If you take away religion, what arguments are there against homosexuality?

[gnomon]

So that one wasn't accepted, either. You start out saying it was valid and then finish by saying it in fact not valid. It's okay. I don't care anymore.

It was incorrect of me to say his argument was invalid.

It was a valid argument but it was shown to be false are the correct terms.

That one was my bad.

 

[idea]

I think the main reason is, God said don't do it - which is enough for me.

I do think that children do better when they are able to know both halves of themselves - we are each created by a mother and a father, we are each created by these two halves. Children do best when raised by their own biological parents - look at the case studies of adopted children, adopted into wonderful families (hetero or homo) but adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their own mother and father. (yes, the GLBT groups can post their hand-selected studies saying kids do fine, and the Christian groups can post their studies showing that kids don't do just fine - truth is, there is not yet enough data on it - we do have data on adopted kids vs. non-adopted kids, and that shows that kids raised by their own parents do best)


...
Anyone ever have a dog or other animal that is great around females, but not around males? or visa versa? we have adopted a few pets like this - they were abused by a male, but loved by a female, and so now they hate all males etc. etc..... not just animals, I have a relative who was abused by her mother, and lived her whole life afraid of all women.... our mother dictates the relashonship we have with other women, and our father dictates the relashonship we have with other men - without either a mother or a father, children are unable to have healthy relashonships with males/females - whichever sex was missing in their parenting - see stats on kids raised by single parents.... you need a stable male in the house to form realships with males, and you need a stable female in the house to form relashonships with females....

 

[McBell]

I do think that children do better when they are able to know both halves of themselves - we are each created by a mother and a father, we are each created by these two halves. Children do best when raised by their own biological parents - look at the case studies of adopted children, adopted into wonderful families (hetero or homo) but adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their own mother and father. (yes, the GLBT groups can post their hand-selected studies saying kids do fine, and the Christian groups can post their studies showing that kids don't do just fine - truth is, there is not yet enough data on it - we do have data on adopted kids vs. non-adopted kids, and that shows that kids raised by their own parents do best)

I

Still pushing this load of bull ****?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think the main reason is, God said don't do it - which is enough for me.

And that is exactly the kind of argument we were trying to avoid in this tread.
I could tell you why it is also completely invalid, but that would take focus away from what this tread is about.

I do think that children do better when they are able to know both halves of themselves - we are each created by a mother and a father, we are each created by these two halves. Children do best when raised by their own biological parents - look at the case studies of adopted children, adopted into wonderful families (hetero or homo) but adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their own mother and father. (yes, the GLBT groups can post their hand-selected studies saying kids do fine, and the Christian groups can post their studies showing that kids don't do just fine - truth is, there is not yet enough data on it - we do have data on adopted kids vs. non-adopted kids, and that shows that kids raised by their own parents do best)

Of course, one has to take into account the fact that kids that are adopted has likely already suffered some emotional trauma, either because they have lost their original parents or because their parents were found unsuited to take care of them, which would indicate that any such study would be skewed from the start. In other words, the conclusion that non-adopted kids adapt better than adopted kids is not exactly surprising.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the main reason is, God said don't do it - which is enough for me.

I do think that children do better when they are able to know both halves of themselves - we are each created by a mother and a father, we are each created by these two halves. Children do best when raised by their own biological parents - look at the case studies of adopted children, adopted into wonderful families (hetero or homo) but adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their own mother and father. (yes, the GLBT groups can post their hand-selected studies saying kids do fine, and the Christian groups can post their studies showing that kids don't do just fine - truth is, there is not yet enough data on it - we do have data on adopted kids vs. non-adopted kids, and that shows that kids raised by their own parents do best)

Wait... so your non-religious argument against homosexuality is that it's being adopted, period, that effects the well-being of an adopted child and not the orientation of the adoptive parents? How is this an argument against homosexuality?

BTW - you do realize that children who are adopted by same-sex parents will be adopted by someone, right? A child only goes up for adoption when a loving home with the child's biological parents is not an option.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think the main reason is, God said don't do it - which is enough for me.

God is irrelevant to this thread....Christians are no longer under the old covenant laws so the commandments on homosexuality are irrelevant as well.

 

[idea]

Wait... so your non-religious argument against homosexuality is that it's being adopted, period, that effects the well-being of an adopted child and not the orientation of the adoptive parents? How is this an argument against homosexuality?

more than just adoption (that having a real dad that you know and love, is better than being half "test-tube" for the moral of the child - that every child should have the right to know both halves of themself)

I think that children raised with a mother and father allows them to feel more comfortable around males and females – that in the ideal situation our mothers teach us how to interact with females, and our fathers teach us how to interact with males. (Yes, not all situations are ideal, but the ideal does exist, and it is good to aim for it.)

