture a child? Maybe its not so much outdated as it is unpopular and understated. Just because you may not agree doesn't mean that this is not true. Biology tells us that when a man and women raises a child, they are better capable and equipped to take on the challenges of life if it is done properly.

Well, first of all, I don't think a home needs a "leader." My husband and I share our household responsibilities 50/50 and neither is the "leader" of the other. I find that to be an extremely outdated mode of thinking. Misogynistic even. Why is a man supposed to be a better leader than a woman in the first place?

I think any human being is capable of nurturing a child - we're all human beings with the same feelings and emotions, after all.

I don't think the particular makeup of the family unit itself matters as much as what values are instilled in the home. We all get our values from our parents or guardians as well as other members of our family, our friends, our community and on a larger scale, from the society we live in. I don't think two people of the same sex are any less capable than two people of the opposite sex in instilling values into their children.

Biology doesn't tell us that "that when a man and women raises a child, they are better capable and equipped to take on the challenges of life if it is done properly." And I have to say, your view on this sounds a bit contradictory to me. Didn't you say before that the optimal household has the man going out and earning the money while the wife stays home raising the kids and taking care of the household?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not sure of your intentions, but it seems your not here to have a discussion. I hope that is no the case, but if you would hear me out and actually try to understand what I'm saying then maybe we would get somewhere. When a single mother raises a child, a feminine aspect is persuaded on the child. They're without a masculine persuasion. When masculinity and femininity come together to raise a child, you have a perfect environment. As I have said, each gender offers something. When a gay couple raises a child, no mater how hard they try, they will never be able to fill the void and role of both genders. Its impossible biologically and emotionally.

Can you define what you mean by "feminine aspect" and "masculine aspect?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is all crap. Sexist stereotypes. There's no evidence that children raised by LGBT parents are less well-adjusted than children raised by a mother and father. Men can certainly be nurturing and sensative and women can certainly be protective and stern. People are individuals and each individual has the full possibility of emotions and personalities. A man can be feminine and a woman can be masculine. Etc.

Well said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nonsense.Your sex is biologically determined. Your sex is designed, or is the result of evolution to procreate the species. The appeal of sex is for the same purpose. Only 5-10 % of humans are homosexual. The rest have sex consistent with their biological design, as obviously intended. So, that 5-10 % doesn´t represent the norm ( politically incorrect term ?) Why ? Biological predetermined ? Not proven. Environmental determination ? not proven.Combination of both ? Not proven. Choice ? not proven. You go through your interesting word games and cute semantics because you have made up your mind with no definitive answers. You want it to be the way you want it. To you it is a moral issue, but yet you would be aghast if I used the same justification and you disagreed, I would be immoral in your eyes

You're confusing sex with sexual orientation again.

Homosexuality has apparently been around as long as human beings have existed. We also find it in the animal kingdom (and of course, we're all animals anway). You haven't addressed homosexuality in the animal kingdom yet, for some reason. How do you explain it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no choice in regards to same-sex attraction, but people choose to embrace homosexual behavior.

I have to ask again, what is "homosexual behavior?"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thank you for those posts.

1. Interestingly, while Huffington is hardly a bastion of conservatism, they agreed with my stance and the Bible's. The reasons listed included sex abuse, broken relationships with same sex parents, and overspilling of lust (in prison, temporary homosexuality).

2. Psychologists recognize that sexual imprinting regarding choice and fetishes is real. Imprinting is real, and they call Christians science deniers!

3. There is no "gay gene" and genetic links are heritable traits, not inherited traits. Tall people are more likely to play basketball, a genetic trait, but there is no b-ball gene. Libidinous persons are more likely to have lust spill over to alternative sexual outlets--just as the Bible explained millennia ago. You also missed this in that article: By imprinting themselves on the epigenome, though, environmental influences may powerfully affect how an individual's genes express themselves over the course of his life. Ngun's findings suggest they may interact with genes to nudge sexual orientation in one direction or the other. "The relative contributions of biology versus culture and experience in shaping sexual orientation in humans continues to be debated..." Jesus mentioned the nature of heritable traits regarding sexuality, of course.

4. Finally, and it's not just you, but many people on this thread, there is a double standard of "Gays act out because Christians and homophobes repress them, but no gays ever act out because they were sexually imprinted."

