Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Ingledsva]

*sigh*

Alright, since you won't listen/read/process what I have said, why don't you do some talking.

What point are you trying to make?

I've already made the point.

Re-read my posts to you.

*

 

[fantome profane]

That is all very interesting, can you post the link so I can have a read of it, only I am told that it is the blood that is toxic

No, decomposing blood is nowhere nearly as toxic as embalming fluid. If you have any evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

But I agree with you about cremation, it is not the the environmentally green way to go about dealing with human remains either. The process of cremation releases carbon dioxide along with numerous toxins into the environment. If environment concerns play a part in your decisions about death rituals (and I think they should) then consider a green funeral without embalming and being buried in a biodegradable coffin. Embalming is not necessary, it started as a vanity thing for political dignitaries and caught on. Those who tell you it is necessary are lying to make money.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I agree with you about cremation, it is not the the environmentally green way to go about dealing with human remains either. The process of cremation releases carbon dioxide along with numerous toxins into the environment. If environment concerns play a part in your decisions about death rituals (and I think they should) then consider a green funeral without embalming and being buried in a biodegradable coffin. Embalming is not necessary, it started as a vanity thing for political dignitaries and caught on. Those who tell you it is necessary are lying to make money.

Have you heard of the mushroom suit?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/2...egradable-urns-and-deaths-green-frontier.html
So, to start the process of un-freaking people out, she created what she calls the Infinity Burial Suit. It’s a $1,500 outfit that incorporates mushrooms meant to break down a human corpse, cleanse it of toxins and distribute nutrients back into the soil.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, decomposing blood is nowhere nearly as toxic as embalming fluid. If you have any evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

But I agree with you about cremation, it is not the the environmentally green way to go about dealing with human remains either. The process of cremation releases carbon dioxide along with numerous toxins into the environment. If environment concerns play a part in your decisions about death rituals (and I think they should) then consider a green funeral without embalming and being buried in a biodegradable coffin. Embalming is not necessary, it started as a vanity thing for political dignitaries and caught on. Those who tell you it is necessary are lying to make money.

Cremation might be the greenest option here in Americastan.
To just bury a body on private property is fraught with legal difficulties, perhaps with long term real estate repercussions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

.
Whether you found it yourself or someone else found it is irrelevant because you used it to discredit him because he said things that disagreed with you. Your intentions were to discredit him and thus his argument. It is ad hominem.

No, it's not ad hominem to point out that somebody who has no credentials in the relevant field if they indeed do not have credentials in the relevant fields of study. That is stating a fact. We didn't call him a doody head or something.

.
Yes, sure. It shows the mans ability to comprehend new concepts, to learn and retain new knowledge, to reason objectively, to be able to use both deductive and inductive reasoning, the divinity gives him compassion and understanding to empathize with others, but the most important qualification that he has is 25 years experience with The Family Research Council, which should tell you that he knows what he is talking about, only it will not because it means that you will have to admit that you were wrong.

What it doesn't show, is that he has gone through the proper training to obtain the proper skill sets required to collect and analyze data and/or carry out proper scientific studies. The Family Research Group is a conservative Christian lobbying group who doesn't have any credentials in the relevant fields of study either. They're also an anti-gay hate group.

 

[Prestor John]

I got to say before I start – This is turning into a good discussion. Thank you.

Regardless of your choice to wait until marriage, you were still a heterosexual male before intercourse.

Even though you are correct in your assertion that I was attracted to the opposite sex before I became married, this is a huge thing to assume.

There are many people in the world who struggle with same-sex attraction, yet still get married to members of the opposite sex and have sex with only their spouses. They live sexually satisfied and happy lives.

They do this because they believe in what God has taught to Man. They do not believe that their personal preferences can or should change the Lord’s or His Church’s stance on this issue.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes to be the Restored Church of Jesus Christ in these last times and the only completely true Church upon the Earth.

The LDS Church teaches that God does not judge people for their predisposed desires, but on what they do.

The LDS Church teaches that the Lord will not judge someone to be a thief unless they have actually taken something that does not belong to them.

A person should not be labeled a “rapist” if they never forced or coerced anyone to commit sexual acts with them. Even if a person had a great desire to force someone to do those things, they cannot be labeled a rapist until they actually act on that desire.