Consider this – that one of your parents is of nationality ___xyz_____ (fill in the blank – white, African, Chinese, Mexican,….) Obviously, because one of your parents is (xyz) you will now feel more comfortable around (xyz). You will learn things from them about the (xyz) culture/traditions/language/heritage. If it was just a friend/aunt/cousin who was (xyz) and not a parent – yes, you would become somewhat familiar with xyz’s culture etc. etc. but you would not be as comfortable around it / as knowledgeable about it as you would if one of your parents was (xyz). So you see where I am going with this, unfortunately we are not raised up around all cultures/languages/customs etc. etc. but there is one thing that we can be raised up with – and that is a familiarity with both males and females. The best way to become comfortable around both the male and female cultures/traditions/customs/quirks is to be raised by a male and a female parent. No matter what language/culture/country you are from, there are males and females everywhere – if you are comfortable around both sexes, you can find something in common with/something familiar with everyone everywhere you go.

This is not just for children either – it is for ourselves. By marrying someone of the opposite sex, you again invite that into your home. As a member of your home, you become comfortable around / familiar with all that goes along with the opposite sex. The comfort level around someone who is only a guest, vs. comfort level of someone who is a live-in family member…. And not just a live-in family member. For the ideal husband-wife relationship you experience / train yourself to see a loving relationship between the two sexes… so later when you are out and about at a party etc. etc. you can relate to, and understand members of the opposite sex who are there better…

Example, I am a female – as a female I am familiar with girls nights out, with chick flicks, doing hair/nails/makeup etc. etc. it is easy to strike up a conversation about things I am familiar with around another female “I LOVE your hair, who do you go to?...” etc. etc. Because I am married to a male, I am also familiar with/comfortable around males. If I did not live with a male, I might be unfamiliar with some of their quirks etc. etc., but because I have a husband, I can jump into many conversations saying “That’s so funny, my husband does the same thing…”

It makes logical sense to me, that if a union does not include a member from each of the sexes – a male and a female – you are going to lose out on a familiarity/comfort level around half of the world’s population, be it either male, or female. If you are not around males/females as much, you are not going to be as comfortable socially interacting with males/females (whichever the case may be). It’s just common sense.

Also, again – we are all created by a male and a female, and we all have the need to know both halves of ourself – I think this is true. I see a union of male/female as a union of both halves of ourself, and a window to coming to know ourselves better.

 

[idea]

God is irrelevant to this thread....Christians are no longer under the old covenant laws so the commandments on homosexuality are irrelevant as well.

it's in the NT too....
example....
Rom. 1:27 men ... burned in their lust one toward another
1 Cor. 6:9 nor abusers of themselves with mankind
Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrha ... going after strange flesh
etc. etc. etc.

it is not just an OT law.



For Christians, we all have things that we would rather God did not make a law about, we all have our Kryptonite so-to-speak, we all have our Abrahamic sacrifice - to see what we are willing to lay down on the alter, willing to trust God / have faith that what He tells us to do is eternally beneficial for us. As in all things (not just homosexuality - all things) we do not always know all of the "why's" behind it, but many of us Christians have learned through experience that listening to / following God does in fact lead to a happier life in the long run.

 

[jarofthoughts]

more than just adoption (that having a real dad that you know and love, is better than being half "test-tube" for the moral of the child - that every child should have the right to know both halves of themself)

<snipped>

Also, again &#8211; we are all created by a male and a female, and we all have the need to know both halves of ourself &#8211; I think this is true. I see a union of male/female as a union of both halves of ourself, and a window to coming to know ourselves better.

Hmmm...

Ok, I don't see any reason to dismiss this point right out of hand, and under normal circumstances while a child might live with either their father or their mother even in the case of a homosexual couple they would rarely live with both their mother and their father, you do realize that this would also be a point against single parents raising their children for exactly the same reasons?

Would you take it even further? Consider teachers or those who work in kindergartens. They are most assuredly role-models and will teach the children a lot about humane interaction, but at least in Norway the vast majority of the teachers and those working with young children are female. Do you see this to be a problem as well?

Also, while it might make logical sense, we know from experience that so called logical sense sometimes gets it wrong. I'm not saying you do, I'm just keeping the option open. So the question is; do you have any empirical data to back your argument up with?

Nevertheless it is an argument not necessarily drawn from religion and thus it fits the bill.

 

[idea]

Hmmm...