5. No offense, but skeptics skirt what Christians post and don't read their posts. I read yours, let's walk through the Huff list:

Acting out early-childhood sexual abuse: as mentioned

Sex work or escorting: the love of money is a root of many evils

Seeking intensely arousing but personally shameful experiences (e.g., penetration by a dildo, bondage): Romans 1; imprinting

First sexual experience: imprinting as mentioned

Availability/opportunity: Romans 1 – lust overspilled

Father hunger: as mentioned, broken same sex parental bonds

Sexual orientation toward men but emotional/romantic orientation toward women: Romans 1

Narcissism: Romans 1

Sexual addiction: Romans 1 – lust overspilled

Cuckolding: Imprinting

Exhibitionism: Imprinting, often from a lack of same sex parenting and a mother who “dresses up” her child in non-traditional ways

Sexual release in prison: Romans 1 – lust overspilled

1,5. You're actually skirting the article yourself, as it's contrasting behavior you're associating with homosexuality away from homosexuality. Stating plainly that these are straight men with issues, and aren't gay.
"The truth is that many men who have sex with men aren’t gay or even bisexual."
2. They don't recognize that imprinting is a choice nor that it's linked to homosexuality, or that homosexuals are sexually imprinted, or that gays are as a result of abuse or broken relationships. You made that up on your own. That's why you're a science denier. Also the following.
3. First of all, lots of generic factors aren't related to one gene, that doesn't negate genetic influence. Things like blood type are multi-allele, which means there is no 'blood type gene', but that multiple genes cause blood type. Not all genetic change is inherited (please see dormant genes and epigenes), and genes can be activated by environmenta, such as womb environment. The articles I posted did not only address genetics as biological factors.
Imprinting on the epigenome has nothing to do with the imprinting you've been attempting to push forward. Not all occurrences of the same word are the same process. Please actually educate yourself about epigenetics before commenting on it.
Lastly, having multiple biological influences on sexuality is known, of course they are dynamic and not fully understood, but nobody except Christians wanting to maintain a homosexuality=bad believes the biological components are insignificant, or that homosexuality is merely a choice. That's all on your prejudices.
4. Blacks and Hispanics also have higher drug rates, STD rates, assault rates, et all. A racist would use this to justify that there is something inherently wrong with being a racial minority. A non-racist would understand that there's dynamic exterior influence on those statistics, and not say something as ridiculous as 'they should just stop being black or Hispanic'.

 

[Skwim]

I have to ask again, what is "homosexual behavior?"

Assuming you're not asking to see if Prestor John knows, but are not sure yourself, and because it appears he's left RF for the time being, let me take a stab.

Homosexual behavior: any physical expression of intimacy with someone of the same sex, which can range from hand holding to oral or anal sex.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, it’s similar to someone saying that they don’t want to believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable and you start trying to say "but x, but y, but, but, but, but."

The issue with homosexuality isn't believing it's wrong. It's when you start telling others it's wrong, and insisting the only thing right is to adhere to your beliefs. I don't believe football is a good thing, but I'm not telling people they have to give it up or face these consequences of the divine. In this case, I don't want kids. It's not comparable to what I think about the behaviors and choices of others, as it is my own decision.

As I have said, that is fine.

You didn't say it's fine, because you harped on about "eternal potential" or some other nonsense that just can't apply if it's in regards to something someone doesn't want that isn't necessary for their well being.

However, God wants us to become more like Him because the more we become like Him the more joy we will attain and He wants us to receive an eternal increase of joy.

My life's joy does not include having kids. And if you noticed, I didn't say just potential but I also included actualized.

If you believe you will be happier with your lot, more power to you, but that doesn’t mean what I have been sharing is wrong or that your way of living is ideal.

When it comes to kids, it should be each and everyone's own decision. This social expectation that we have to have kids is a load of bull. If you don't want kids, it's ideal to not have them.

Technically, all of us have the potential to procreate and love our children, either in this life or the next.

Not everyone does. By birth or accident, not everyone can produce offspring.

However, it is my opinion, according to my beliefs, that the only way to receive an eternal increase of joy is through our offspring.

For me there would be no increased joy.