A person should not be labeled a “murderer” if they have never killed anyone. Even if they walked through life with a great desire to kill someone, they should not be considered a “murderer” until they actually commit the act.

It is very relevant. He didn't choose his attractions, but because of societal pressure he chose to do something against his nature.

I agree that he did not choose his attractions, but just because he has an attraction that does not mean that homosexual activity is “natural”.

Not all attraction is “good”. Not all “natural” things are “good” things.

There have been a lot of people who have done horrible things and when they were asked why they did it they said, “It felt good.”

What “feels good” varies from person to person. Just because doing something might “feel good” to someone, that does not necessarily make what they are doing morally acceptable.

You and I are just applying our own bias to our interpretation of the term “homosexual” or “homosexuality”.

You feel that someone’s predisposed attraction makes them a homosexual while I and the LDS Church believe that a person performing homosexual acts is what makes them a homosexual.

The LDS Church is not willing to label, or brand, someone a thief unless they steal, a murderer unless they commit murder or a homosexual until they act on their predisposed same-sex attraction.

It's somewhat on par with my making a choice to the "life of the party." Sure, I can choose to do that, but since I have Asperger's Syndrome it is very much so against my nature and it would make me extremely uncomfortable and I'd have to go home, lock the doors, and have a day or two of total isolation while I recover from the harrowing experience. It would impact me in such a way that I probably wouldn't even want the company of a close friend that I am comfortable around. And even though I chose to do it, the act would not make me an extrovert, and I would still very much so be very introverted.

My three year old son has severe autism. I can relate somewhat.

Since his diagnosis we have had to learn a lot about how he works and techniques that have helped other children with his condition. We have seen a lot of progress. He now looks me in the eye. He can perform specific tasks. It’s been hard, but we are seeing improvement because we keep working at it.

This is one reason why I don’t like labeling people homosexual just because they have a same-sex attraction. It convinces a person that instead of struggling against and overcoming this issue to instead accept and succumb to the weakness. There is a “community” that will justify their sin and excuse their inappropriate behavior.

However, if the person who suffers from same-sex attraction were to learn more about the Lord and how He works and why he/she received this weakness, they can overcome it with time.

Your Asperger’s affliction may cause you to be uncomfortable at times, however you still have a choice to be that “life of the party” if you wanted. Would it be easy? Heck no. Would it get easier if you applied your time and effort to being that “life of the party”? Yes, if you go about it the right way.

This is one of the reasons why I do not agree with your friend’s decision to try to have sex with a woman. What was he hoping to accomplish? When has committing one sin ever helped you overcome another? You don’t drink a beer every time you want a cigarette to try to quit smoking. One vice for another?

Heterosexual sex or heterosexual marriage are not cures to homosexuality, because this is a spiritual issue and should be spiritually handled. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

No, but we are sexual beings whose very body makeup and chemistry makes us crave and want sex.

If we are talking about biology and chemistry, then homosexuality is rather anomalous, because these sexual drives were instilled into us as a means to propagate our species.

It’s as if everyone were “gun nuts” firing at the “bad guys”, yet homosexuals are firing off to the side, being entirely ineffective. Just wasting their ammunition.

A general rule of thumb to follow, as it covers all but anyone's given preference of sexual morals, is just keep it consensual. Some people would consider me depraved, perverted, and disturbed because I get a huge sexual charge out pain, but as long as I consent to someone shocking me, leaving teeth or nail marks, or even drawing blood, what does it matter to anyone? What does it matter to anyone is someone has sex with someone of the same or opposite sex?

It matters to us because it matters to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I believe that because He loved everyone so much, He was willing to suffer the worst pain our universe had to offer, so that we could be saved from our sins and return to live with our Father in Heaven again.

Jesus Christ loves you. He loves me. I love you because He loved you first. How could I not?

I believe that there is a plan that God has for us. God sent His Son to show us how we can live according to that plan.

I believe that before this world was formed you and I lived together with our Father as spiritual siblings. As we prepared to enter into this world, the family of God promised one to another that we would help each other pass this test so that we would return once again.

I don’t know much about you or what decisions you have made in this life, but I promise you as a son of God and your spiritual brother in Christ that you cannot obtain happiness in this life unless you live as close to the pattern that our Lord set up as you can.

