SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I don't think it's a trivial distinction at all. He's talking about something different than I'm talking about.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage
- Thread starter gsa
- Start date
- Status
Shad
Veteran Member
I know. However both of you are making claims about what different verses as the truth. So pointing out this for one group while doing it yourself isn't convincing.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
To name but a few. It is called social conditioning, which is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society. The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and ideologies. I just did what everyone else was doing.
No, I don't actually. I believe that it is learned behavior, social conditioning. I cannot rule out that there is a possibility, slim as it maybe, that there could be genetical influences, however, if I am honest, which I am, I cannot believe that God would forbid sexual perversion and then allow the creation of homosexuals.
When I first got married I was bombard by women trying to get me into their bed, that was when I was young and good looking. I am talking about outstandingly attractive girls. It would have been easy for me to accommodate them. It was a lot harder to reject them, never-the-less, I did because that was the morally correct thing to do. I practice self control whenever the situation dictated. This situations required a great deal of self control. Self control has all but disappeared from our society because members want to do whatever they want to do, regardless as to who may be hurt. We are living in the midst of a decline in moral and social values akin to Sodom and Gomorrah. People no longer care if they hurt people as long as they get and do whatever they want.
Why, you don' know me, neither does anyone else here. Even if they did, what have I said that would be a cause for concern?
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You wrote it, so of course not.
Yes, I know, however, you still new what he meant because of what he was saying.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Yes, but you have to have a desire, an urge, even a predilection for your particular choice of gender(s). The sex just solidifies it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No, it doesn't, because even people who have never had sex know what they are attracted to and what they aren't. We aren't talking about something like movies, where I can say that because I like deeper philosophical movies I'll like whatever deep and philosophical movie comes out next, but an inert drive that needs no instruction or encouragement. Sure, some people do question and wonder, but most people don't. They don't even have to think about it.
As the sex does it and means is that you've had sex.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I mean having parents. Any parents. We’ve all handled having parents (save for the unfortunate people who never had the opportunity to have parents).
Why should they have to take having parents? Because we all do. There’s not a parent on this planet that is perfect. We don’t choose our heterosexual parents either. And it’s not like heterosexual couples have some leg up in parenting skills over anybody else. There’s no training required before people can make and raise children and there is very little skill or intelligence required to carry out the act of procreation. Yet we trust people to raise their children on their own, as they see fit (unless they’re beating or neglecting the kids and even still, many people defend the act of hitting a child; it was even considered acceptable up until a few decades ago).
And I’ve already talked about how gay parents have to go through the same stringent vetting process than any heterosexual couples have to go through when they want to adopt children. They’re not just handing out kids on street corners next to the guy who sells poppers.
There’s no reason for same sex couples not to raise children.
Study after study shows no risk to the well being of children raised by same sex couples. You are harbouring a fear that needn’t exist.
It’s not any more of a selfish act than wanting to “perpetuate your seed” is a selfish act.
I’ve yet to hear of a gay person say they want to adopt a child because “they have children so why can’t we.” I don’t know why you would assume that would be the reason gay couples would want to raise children. I think you might be assuming the reasons are selfish because you are biased against them and therefore have to look at gay people in a negative light. My cousin decided to have a child with her partner because she has always wanted to be a mother, for her entire life. Why should being gay have to take that away from her?
Except that is not the truth of it. I don’t know where you got “nearly 100% from. Oddly enough, if you look at the divorce rate among gay couples (the small amount of statistics that have been collected so far), they appear to be higher among marriages between two women than between two men. (Apparently gay women marry at higher rates than gay men do). And on average, divorce rates among heterosexual couples are far higher than that for gay couples. Let’s face it, the divorce rate has been quite high long before gay marriage was ever brought into the picture. If anybody is making a mockery of the institution of marriage, maybe it’s the heterosexuals.
I still don’t know what monogamy has to do with parenting though.
Why would you assume that gay people are talking to their kids about what they do in the bedroom? Would you consider doing that?
Another poster already pointed out that this is an example of 4 people out of tens of thousands. Attempting to generalize an entire population of people from a sample of four doesn’t make sense.
You seriously want to cite this virulently hateful article?
I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.
I don’t care what kind of sex people are having, it’s their call. I want to know what this has to do with parenting.
So you get what you want but others can’t have what they want (even if it’s the same thing) because you don’t like what people may or may not be doing in the bedroom (but only if they’re gay)? How would you feel if someone told you that you are guaranteed to be a bad parent and shouldn’t be allowed to have kids because they think your religious beliefs are harmful to children? Would that be a good reason to ban you from having kids, in your opinion?
I could point out to you the vast amount of horrors that heterosexual couples have inflicted upon their children. There would be many more than four stories, that's for sure. Is that enough to convince you that heterosexual couples shouldn't be parents?