You opting out of having your own children means that you opted out of creating little people in your image.

I'm not arrogant enough and my ego not over-inflated enough to think making someone in my image is important or a priority. If I had kids, I'd rather they become their own image.

I get where you are coming from, but where do you get off thinking you have the right to decide what “shackles” and “restraints” are appropriate for children that are not yours?

It's often a judgement call. Such as, one of my adult clients, he feels he has to act and behave in a certain way just because of his last name.

You are pretending to be whatever it is you are (Are you a teacher?), but you use your platform to preach.

My title, as bestowed upon me by the state of Indiana, is Behavioral Health Professional. In a way, preaching is a part of the job. Not religious preaching, but preaching about coping with stress, ways to manage your life, and preaching to motivate. But religion isn't something I bring up.

They don’t need your help.

When everybody else in the family, who are religious, look down upon them for not being religious, yes, they needed someone in the family to extend them hand so they didn't drown in the negativity that people often give you when you have no religious or spiritual beliefs.

Or better yet, can you show them the evidence that your job description includes sharing your views about religion with other people’s kids?

My job description really doesn't include religion. But it mandates evidence-based practices. So, no, I'm not going to be bringing up or encouraging god as a solution.

Since you are someone’s child, and you hate children, then you hate a part of yourself.

Jeebers! I never knew I hated myself. Taking better care of myself, going to
(don't you realize the absurdity of insisting someone must hate themselves just because?)

No where in the scriptures is anyone taught to hate themselves.

That's because you aren't one the especially despised sinners.

This makes me feel that you may not be mentally capable of working with children.

If I'm able to control my emotional outbursts, it means I am very capable in that regard. Working with kids is difficult. Lots of people can't do it or handle it. But I can do it and put to rest my emotional angst.

Besides, what do you know anyway, since you have no children and never want any, how are you qualified to label them as anything?

I helped raise 9 of them. From all stages, living at home with mom, at their own house, and here their, infancy into adulthood.

It is evil to consider children burdens and curses as you do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Assuming you're not asking to see if Prestor John knows, but are not sure yourself, and because it appears he's left RF for the time being, let me take a stab.

Homosexual behavior: any physical expression of intimacy with someone of the same sex, which can range from hand holding to oral or anal sex.

.

That's basically what I figured. It's regular sexual things that anyone can do, whether in an opposite-sex relationship or same-sex relationship. It's just extra specially icky to some people when shared between two members of the same sex.

I guess I was curious as to see exactly what the term means to him and why whatever specific sexual "behaviors" that partners share between themselves has to do with raising children together.

 

[Skwim]

That's basically what I figured. It's regular sexual things that anyone can do, whether in an opposite-sex relationship or same-sex relationship. It's just extra specially icky to some people when shared between two members of the same sex.

Bingo! And my question to those who find it icky, and I know they're out there, is, why? Why is it icky?

I guess I was curious as to see exactly what the term means to him and why whatever specific sexual "behaviors" that partners share between themselves has to do with raising children together.

As much as he would dearly like there to be some, I think we both agree that there are none. I know that when growing up I was oblivious to whatever sexual behavior my parents indulged themselves in, as were my friends knowledge of their parent's bedroom antics.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is a double standard to say "Gays are affected by the psychological imprinting of repressive Christians, but not by the psychological imprinting of sexual experiences in their formative years."

You keep talking as if you are providing some kind of "treatment" for gays. Are you a professional of some kind?

You really are talking about 2 quite different phenomena here. In terms of learning about the world and surviving in it, children are conditioned at birth to learn from family and community -- or they don't survive to adulthood. Sexual orientation -- who you find attractive -- seems to me to be quite a different thing.

Imprinting is real, and they call Christians science deniers!

Then how do little boys grow up liking women? Or little girls grow up to like men? Are they having sexual experiences as children that imprint these orientations? There is no science that I can find behind your statement. Certainly, the APA (American Psychological Association) disagrees with you.

I think you need to understand which theory I'm validating. I'm well aware that every gay person I've counseled checked one or both boxes with me for "same sex abuse/indoctrination" or "broken/absent same sex parent". The theory I'm "proving":

"Skeptics don't listen."

Once again I ask, why are you "counselling" gay people? What are your qualifications to do so?