You will not find joy in any sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant. You may find bodily pleasures for a time, but that time is fleeting and after it passes you will not be filled. You will want more. Need more. But whatever you do, it will not satisfy.

The time will come as you mature and grow that you will realize that as you make the decisions that your Father in Heaven would have you make, you will find happiness.

Performing homosexual acts is contrary to the plan that God has for us, His children. It will not bring joy in the long run. It will lead to sorrow and anguish of the soul. It cannot fulfill our needs as spiritual children of God. It hurts us.

The decisions we make in this life matter. They can lead us to eternal bliss with our Father or endless sorrow outside of His kingdom. It matters to me because I will love them. All of them. Even in their sins I will love them. I will remember them from a time that we do not now know. A time when we rejoiced together as children of God.

At the end of this life we will all remember one another as we were and then see each other for what we have become. This will cause joy and sorrow.

It would make you a zoophiliac, as that is the attraction and bestiality is the act.

There is a difference, right?

Is every person who has zoophilia destined to have sex with animals? Do they have no choice in the matter? Can they not struggle against that attraction and overcome it? Is it not possible?

 

[Prestor John]

I've already made the point.

Re-read my posts to you.

*

What does your point have to do with the LDS Church though when you consider that they have other books of scripture and current Apostles and Prophet?

 

[Ingledsva]

What does your point have to do with the LDS Church though when you consider that they have other books of scripture and current Apostles and Prophet?

The other books have nothing to do with our discussion.

I asked you to provide proof of what you have said - by providing verses from those other books. You have not done so, - and I will assume that is because you can't find any.

I have not said the Bible is the only source.

I said the LDS sites only quote the Bible as their source for the topic we are discussing.

*

 

[Prestor John]

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.

Thanks anyways. I even addressed the issue and apologized. It was a no-go.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is in response to post #1810.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I got side-tracked by what other members have said.

Looking back, I don’t feel that their comments were worth responding to, but “Oh well”.

No worries.

I did the same thing you did, and looking back I feel the same way you do.

Sweet.

You can feel free to start a conversation with me about your concerns. I think that’d be fun and edifying.

I agree and I will do that from now on, if you’re into it.

I do not believe that anything we do can be “sinless” in this life. I believe that only the mortal life of Lord Jesus Christ was and will be the only sinless life lived in this world.

In terms of sexual sin, God wants His children to only have sexual relations within the bounds of marriage. According to God, marriage is only between a man and a woman.

However, there are still ways for even husbands and wives to commit sexual sin.

Like all types of sin, sexual sin varies in degrees of seriousness. Having a “naughty” thought about someone other than your spouse is not as severe as abusing yourself sexually (masturbation), yet both are still sinful.

The Lord Jesus Christ has taught Man what the “ideal” is and we are just trying to live as closely resembling that ideal as best we can.

The further we stray from that ideal, they more serious our sin.

I’m curious how you know that masturbation is a worse sin that having a “naughty” thought about a person who is not your spouse.

And I’m a bit confused as to how Jesus Christ has taught us what the ideal is, in terms of marriage since he never did marry (right?). If we were to try to be like him, it doesn’t seem like marriage would be on the list of things to do.

Yes, both are sinful.

The Lord wants us to use the procreative powers that He has given us. He has not, however, demanded that precreation be our only goal in mind.

What if we don’t have procreative powers though? Then what becomes of us? Does god also want us to be happy in life, even if the same things that make one person happy isn’t necessarily the same thing that makes somebody else happy? Why are we all so different if we’re all supposed to want the same things?

God created everything. He is the Creator. Creation is an eternal characteristic of God. Yet, He does not only create. He also rejoices in the bounty of His creations. He cherishes them and nurtures them.

Our sexual relationship with our spouses should not be only about procreation. We should also experience them in such a way that both partners rejoice with, cherish and nurture one another.

Okay, that sounds good.

A sexless heterosexual marriage is sinful. (Exempting disability or health concerns of course) The Lord gave marriage to Man so that men and women can eventually become perfect. They do this by – melding – one toward another. The man receives from his woman that which he lacks. The woman also receives what she lacks from her man. Both of their weaknesses should be overcome and made into strengths when they are together. This should be spiritual as well as physical. They become one flesh.