Ok, I don't see any reason to dismiss this point right out of hand, and under normal circumstances while a child might live with either their father or their mother even in the case of a homosexual couple they would rarely live with both their mother and their father, you do realize that this would also be a point against single parents raising their children for exactly the same reasons?

Would you take it even further? Consider teachers or those who work in kindergartens. They are most assuredly role-models and will teach the children a lot about humane interaction, but at least in Norway the vast majority of the teachers and those working with young children are female. Do you see this to be a problem as well?

Also, while it might make logical sense, we know from experience that so called logical sense sometimes gets it wrong. I'm not saying you do, I'm just keeping the option open. So the question is; do you have any empirical data to back your argument up with?

Nevertheless it is an argument not necessarily drawn from religion and thus it fits the bill.

In the ideal situation, yes, I think having both male and female teachers, and teachers of every race/background would give children the best foundation. I understand that the idea is not always possible, but I think it best to get as close to the ideal as possible.

There is a lot of data concerning single parents, that girls in particular, if raised without a healthy father figure, seek unhealthy male attention elsewhere, and often end up pregnant as teens, and in unhealthy relashonships.

 

[gnomon]

[youtube][youtube]K71MckOTt1M[/youtube]
YouTube - Blackadder II: Advanced Maths[youtube]

 

[Autodidact]

I think the main reason is, God said don't do it - which is enough for me.

Reading comprehension problem?

I do think that children do better when they are able to know both halves of themselves - we are each created by a mother and a father, we are each created by these two halves. Children do best when raised by their own biological parents

You are mistaken.

- look at the case studies of adopted children, adopted into wonderful families (hetero or homo) but adopted kids do not do as well as kids raised by their own mother and father. (yes, the GLBT groups can post their hand-selected studies saying kids do fine, and the Christian groups can post their studies showing that kids don't do just fine - truth is, there is not yet enough data on it - we do have data on adopted kids vs. non-adopted kids, and that shows that kids raised by their own parents do best)

What about the studies that compare children raised in homosexual and heterosexual families, idea? What do they show?

I have never seen a study that compares these two groups and says the latter do better, including those from "Christian" groups. What they do is compare two parent heterosexual families to single-parent heterosexual families, and then say that applies to homosexual families. Surely you can see how honest that is.

Seriously, idea, find me a single study with any sort of decent methodology that compares these two groups and says the children of heterosexual families do better.

If you can't, will you please stop spreading this slander against us gay parents? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

more than just adoption (that having a real dad that you know and love, is better than being half "test-tube" for the moral of the child - that every child should have the right to know both halves of themself)

So your gripe is with artificial insemination, rather than homosexuality? Did you know that most people who use artificial insemination are heterosexual?

I think that children raised with a mother and father allows them to feel more comfortable around males and females – that in the ideal situation our mothers teach us how to interact with females, and our fathers teach us how to interact with males. (Yes, not all situations are ideal, but the ideal does exist, and it is good to aim for it.)

Tell me, how many gay and lesbian families do you know?

Consider this – that one of your parents is of nationality ___xyz_____ (fill in the blank – white, African, Chinese, Mexican,….) Obviously, because one of your parents is (xyz) you will now feel more comfortable around (xyz). You will learn things from them about the (xyz) culture/traditions/language/heritage. If it was just a friend/aunt/cousin who was (xyz) and not a parent – yes, you would become somewhat familiar with xyz’s culture etc. etc. but you would not be as comfortable around it / as knowledgeable about it as you would if one of your parents was (xyz).

So you're opposed to two people of the same nationality getting married?

So you see where I am going with this, unfortunately we are not raised up around all cultures/languages/customs etc. etc. but there is one thing that we can be raised up with – and that is a familiarity with both males and females. The best way to become comfortable around both the male and female cultures/traditions/customs/quirks is to be raised by a male and a female parent.

ON what do you base this opinion?

No matter what language/culture/country you are from, there are males and females everywhere – if you are comfortable around both sexes, you can find something in common with/something familiar with everyone everywhere you go.

So people from gay and lesbian families are not as comfortable with people of a different sex from their parents? How many of them have you asked?