You are further misinterpreting your data, although I doubt you've spoken with numerous gays to check on their sexual imprinting and whether their family life was a-okay. I have reasons for doing so, in active witnessing, you get into deeper issues.

Here's something to think about: the only people who go to the doctor are people who have (or think they have) something wrong with them that needs correction. If doctors thought that all humans were reflected by the sample that they see, then they would imagine that all humans are either sick or hypochondriacs.

If (and I mean IF) some (few) gay people are coming to you hoping for some kind of fix, then you may well be seeing a very lop-sided sample of all the gays that are out there. Sure, there are some -- usually brought up in religious or repressive environments -- who think that there's something wrong with them. Sure, there are those who were taunted in school for being different, and are desperate to "fit in" and be like everybody else.

But the truth of the matter is that the majority of gay people (probably something like 5-6 million in North America, and over 100 million world-wide) function quite well and happily, and are not seeking counseling to help them "change." Our fight, rather, has for most of my life about having the right to live as happy, married families, like everybody else.

It's normal and natural for heterosexuals to fantasize about same sex relationships. Pre-pubescent boys, gay or straight, think girls have "coodies" and look for heroes to admire, often, male figures.

You don't ask yourself much about girls, do you? As far as I know, they have fantasies, too, and (probably rightly) think that boys are weird and violent, and they also have their own heroines to admire -- often princesses or actresses or women of great accomplishment. So what?

Can I be frank with you? And don't feel like you need to answer on this thread, we can PM or you can simply ask yourself the tough questions. Because you keep talking about "all the gays out there," including your life partner.

Was your first sexual experience with another person pre-pubescent or after puberty? And was it a same sex experience.

For the record, I have only ever been interested in or attracted to males. My first sexual experiences were, consequently, with males -- and those were, by and large initiated by me because it was what I wanted.

Were you any closer to your mother or female guardian than your father or male guardian? You never had trouble communicating with your dad? Because your very post above indicates someone was hassling you in the 50s and 60s because of your orientation...

I was a battered child when I was very young, and a ward of the state (Children's Aid) for most of my childhood. I had no close bonds with any guardian. I did not like any of the foster homes I was in, and had only casual, infrequent contact with social workers. Frankly, I was glad to become legally and adult so I could get on with the business of being me.

As to people "hassling" me because of my orientation -- well of course they did! It was the 50s and 60s and homosexuality was everybody's favourite target, including the target of other minorities.

Where are you on the gay/straight continuum? Because every person I've ever spoken with who has never been opposite sex-minded or "tried to be straight a couple of times", but has ALWAYS been gay, checked 1 or 2 above and hard and tough!

I am a Kinsey 6 -- totally gay and zero interest in the opposite sex. My life partner is, too. But while I grew up Children's Aid, he grew up in a loving and supportive family.

PS. We're talking about love here, REAL love, no fear. "Perfect love drives away fear."

You know, my partner is slowly on the mend from Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which totally paralyzed him last May. He was in hospital for 8 1/2 months, and for 5 1/2 of those months, I rushed to and from work to feed him lunch and dinner by hand, and spent the whole of every weekend with him. He's home now (in a wheelchair and walker) and I am his sole caregiver, though I still work every day. And I'm 70, with spinal problems of my own. It has been quite a nightmare, actually, but we're hanging in, and working at improving every day.

I know something about REAL love, is what I'm trying to say.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Psychologists worldwide have recognized human imprinting regarding sexual desire and fetishes.

Would you mind providing a few sources for this? I can find a lot having to do with animals imprinting regarding preferred traits in a mate, but I can't find anything that shows psychologists widely agreeing that homosexuality (rather than traits like preference for tall or short, dark or blond, loud or quiet) is imprintable at all. Yes, it's true that many animals prefer mates with traits very similar to their own parents -- generally the opposite sexed one, since those traits proved to be both attractive (to the other parent) and capable of producing offspring (to be thus imprinted).