What becomes of people with disabilities then, who can’t engage in intercourse with their partner? Are they then not able to meld?

A huge part of this process of molding and reflecting one another is in child rearing. You learn a lot about yourself and your spouse during those years and parenting.

I wouldn’t take issue with this. Most parents I talk to say that the hardest part of their marriage occurred during the first years after having a baby.

So, two people forming a relationship is a part of God’s plan, yet two members of the same-sex doing this does not conform to the ideal and you go even further away from the ideal by including sexual relations between those of the same-sex.

I guess I just don’t see why two people of the same sex can’t meld and reflect and become one together in the way you describe.

I mean, just as an anecdotal example, I watched my cousin struggle for years, dating a bunch of different guys, trying to build a life with them but never being able to find happiness with any of them. All she ever wanted was to get married and raise a family. Then she met a woman, fell deeply in love, married her, bought a house with her, had a daughter that her partner adopted and now she’s happier than I’ve ever seen her in all her 36 years. I have a hard time thinking there is something wrong with that.

I mentioned this briefly in in post #1741. I said,

“God has given to each person, male and female, the ability to Create life. This is a divine characteristic for God Himself is the grand Creator.

I understand that not everyone is blessed with this ability in this mortal life. God decided to deny certain people this ability in this life for a number of reasons which are His own, but that does not change the fact that it is both a divine and also eternal characteristic. Those who cannot procreate in this life will not be denied that blessing in the next life if they remain worthy to receive it.”

All of us lived with God as spirits before we came to this world. He raised us and taught us and this is how He came to know us so well. Even though we were all raised by the same perfect parents, we were all different. We responded to everything differently. We all progressed differently.

When the time came for us to embark on our mortal test, God had prepared each of our mortal lives in accordance with where we were in terms of our progression. He gave us all strengths and weaknesses geared toward realizing our potential.

The hurdles we face in our lives were specifically placed there to test us. Many of our circumstances in this life were placed according to how we faired in the life before this one. Each struggle was designed to help us develop what we lack in order to be perfect.

For some reason the Lord decided that certain people would not become parents in this life. This could be for many reasons, yet I personally feel it is because either because they had already learned whatever it was they would have learned from having children in this life from the life before. Either that or perhaps they would gain more in this life with that loss. Maybe they were meant to mourn with those that mourn?

The Lord has promised those that could not conceive in this life that if they remain faithful and worthy of it, they will have children in the life to come.

I wonder what god thinks about artificial insemination or adoption then?

That all depends on what they are doing. If a person does not want to find an eternal mate, for whatever reason, then yes, that could be sinful. This mentality usually leads to other sin as well, such as issues of chastity

However, for those who do not find a mate in this life through no fault of their own, they commit no sin and they are promised to have the opportunity to find a mate after this life as long as they remain worthy to receive it.

.

What about those who willingly choose not to find a mate, like a priest, or something?

I don’t know if these responses were worth the wait, but if you have any further questions or if you want to bring up any of those “issues” you mentioned before, go ahead and start up a private chat.

I just wouldn’t want to discuss your real questions on this thread. You seem to be one of the only sincere members responding to this thread.

I really appreciate that. I’m really trying to understand this from your point of view, and at least in your responses to me (honestly, I haven’t really read the back-and-forths between you and other posters so I couldn’t really speak to that) I feel like you have presented your view to me in a way that I can try to understand it. And while I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of what you have to say, I can at least get a feel of where you’re coming from.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children."


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

https://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research


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,

One single study doesn't top every other study (looks like it's around 59) that don't support the findings of the single study.


Regnerus' methodology in that study appears to be flawed. He tried to compare family structures but when it came to defining same-sex family structures, he instead focused on same-sex relationships, regardless of the family structure.


So he surveyed 3,000 out of the 15,000 person sample size, and asked only the 3,000 people if one of their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship. If they respondent answered “yes” to that question, then Regnerus considered the father “gay” or the mother a “lesbian.” Out of those, he decided that 163 of them were “lesbian mothers” and 73 of them were “gay fathers,” but of those, he only found 2 cases where the “lesbian mothers” and their partners were together for 18 years, 6 cases where the “lesbian mother” and her partner were together for 10+ years, and 18 cases where the “lesbian mother” and her partner were together for 5+ years. The majority of respondents answered that they had lived with their “lesbian mother” and her partner for less than a year, or not at all. The respondents of the “gay father” group rarely reported living with their “gay father” for very long or living with their “gay father” and his partner for more than 3 years. So all of these people were thrown into the same group, despite the vast differences between them.