This is not just for children either – it is for ourselves. By marrying someone of the opposite sex, you again invite that into your home. As a member of your home, you become comfortable around / familiar with all that goes along with the opposite sex. The comfort level around someone who is only a guest, vs. comfort level of someone who is a live-in family member…. And not just a live-in family member. For the ideal husband-wife relationship you experience / train yourself to see a loving relationship between the two sexes… so later when you are out and about at a party etc. etc. you can relate to, and understand members of the opposite sex who are there better…

Example, I am a female – as a female I am familiar with girls nights out, with chick flicks, doing hair/nails/makeup etc. etc. it is easy to strike up a conversation about things I am familiar with around another female “I LOVE your hair, who do you go to?...” etc. etc. Because I am married to a male, I am also familiar with/comfortable around males. If I did not live with a male, I might be unfamiliar with some of their quirks etc. etc., but because I have a husband, I can jump into many conversations saying “That’s so funny, my husband does the same thing…”

It makes logical sense to me, that if a union does not include a member from each of the sexes – a male and a female – you are going to lose out on a familiarity/comfort level around half of the world’s population, be it either male, or female. If you are not around males/females as much, you are not going to be as comfortable socially interacting with males/females (whichever the case may be). It’s just common sense.

And that' more important than being true to yourself, or to having real love?

Actually, idea, I'm a lesbian, and I'm extremely comfortable with men, probably more comfortable than you. I relate to them as friends, never potential partners, and we get along great. I'm bilingual that way.

But don't let reality disturb your assumptions.

Also, again – we are all created by a male and a female, and we all have the need to know both halves of ourself – I think this is true. I see a union of male/female as a union of both halves of ourself, and a window to coming to know ourselves better.

So the best way to know yourself is to live a life based on lies?

 

[Autodidact]

In the ideal situation, yes, I think having both male and female teachers, and teachers of every race/background would give children the best foundation. I understand that the idea is not always possible, but I think it best to get as close to the ideal as possible.

There is a lot of data concerning single parents, that girls in particular, if raised without a healthy father figure, seek unhealthy male attention elsewhere, and often end up pregnant as teens, and in unhealthy relashonships.

What does the same data say about daughters of lesbian parents? Any idea?

Why would you think data about children from divorced or single parents would be applicable to lesbians? Wouldn't it make more sense to, oh, I don't know, look at children raised by lesbians? Just a suggestion here.

 

[jarofthoughts]

In the ideal situation, yes, I think having both male and female teachers, and teachers of every race/background would give children the best foundation. I understand that the idea is not always possible, but I think it best to get as close to the ideal as possible.

But that would mean having to set legal quotas for who and how many can get certain jobs. Is that acceptable?

There is a lot of data concerning single parents, that girls in particular, if raised without a healthy father figure, seek unhealthy male attention elsewhere, and often end up pregnant as teens, and in unhealthy relashonships.

Perhaps, but that is not really the type of data we are looking for.
Again, these girls would often have come from broken up homes, perhaps even due to already having had an unhealthy father figure.
If we are going to make a fair comparison what we really need to do is look at adopted children and compare the groups adopted by heterosexual couples and homosexual couples in order to get to the information we really want. Otherwise we'll just be comparing apples and oranges, don't you agree?
So, do you know of any studies that fits the bill?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

more than just adoption (that having a real dad that you know and love, is better than being half "test-tube" for the moral of the child - that every child should have the right to know both halves of themself)

I think that children raised with a mother and father allows them to feel more comfortable around males and females – that in the ideal situation our mothers teach us how to interact with females, and our fathers teach us how to interact with males. (Yes, not all situations are ideal, but the ideal does exist, and it is good to aim for it.)

But you just finished telling us that same-sex adoptive parents do just as well as opposite-sex adoptive parents. If what you're arguing now is true, then wouldn't this manifest itself in the actual evidence somehow?

Consider this – that one of your parents is of nationality ___xyz_____ (fill in the blank – white, African, Chinese, Mexican,….) Obviously, because one of your parents is (xyz) you will now feel more comfortable around (xyz). You will learn things from them about the (xyz) culture/traditions/language/heritage. If it was just a friend/aunt/cousin who was (xyz) and not a parent – yes, you would become somewhat familiar with xyz’s culture etc. etc. but you would not be as comfortable around it / as knowledgeable about it as you would if one of your parents was (xyz).

Typically, if a parent is from one culture, the other relatives are as well. On one side of my family, everyone's Irish.

That being said, my father was a unique person who was not interchangeable with someone else of the same nationality. Yes, he was the product of an Irish culture, but this did not define him.

You are more than your nationality. You're more than your gender.

However, just for giggles, does your argument apply to religions as well? After all, if both parents have the same faith, then the kids won't be as comfortable with other religions. Religion can have even more an impact on a person's worldview than nationality. Does this mean that everyone should try to find a spouse of a different religion?