Many children experiment with other children, of either sex, but grow up to be straight/gay at the usual percentage (about 98% straight, 2% gay). Students who went to same gender boarding schools, or members of the military, or those in prison, engage in same-sex activities at a higher rate than those outside of those environments, yet when out of those environments, revert right back to being who they always were -- remaining remarkably un-imprinted. A good example is Cambridge University in England, where there was actually quite a lot of homosexual goings-on. George Mallory, who died on Mt. Everest, had an affair with Lytton Strachey, and there are Mallory's letters to Strachey to prove it. And yet, Mallory went on to marry and become a father and live a reasonably normal (for the time) life until his unfortunate demise on that horrible mountain.

 

[shmogie]

You're confusing sex with sexual orientation again.

Homosexuality has apparently been around as long as human beings have existed. We also find it in the animal kingdom (and of course, we're all animals anway). You haven't addressed homosexuality in the animal kingdom yet, for some reason. How do you explain it?

I don't need to. Animals don';t reason, or have a sense of consciousness, they aren';t humans. You believe humans are animals, because of a classification system and because they share some physical traits with animals They aren't the same at all.

"Sexual orientation" as you use it, means an inerrant bend before birth toward a form of sex not reflected in the physical design of the person, and inconsistent with 95% of people. You ASSUME this is true, because it is what you have been told, and aligns with your own perspective.

"sexual orientation" only means that 95% of people feel compelled to want to do it as their body is designed, and 5% say they are compelled to do it, contrary to their body design with members of their own sex. With heterosexuals, the reasons for their compulsions are clear with homosexuals they are not. Without the why being scientifically accounted for, "sexual orientation" is a convenient term, but not an absolute term, it is convenient.

 

[ronandcarol]

If one accepts the passages cited as those inspired of god, and their interpretation in accordance with conservative Christian understanding, can anyone explain why the Christian god finds homosexuality "detestable" and worthy of "punishment of eternal fire"?

I know I'm asking people here to second guess god and his reasoning, but because so many Christians are keen to speak for him on numerous issues I figure some here would have a good insight into his thinking. So, Just what is it about showing sexual affection toward someone of the same sex that turns off god? Is it just some eeeeew factor, or does it go deeper than this?
.[/QUOTE]
My human mind reasoning on this subject would be;
A. He created man and woman to mate. (not two of the same.)
B. During God's creation week it is mentioned that everything that was created would pro-create from its own seed, plants animals and humans.
C. So in His wisdom He probably knew that two men or two women could not have babies, therefore screwing up the reproductive chain.
ronandcarol

 

[Skwim]

My human mind reasoning on this subject would be;
A. He created man and woman to mate. (not two of the same.)
B. During God's creation week it is mentioned that everything that was created would pro-create from its own seed, plants animals and humans.
C. So in His wisdom He probably knew that two men or two women could not have babies, therefore screwing up the reproductive chain.
ronandcarol

Screwing up the reproductive chain? How about all those who are infertile,

"Up to 15 percent of couples are infertile. This means they aren't able to conceive a child even though they've had frequent, unprotected sexual intercourse for a year or longer. In up to half of these couples, male infertility plays a role.
source​

or those with disabilities or other factors that prevent them from reproducing? A number that greatly exceeds the 3.8% of the population that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.*


* source

.

.

 

[shmogie]

Screwing up the reproductive chain? How about all those who are infertile,

"Up to 15 percent of couples are infertile. This means they aren't able to conceive a child even though they've had frequent, unprotected sexual intercourse for a year or longer. In up to half of these couples, male infertility plays a role.
source​

or those with disabilities or other factors that prevent them from reproducing? A number that greatly exceeds the 3.8% of the population that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.*


* source

.

.

Didn´t know the percentage was that low. I think his point is that it is obvious, whether the result of evolution, or design by God, that people are biologically designed to reproduce, and sex is for that purpose.

 

[CohenDavidson]

Actually, the data indicates that gay people are no better or worse at parenting that straight couples are. Some studies even indicate that children raised by gay couples are more empathetic and compassionate toward others, than those raised by straight couples.


We’re talking about homes with two parents, so I don’t know why you’re referring to people who grew up in single parent homes. I don’t know if you can rightly claim that most criminals grew up without fathers or not. You’d have to show that to me. But I asked you what problems we could foresee in allowing gay people to have/adopt children. And then you tell me things about single family households, which I’m sorry to have to point out, are irrelevant to the question.