So Regnerus inaccurately referred to these groups where the parents had broken up and one of the parents had been involved in a same-sex relationship at some point, as “same-sex parents.” Then he compared them to people whose opposite sex parents had been together for at least 18 years. The apparent fact that those children fared better is obviously the result of their growing up in a more stable environment than those whose parents did not stay together, rather than having anything to do with two same-sex parents. Most studies (including the ones I cited) will point out that children brought up in stable family structures, regardless of the sex of the parents will fare better than children raised in broken family structures.


Apparently the American Sociological Association has characterized the study as “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.”


http://www.utexas.edu/cola/sociology/news/article.php?id=7572


So no, this study doesn't "top all previous research" on the subject.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Southern Poverty Law Centre. Founded in 1971, is a non-profit organization that combats hate, intolerance and discrimination through education and litigation. Located in Montgomery

They are pro-gay. This is what Wikipedia says about them. The SPLC also classifies and lists hate groups—organizations that in its opinion "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."The SPLC's hate group list has been the source of some controversy. The SPLC has been criticized by conservative politicians and media, by organizations that have been listed as hate groups in their reports, and by some left-leaning commentators.

They say that this is how they define hate groups. "It says that hate group activities may include speeches, marches, rallies, meetings, publishing, leafleting, and criminal acts such as violence." That makes the gay movement a hate group. All of these characteristics can be found at a gay rally and at their offices.

The SPLC's identifications and listings of hate groups have been the subject of controversy, with critics, including journalistKen Silverstein and political fringe movements researcher Laird Wilcox arguing that the SPLC has taken an incautious approach to assigning the label. In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council in which a guard was wounded, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group.



As I Said: 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,

The very next line:

"The SPLC defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups, stating that groups were selected not because of their stances on political issues such as gay marriage, but rather on their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people ... that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities."

 

[Serenity7855]

No, it's not ad hominem to point out that somebody who has no credentials in the relevant field if they indeed do not have credentials in the relevant fields of study. That is stating a fact. We didn't call him a doody head or something.

But that is not the case here because he didn't write the actual paper so he does not need to fulfil your insistence for relevant field of study, after all, the article was his opinion. It is just another case of discrediting the person in the hope that you can discredit his argument. That is dishonest, and to make it even worse, you tried to discredit the wrong person, Peter Sprigg, you ignored his 25 years experience in this field. Experience that any one who writes paper would know is far better then any degree. Instead of Professor Mark Daniel Regnerus, a sociologist at the Texas University in Austin, who is more than qualified to write a peer reviewed paper on the adverse effect on children raised in a same sex home.

What it doesn't show, is that he has gone through the proper training to obtain the proper skill sets required to collect and analyze data and/or carry out proper scientific studies.

And there goes that goal post, not a mention about this being a necessary requirement until you found yourself in a corner. Equally, it does not show that he hasn't either, however, if you would have looked you would have found that Mark has also written several short essays about data collection on same-sex couples.

The Family Research Group is a conservative Christian lobbying group who doesn't have any credentials in the relevant fields of study either. They're also an anti-gay hate group.

What difference does it make that The Family Research Group are a conservative Christian lobbying group. They merely wrote an article about it that is no more than an opinion. The person who wrote the paper is Professor Mark Daniel Regnerus, a sociologist at the Texas University in Austin, who has more then enough qualifications to to competently write this paper, that Peter Sprigg thought was exceptionally accurate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are many people in the world who struggle with same-sex attraction, yet still get married to members of the opposite sex and have sex with only their spouses. They live sexually satisfied and happy lives.

That would make them bisexual, not heterosexual or homosexual.

I agree that he did not choose his attractions, but just because he has an attraction that does not mean that homosexual activity is “natural”.

For him, it is. It's a part of who he is.