So you see where I am going with this,

Stereotypeville, AFAICT so far.

unfortunately we are not raised up around all cultures/languages/customs etc. etc. but there is one thing that we can be raised up with – and that is a familiarity with both males and females. The best way to become comfortable around both the male and female cultures/traditions/customs/quirks is to be raised by a male and a female parent. No matter what language/culture/country you are from, there are males and females everywhere – if you are comfortable around both sexes, you can find something in common with/something familiar with everyone everywhere you go.

Exactly what constitutes "male culture" or "female culture"?

This is not just for children either – it is for ourselves. By marrying someone of the opposite sex, you again invite that into your home. As a member of your home, you become comfortable around / familiar with all that goes along with the opposite sex. The comfort level around someone who is only a guest, vs. comfort level of someone who is a live-in family member…. And not just a live-in family member. For the ideal husband-wife relationship you experience / train yourself to see a loving relationship between the two sexes… so later when you are out and about at a party etc. etc. you can relate to, and understand members of the opposite sex who are there better…

No, you don't. You get comfortable with that other person.

I don't represent "all men", and my wife doesn't represent "all women". She's her; I'm me.

Also, as someone who married for love, I find the idea of marrying for a training tool to help avoid social awkwardness to be completely bizarre.

Example, I am a female – as a female I am familiar with girls nights out, with chick flicks, doing hair/nails/makeup etc. etc. it is easy to strike up a conversation about things I am familiar with around another female “I LOVE your hair, who do you go to?...” etc. etc.

And you think the essence of femalehood is "girls nights out", "chick flicks", and "doing hair/nails/makeup"?

For someone who claims to put so much emphasis on broadening your horizons, your point of view seems surprisingly narrow. What you describe doesn't represent womanhood as a whole. Heck... it probably excludes most of the women I know.

Because I am married to a male, I am also familiar with/comfortable around males. If I did not live with a male, I might be unfamiliar with some of their quirks etc. etc., but because I have a husband, I can jump into many conversations saying “That’s so funny, my husband does the same thing…”

Heh... I have a feeling that my wife gets "your husband's kinda weird" a lot more often than "my husband does the same thing".

It makes logical sense to me, that if a union does not include a member from each of the sexes – a male and a female – you are going to lose out on a familiarity/comfort level around half of the world’s population, be it either male, or female. If you are not around males/females as much, you are not going to be as comfortable socially interacting with males/females (whichever the case may be). It’s just common sense.

Again, your point of view seems remarkably narrow. If you really think that there's one male point of view and one female point of view, I can only assume that it's because you've been somehow sheltered from the many, many points of view of both men and women that exist in the world.

For instance, my mother is an ardent feminist. While I think she raised me well, her example to me of what it means to be a woman didn't prepare me at all for your opinions on this subject, or for the picture of womanhood you're holding up as some sort of ideal.

Also, again – we are all created by a male and a female, and we all have the need to know both halves of ourself – I think this is true. I see a union of male/female as a union of both halves of ourself, and a window to coming to know ourselves better.

Personally, I think it's great if a person can find a partner who complements them to share their life with. However, I think the argument you give is based on some sort of archetype of "maleness" and "femaleness" that was never actually correct and is now well past its sell-by date.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reading comprehension problem?

You are mistaken. What about the studies that compare children raised in homosexual and heterosexual families, idea? What do they show?

Funny you should mention that, since an article on just such a study came out today:

Teens of lesbian moms report zero-per-cent abuse rate

Adolescents raised in lesbian-headed households are less likely to endure physical or sexual abuse by a parent or caregiver, suggests a new report from a long-term U.S. study of lesbian families.

Out of 39 sons and 39 daughters of lesbian mothers, all aged 17, who completed an online questionnaire, none reported ever being physically or sexually abused by a parent or caregiver, the report says.

[...]

The report compares the zero-per-cent abuse rate in lesbian-headed households to the 26 per cent of American adolescents who report being physically abused by a parent or caregiver, and the 8.3 per cent who report sexual abuse.

Teens of lesbian moms report zero-per-cent abuse rate - Parentcentral.ca

 

[McBell]

Funny you should mention that, since an article on just such a study came out today:



Teens of lesbian moms report zero-per-cent abuse rate - Parentcentral.ca

Wonder how Idea will explain away that article....

 

[Autodidact]

Wonder how Idea will explain away that article....

I predict that idea will criticize the methodology. I can see that, but you certainly can't go around saying that the research says that heterosexual parents do better, when what research we have says the exact opposite. At least, you can't do it honestly.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So now we know there's no abuse, it's not going to cause a catastrophic event to take place in evolution, it's not hurting the economy...etc..etc...


Is there anything left?