And I don’t know why you think that children need a woman and man raising them to “develop adequately.” The Bible claiming it is so, doesn’t make it so. I’m not even quite sure what you mean by the phrase “develop adequately;” perhaps you could clarify it for me. Do you mean “not gay?” Because if you’re afraid that gay couples are going to raise gay kids, I don’t think there’s much reason to worry there. After all, the vast majority of people who are already gay were raised by heterosexual parents.


I’m not sure why you think that if someone accepts one claim from the Bible, that they’d have to accept all claims from the Bible, but I don’t see how that has to be the case at all. Of course, the Bible is extremely outdated, given that it was written thousands of years ago. The world that the people of the Bible lived in is pretty far removed from the one we live in today. I mean, we’re talking about a world was slavery was widely accepted and even condoned by God.

The term develop adequately is irrelevant... I just used it for lack of a better term, but since you insist I clarify.. I will do so. Studies prove the assertion I made about single parent families... here is one https://www.scribd.com/document/341116307/Adolescent-Well-Being-in-Cohabiting-Married-and-Single-Parent-Families-pdf. I'm not sure if you know what the process of maturation is, but this is what I was alluding to when referring to 'develop adequately'.Yes, environmental factors can hinder an individuals development. No, I'm not sure of any studies that back the assertion of " kids raised by gay couples will not fully develop mentally", but when we see that when a single parent household is not able to allow a child to mature as normal, we can infer that this is the case, without a problem. The problem is not that the child has only one parent, well it kinda is, but more is that the child does not receive the emotional stability available when parented by the two genders. Studies have show that a father has a great impact on a child's development, consider IQ, social competence, and other factors http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/father-paternity/according-experts/impact-fathers-children . A mother has a great deal of impact as well. They effect the child's development, character, and attitude A powerful connection: Mother-child bond plays role in child's growth, development. So... put two and two together... if a gay couple raises a child, can they adequately offer a child a promise of full development both mentally and emotionally? Obviously not. As I have stated many times, each gender offers a crucial role in the development of a child, and if you do not see than now, I can go no further. As for the Bible being outdated... I stand firm by my statement, it is the most applicable book, especially now in the times we live. Please look at the facts and no what others are saying... it can be quite refreshing! Have a good one!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The rest have sex consistent with their biological design, as obviously intended.

So the people with ambiguous or otherwise genitalia were designed for what, exactly?

What's not "ok" is when someone says they don't want kids and you start trying to say "but x, but y, but, but, but, but." Other people want--and even expect--me to have kids, but I don't want them. My potential and actualized life doesn't include them.

Yeah, my family tree is filled with crazies and monsters. I'm doing humanity a favor by severing the future of some of the branches.

Would you be pals with a necrophiliac ?

Would I avoid them because of morals or just because I think it's icky?

How about a pedophile, these folk meet your definition and contrary to popular opinion, in moslem society, by their rules, it is perfectly normal and not harmful.

Have you noticed your examples are all devoid of a consenting relationship?

A woman loves her St. Bernard

CAN ... THE ... DOG ... LEGALLY ... CONSENT?


Seriously, no wonder rape is so prevalent in humanity. Fools don't understand the basic concept of CONSENT.

Well what is your definition of an ideal family life?

One built on love and respect.

Where should a child get their values?

They don't just get their values from parents, so the genders of the legal guardians are irrelevant.

Who should be a leader in the home?

Why must there be a "leader"? Sink or swim, they're all in the same boat.

Who should provide protection?

The parents or guardians.

Who, biologically is better capable to nurture a child?

Casey Anthony?

Maybe its not so much outdated as it is unpopular and understated.

Or maybe yours is just popular and severely overstated.

http://www.confero.ep.liu.se/issues/2013/v1/i2/131203/confero13v1i21f.pdf

https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311908.2016.1153231

Are the Fathers Alright? A Systematic and Critical Review of Studies on Gay and Bisexual Fatherhood

Biology tells us that when a man and women raises a child, they are better capable and equipped to take on the challenges of life if it is done properly.

No, the bible told you that, and it's definitely wrong.

I'm not sure of your intentions, but it seems your not here to have a discussion.

You seek blind agreement?

When a single mother raises a child, a feminine aspect is persuaded on the child. They're without a masculine persuasion.