This is one of the reasons why I do not agree with your friend’s decision to try to have sex with a woman. What was he hoping to accomplish? When has committing one sin ever helped you overcome another? You don’t drink a beer every time you want a cigarette to try to quit smoking. One vice for another?

For one, it he doesn't believe in sin. It's entirely and utterly irrelevant to him. Second, it's because the struggles are not against same-sex attractions, but from a society that finds them to be either an "lesser" state of manhood for men and over-hypersexualized for women, and both are rejected and considered an abomination. What he was trying to accomplish was to not make himself happy or comfortable with himself, but making others happy and comfortable. And it didn't work.

This is one reason why I don’t like labeling people homosexual just because they have a same-sex attraction. It convinces a person that instead of struggling against and overcoming this issue to instead accept and succumb to the weakness. There is a “community” that will justify their sin and excuse their inappropriate behavior.

What about it is a weakness? I really don't like the labels either, because to me they are archaic, obsolete, and meaningless. If it's of legal age and consensual, why even bother getting so worked up over it that we need labels? Why can't it just be sex?

However, if the person who suffers from same-sex attraction were to learn more about the Lord and how He works and why he/she received this weakness, they can overcome it with time.

Who said they suffer with having same-sex attractions? That is quiet a projection and assumption to make.

Your Asperger’s affliction may cause you to be uncomfortable at times, however you still have a choice to be that “life of the party” if you wanted. Would it be easy? Heck no. Would it get easier if you applied your time and effort to being that “life of the party”? Yes, if you go about it the right way.

I can choose to do so, but it doesn't mean that I'll be comfortable with it, or even desire, or be as skilled with it as someone who is naturally very extroverted. It's just who I am. And the point was that doing the act wouldn't change who I am. I would still be the introverted high-functioning autistic girl who sometimes would prefer the company of a book than a person, and no more than a few people at a time when I do feel like socializing. That will never change, and it would do me no good to try to pretend to be someone I'm not.

If we are talking about biology and chemistry, then homosexuality is rather anomalous, because these sexual drives were instilled into us as a means to propagate our species.

And for pleasure and bonding. Propagation is not the sole reason we have sex.

It matters to us because it matters to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

That is entirely irrelevant to those who do not believe in such a thing. You can believe as you will, but you shouldn't project your beliefs onto others or expect them to adhere to your beliefs.

I don’t know much about you or what decisions you have made in this life, but I promise you as a son of God and your spiritual brother in Christ that you cannot obtain happiness in this life unless you live as close to the pattern that our Lord set up as you can.

I am not a "son" of god, and what makes you so certain I can't find happiness in this life without your god? I can most certainly say I'm much happier overall since I left the Church. No, things aren't perfect, but even having major depression I still find much joy, beauty, and happiness in the world.

The time will come as you mature and grow that you will realize that as you make the decisions that your Father in Heaven would have you make, you will find happiness.

But yet I've found happiness by leaving the Church, by abandoning the beliefs of my parents, and finding my own way in life.

At the end of this life we will all remember one another as we were and then see each other for what we have become. This will cause joy and sorrow.

And I can say that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Some of us seek unity with this oneness, some of us like it here and want to return. A spiral of life and death, joy and sorrow.

 

[Serenity7855]

The very next line:

"The SPLC defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups, stating that groups were selected not because of their stances on political issues such as gay marriage, but rather on their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people ... that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities."

Again, so what, they didn't write the paper The person who wrote the paper is Professor Mark Daniel Regnerus, a sociologist at the Texas University in Austin, So you can stop throwing dirt at poor old Peter Sprigg. however, you would expect the SPLC to say that they are an anti-gay hate groups when they are pro-gay, the same as you using unethical methods to discredit anyone whose opinion differs from yours, you to are pro-gay

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said "Having parents isn’t a burden that children can’t handle." I naturally thought that heterosexual parenting cannot be considered a burden because it is natural union, whereas, homosexual parents are not, so, they are more likely to be the burden to the childs well being. But my retort still applies, "Some may well be able to take it but why should they have to."

Why should they have to? Because it beats not having any parents. Because it beats not having a stabile and safe home to live in.

Every parent on this planet is perfect to their children.

Not the ones who neglect or beat their children.

And at some point in most peoples’ lives, I think there’s a point when we realize our parents are just people, with the same flaws that everybody else has, just trying to do their best.