Heterosexual couples aren’t guaranteed to be good parents. Gay couples aren’t guaranteed to be bad parents. People are people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Heterosexual couples aren’t guaranteed to raise a child without that child suffering in some way. What we do know, is that on average, there is no extra level of harm inflicted on a child raised by gay parents than there is on children raised by heterosexual parents. If you look at the studies I keep showing you, the best predictors of suffering on the child’s part results from things entirely unrelated to the sex of the parents.
Then I wonder why there are still children that need homes.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/its-not-just-syrian-children-who-need-taking-in/
Why? Are orphans something new? Somebody alert Charles Dickens.
There are millions of orphans all over the world that would probably love to have a safe and loving place to call home.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So what if they cannot procreate together? They’re not aliens. They have feelings and emotions like all other human beings.
Did you not read what I just said? All human beings share the same hormones that facilitate bonding behavior, trust and psychological stability.
My cousin also happens to be adopted. She got the opportunity to go and meet her birth parents a few years ago. We all met them. It was glaringly clear that they were her parents based on the fact that she looked exactly like them. I mean, exactly. Total biological link. She hung out with them a bunch of times, went to a few birthday parties and dinners. But you know what? She found that she felt awkward and uncomfortable around them. She was embarrassed to admit that she didn’t even like them very much. And she told me that it made her realize how much she really loved her mom and what a great relationship they have. Not her biological mom, but her adopted mom.
You may not, but I love my niece and nephew as though they were my own. I would do anything for either of them. I am also biologically linked to them.
Haven’t you ever had a friend that you loved as family?
Ah, but remember, that was only a part of the findings of the studies that have been cited on this thread. Which was that sex of the parents doesn’t play a role in how a child is going to turn out.
Nobody has to commit adultery. Artificial insemination and surrogacy are available options, besides adoption.
Well you should probably be able to sit well knowing that gay people attempting to adopt are probably going through much more intense scrutiny than straight couples are.
Well, because most people don’t have sex in front of children, first of all.
Secondly, people who are wild and promiscuous aren’t generally the types of people who want to raise children. They’re usually the types of people who get pregnant by accident and end up raising kids they weren’t interested in having in the first place. These would be heterosexual people.
And thirdly, if these people are as wild and crazy as you’re making them out to be, they wouldn’t make it through the adoption vetting process anyway.
So that’s the only reason you had children? To “perpetuate your seed?” And so you assume that’s everyone’s reason for having children?
Let’s dispel of any notion that children become gay because they were raised by someone who is gay. Studies don’t bear that out. Common sense doesn’t bear that out. So let’s get that one out of the way.
Gay people don’t make a conscious choice to be attracted to people of the same sex. They just are. I don’t know why people continue to question that apparent fact. So some children are going to realize as they grow and develop that they are gay. This could be your own child. They’re probably going to have feelings of embarrassment, of being different from others, of isolation because they have nobody to talk to about the feelings they are having, of being weird and different or an abomination (depending on what they hear at school or at church). Shielding them from the fact that gay people exist and/or teaching them they gay people are making some kind of conscious choice or are lesser human beings in some way, isn’t going to help those children. It is going to hurt them.
Where can I find this survey?
Do you believe that love, respect, dignity and compassion are good moral values?
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
In 2002, a survey in the United States showed what children believe and consider to be moral. It was a kind of moral gauge—or barometer—to see where the country stands.
It found that 30% of adults in America did not even believe in morality. Take a moment to realize what this means. Almost one in three adults does not feel that morals shape the way he thinks and makes decisions.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines morality as “a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.” Unless those surveyed do not understand the meaning of morality, one-third of Americans do not believe in a concept of right and wrong conduct.
How did this happen? Just a few decades ago would have shown completely different results. Can the blame be laid at the feet of the entertainment industry? Many will argue: “Adults can resist the pulls of television and society. They can watch televised acts of murders, sex or deceit without it affecting their moral compass.” This thinking is partially correct. The most effective way to instill wrong morals into a person is to teach him wrong morals as a child. The key is education!
For example, few suggest that people are born as racists. It is learned—developed—over many years, in an environment that drives these wrong concepts into his mind, supplanting what should have been proper and balanced concepts of racial equality.
Also, the younger a person is when wrong thoughts and concepts are introduced, the more likely he is to be open to them. Attitudes must be programmed before a concept of right and wrong solidifies. And so is the case with morality. People must be taught morals when they are young to have them transfer to adulthood. But if they are not being taught proper morals, what are they learning?
https://realtruth.org/articles/122-tie.html
I would be interested to know what they consider proof in an area where proof would be near to impossible. How do they prove life after death and what is considered proof in the first place? If a person has died, and then come back, what kind of proof would be acceptable?