Why? Any man who can't do the laundry or cook will have problems. Any woman who can't install a light fixture or do car maintenance will have problems. My grandfather thought as you did. He didn't want to teach me how to run a house or do taxes. He figured my husband would do that for me. Well, my father didn't love us and my maternal grandfather was dying and no one else felt like "adulting", so I had to fight him tooth and nail to learn what you silly men would consider "masculine" just so my family would survive. I watched my father and my maternal grandfather work on houses and cars. Do you know how frustrating it is to go to an auto shop and talked to like I'm some ditsy Barbie who can't understand how to fill up with gas, much less whether my axle, my fan belt, or my spark plugs need work? Why can't I teach a child how to put in a new electrical outlet? Is my vagina not conducive to such a procedure? Maybe my breasts block my view of the car radiator? I'm sure the female mechanics at the last place I went to get my state inspection stickers didn't think so. My father had to teach my mother how to cook because her parents thought as you did, that she would be the homemaker and the husband would work. However, they also felt it was the parents' duty to care for the children, so my mom ended up with hardly any life skills. My father also didn't want her to work, because she was his property and a paycheck would give her a means of escape from his abuse.

As I have said, each gender offers something.

Each PERSON offers something. What is in lying around in your underwear is completely irrelevant, unless you believe it is your genitals that gain knowledge, not your brain.

When a gay couple raises a child, no mater how hard they try, they will never be able to fill the void and role of both genders.

Gender roles are socially contrived.

Sex can serve others by fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, by doing it in a way that sets an example of following divinely given guidelines, or by altruistically helping others attain a supernal instead or base carnal sexual experience.

I don't WANT to be fruitful and multiply. My mother is crazy and my father is a sociopathic monster. Why would I curse humanity by continuing that family line?

How come chastity is a virtue in Christianity and yet so many Christians will rush to judge virgins negatively? The most action my vagina gets is the barely tolerated Pap smear I get every few years. I don't WANT people coming in or coming out of me.

For you, sex is fulfilling. For me, the thought of it is a violation of my person.

A man can be feminine and a woman can be masculine. Etc.

I was never the princess type. Don't buy me a diamond ring. Buy me a power drill instead.

You can not deny that a man as well as a women is capable of different things.

Apparently you're right. A woman might have known "is" should be replaced with "are."

Showing the world that women are different and have their own powers that a man simply is not capable of...

It must REALLY bug you when there are female government officials or military personnel. I can just see you stage a protest in front of the prophetess Deborah for daring to lead a nation.

Animals don';t reason

Any animal that can choose one idea over another can reason. My dogs reason. The raccoons under my deck reason. Birds reason. Fish reason. Ants reason.

They aren't the same at all.

So you're mushroom?

A. He created man and woman to mate. (not two of the same.)

God had to figure out Adam needed a chick after it was determined the other animals just weren't cutting it. How do you think they figured that out?

B. During God's creation week it is mentioned that everything that was created would pro-create from its own seed, plants animals and humans.

God created asexual creatures. He also created creatures with more than two genders.

C. So in His wisdom He probably knew that two men or two women could not have babies, therefore screwing up the reproductive chain.

LOL. God can make a man out of dirt and give a virgin tween a baby, but can't figure out how 2 men or 2 women can have children. We have lizards who can be all female and reproduce, so clearly God understands the concept. We have pregnant males with seahorses, so clearly this didn't slip God's mind.

 

[Skwim]

Didn´t know the percentage was that low. I think his point is that it is obvious, whether the result of evolution, or design by God, that people are biologically designed to reproduce, and sex is for that purpose.

I disagree. His point wasn't that people are biologically designed to reproduce, and sex is for that purpose, but that it shouldn't be exclusively used for any other purpose, in particular, homosexual behavior.

.

 

[SomeRandom]

Where is the study

Apologies for the delay. Bad attention span.

Families parented by gay men
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/cfca/pubs/papers/a145197/cfca18.pdf

What can we learn from studies of children raised by gay or lesbian parents?

Course I can just as easily point out that the nuclear right out the idealized 1950s style family is a rather newish Western thing. Many countries (including the West for a time) have employed several generation style families for thousands of year now. And those are the types who come over and "take our jobs" kicking all of our asses.