Nobody is perfect. So there are no perfect parents.

The one common denominator is that we don’t get to choose our parents.

I said "Some may well be able to take it, but why should they have to? "It sounds a bit better in context. It was in response to your statement "Having parents isn’t a burden that children can’t handle.", therefore, it is clear that you are referring to parents that are a burden and I am saying that they shouldn't have to put up with parents that are a burden.

You’re asserting that gay parents are a burden on a child.

Well if experience counts as a leg up I would argue that they do.

First time parents don’t have any experience. But if you’re talking about experience in taking care of kids or babysitting or something, anybody can have that experience, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

Heterosexual people don’t have a leg up on parenting skills just by virtue of being heterosexual.

Women, in the UK, who are having their first baby, attend a mother and baby learning class close to the end of their pregnancy.

Again, in the UK midwives visit the new mum, every day at first. They then attend regularly each week for several weeks after. They stop when they consider that mum and baby are OK.

They do that here in Canada do. My cousin had a nurse come to her house after she gave birth to her child as well. But that’s not the same thing as attending parenting classes or reading a pile of parenting books or something. They’re just making sure you can provide for the baby’s basic needs.

But you didn’t pay attention to what I said. I said it doesn’t take any skill to carry out the act of procreation (i.e. it doesn’t take any special skills to have sex and make a baby). Anybody can do it.

No, but they are allowing same sex couple to adopt, and how can we be sure that they pass any these stringent test on their own merit, it is not unusual for gas to bend the rules to help another gay, maybe the adoption agency are frightened of refusing an adoption through fear of repercussions.

How can we be sure they pass the same tests as anybody else? What reason do you have to believe they are not held to the same standards as anyone else? Fear of repercussions? Come on.

Well that is your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled to.

Yes, and it’s an opinion that is backed by the evidence.

There are many issues that should make adoption a taboo for same sex couples.

Like poppers and fisting? Come on.

I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.

Well, according to a recent study there is plenty of reasons. Apparently children who are raised in a same sex home do not do as well as those who are raised in a heterosexual home. As the recent study states. This is what that study says about the studies you refer to. "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.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.

I’ve addressed this recent study in another post. Why you think it trumps the other 59 studies indicating the opposite, I don’t know. Aside from confirmation bias, I can’t come up with anything.

Perpetuating our seed is far from a selfish act. Indeed, it is quite the opposite to dedicate your life to nurturing and caring for children to insure that the planet is replenished, as well as bring the spirits to earth to be tried and tested.

It sounds pretty selfish to me. Though to be fair, I haven’t heard many people say that the reason they want to have children is to “perpetuate their seed.”

I just told you that my cousin always wanted to nurture and care for children and you told me that was a selfish reason to have children.

So, because you haven't heard it then they don't say it, right? "Then you live a sheltered life. Be patient, it will come. There was a program on TV, just a couple of weeks back, on which gays were demanding the same rights as straight people in raising children.

They should be given the same rights as straight people in raising children. That doesn’t mean the only reason they want to have children of their own is because they want to be like straight people. They’re just saying that discrimination is unfair and unwarranted.

Well, that is simply not true. You are speculating incorrectl, I am saying it because that is my impression and experience with them, spoilt, neurotic and selfless. They wanted the right to be married and when they got it they rarely have monogamous relationships.

It’s not true that you’re biased against gay people? Well, you could have fooled me.

To say that an entire group of people is “spoilt, neurotic and selfless” (I think you meant “selfish?”), is folly. Generalizing is folly. Maybe you’re the one who needs to get out more. Gay people are just people. They don’t all act the same any more than all straight people act the same way. Or white people. Or black people.

Because she is involving another human being in her bucket list. That put a completely different perspective on it. When you involve another life in your lifestyle then the child and their welfare comes first. Any chance that the child might suffer as a result of being raised properly is too much. Homosexuality is not a part of our societies norm. If it were a norm than why has it only really surfaced since the 1960s and Woodstock.

Bucket list? So having a child is nothing more than a tick mark on a bucket list if a gay person wants to have a child? What makes you think a gay parent wouldn’t put their child’s welfare first and foremost, as any good parent would do?

Homosexuality is a part of our society’s norm. Like it or not.