What is very telling and also very Freudian in these remarks is the use of the word "IT" to refer to a person who would dare to act on a same sex attraction or that person engaging in homosexual behaviors. You devalue that person with your vitriol. You may wish to think you're unbiased or that you are all about equality but your very words tell a vastly different story. One that reeks of prejudice.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Well, no, we cannot put it to bed all the time there are significant studies like this one in progress
The Family Research Council
New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research
By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.
In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.
The Debate Over Homosexual Parents
In the larger cultural, political, and legal debates over homosexuality, one significant smaller debate has been over homosexual parents. Do children who are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in comparison to children raised in other family structures--particularly children raised by a married mother and father? This question is essential to political and ethical debates over adoption, foster care, and artificial reproductive technology, and it is highly relevant to the raging debate over same-sex "marriage." The argument that "children need a mom and a dad" is central to the defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Here is how the debate over the optimal family structure for children and the impact of homosexual parents has usually gone:
- Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, "Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage." This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies.
- Pro-homosexual activists respond, "Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents--not with homosexual parents." (This is also true--in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.)
- The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents."
- Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.
To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.
This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field.
Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parents--making it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of "self-presentation bias"--the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.
Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts.'
There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and bothwith and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
- Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
- Have lower educational attainment
- Report less safety and security in their family of origin
- Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
- Are more likely to suffer from depression
- Have been arrested more often
- If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
Now to wait for the "Yeah buts", the pouting and whining, the "goal post shiftings", the justifications, excuses and subjective reasoning, the accusation of outdated data, the discrediting of the article, the author and the site owners,
Last edited:
I hear what you are saying but it is a physiological impossibility. The body stops working and there is no physiological or chemical or neuronal activity after roughly ten minutes at the most. Now, there are cases of drowning in very cold water where a person can be brought back but those are exceptions. As for body energy, that one is highly contested. There has been on evidence to prove or disprove an energy that would live on after death.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Yes, I would have to agree with you. As a Christian I believe that our spirit continues to live, you know, that person that is you and live in your chest, your consciousness. I just cannot see any way that you could prove it, but the study got funding, so whatever it was must have been convincing to someone.
There was once a study in Cardiff University, into an electrostatic discharge that nurses had reported at the point of death and an average wieght loss of 21g. The proved it to be true but had no explanation as to why.
rosends
Well-Known Member
English teacher moment (I haven't been reading the thread much):
In the original statement, the wording was "Can a person having same-sex attraction lead them to commit homosexual acts?"
and the response was "Yes it can"
The problem is in the missing 's before the gerund. It should read "Can a person's action of having a same-sex attraction lead them" [ignoring the number mismatch between "person" and "them"].
Then the response "Yes IT can" becomes clearer as the gender indefinite pronoun "IT" replaces "action of having..." not the individual, and actions are represented without gender.
There are plenty of reasons for people to criticize each other. In this case, a subtle grammatical error shouldn't be one of them.
Shad
Veteran Member
Arguments from a man that failed to convince the court system and has zero education in any relevant field. Very convincing....
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Not only has my father been cremated, but his ashes have been strewn about all across Canada. I wonder what happens to him?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Can you find the actual study, rather than a link to somebody who mentioned the study without actually citing it?
What does he mean when he says people "did not even believe in morality?"
I would suggest that in the future, when you want to criticize and dismiss other peoples' sources (peer-reviewed papers, academic sites and scientific organization) please remember that they are much more credible than something like what you provided here which has completely lacking in reference material of any kind.
And this is the crux of the problem. You are right to say that a God who hates homosexual acts would not create homosexuals. That would be unfair. I would have a cognitive dissonance myself if I believed in that stuff. So, your conclusion is that homosexuals and, by extension, heterosexuals chose their orientation. They could have chosen the other side, if they wanted.
I believe that conclusion does not pass even the most basic tests. We, or at least most of us, have no choice in deciding for which sex we are attracted. If I want to pick up a man and land in a bar full of women, there is no way I might contemplating going to bed with a woman, instead. I was never attracted by women, even though I can say if a woman is beautiful or not, i fell in love with S. Connery while I was still playing with Barbies and did not know anything about these things. How can falling in love be a choice? Did you choose to fall in love with a woman?
Isn't more rational to accept this obvious fact and that a God that hates homosexual acts is just a figment of your imagination or just a projection of your own personal distaste for gays sexual acts?
No concern. But please accept the possibility tha people in general do not choose their sexual orientation because of social convention and your peculiar case is not generalizable to the whole population.
By the way, it is also a ridiculous defense. People get killed for being homosexuals, even today. That is a hell of enforced social convention. So, why do they risk their lives if it so easy to swap?
Ciao
- viole
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
And from an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Centre considers a hate group, no less.
I'm sure there's no bias there though.
- Status