Homosexual researchers Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen found that “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples.”

In fact, another study concluded that 43 percent of male homosexuals have more than 500 partners in their lifetime. A smaller percentage had over 1000. Thus, the wonderful same-sex “family” image we are fed is largely a myth.

The only place I can seem to find the quotes you’ve provided are on conservative anti-gay sites. Do you have a better reference for me? Is this a study of married gay people?

I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.

I don't know why you keep using straw men to prove a point. You continually tell me every time that I make a point about gays that is negative, what heterosexuals do and how much worse they are than homosexuals are. The effect that you hope for is that you will take me away from the discussion to defend heterosexuals without debating the point that I raised in the first place. If heterosexuals are worse then homosexuals in sustaining their marriage then so what. You are just showing that marriages are not stable for anybody. The actual point is that gay couples have higher rates of failed marriages, not whether they are higher or lower then heterosexuals. It is not a competiton.

You didn’t give me any numbers having to do with gay marriage at all. You’d think if you were going to assert things about the data, you’d want to check out that data first. They don’t show that gay couples have higher rates of failed marriages than straight couples. And yet you continue to assert that here. There is no straw man here, I was responding directly to your point.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199705/lessons-gay-marriage

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...partnership-as-divorces-up-by-20-8866454.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

Stability for the children instead of confusion.

And those are connected … how?

I have not said that they do. Where did that come from

How else would they know what kind of sex their parents are having?

So, you think that because two posters have said it that it must be true.

Um no. It’s true because you gave an example of 4 people out of tens of thousands, then tried to say that was the norm. That’s why.

We can easily settle that theory. You are both wrong. Plus, you must think that I am still wet behind the ears. You are saying that these four are the only ones who have had these experiences when you say that only "4 people out of tens of thousands." Where did you get those statistics from, only I took it for granted that there is far more then that, if there is 4 then there could be 8, 16, 24, a 1000, and so on. I am sorry, but that is naivety and disingenuous.

Maybe then, you should provide something to indicate that this type of thing occurs in thousands of same-sex marriage homes. Make your case. You can’t make assumptions based on 4 people.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/smr08/2015/smr08_203_2015

https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-families-australia/diversity-australian-same-sex-parented-families

Yes, because this guy is being genuine by expressing his opinion. You may call that virulent, however, you are pro-gay so you will excuse it in an way you can. It ties in nicely with your assertion that they are people who spread hate.

I stand by my assertion that it’s virulently hateful. He refers to human beings as “sodomites.” I will not excuse the demonization of human beings. You’re right about that.

That is because he is expressing his own personal opinion and not writing a scientific paper. People tend not to post lies. Why waste time and effort to write lies? What is odd is that you expected it from a article.

Why are you sharing some random guy’s hateful personal opinion with me then?

People don’t tend to post lies? Lots of people do just that. Sometimes it’s done to make an argument look stronger than it otherwise would be. Sometimes it’s due to confirmation bias. And some people are just liars. I haven't said he's lying though. Just wrong.

Why did you cite this article?

Not if it means that innocent children are going to suffer in the process. It is not the same thing. We have been raising children for thousands of years as mum and dads. Why do you deem something that has been with us, for a relatively short time as the same. If you said that a couple of decades ago people would think you are weird.

Innocent children are not suffering in the process. That’s the thing you can’t seem to see.

Gay people are just people like anyone else. There’s no reason to think they can’t raise children just because they’re attracted to members of the same sex.

Parenting has not been the same for thousands of years. In fact, it used to be a lot more communal. Even gay people apparently have played a role.

Slavery has been with us for centuries, but that doesn’t mean it’s optimal. For most of human history women were viewed as property, but that doesn’t mean it’s ideal. The tradition argument doesn’t amount to much to me.

I don't believe that it is normal and I know it is a sin, however, you are wrong in saying "I don't like it" when I am completely indifferent to it. You seem to think that you either love or hate homosexuals, with no gray scale in between. It is not a part of my conditioning. My world did not have this idea that homosexuality is normal. It was considered as disgusting and a unnatural.

You are clearly not completely indifferent to it. Quite the opposite, I’d say.

You are making me a straw man again, but worse then that you are making accusations that are untrue.

“You are making accusations that are untrue.” Thank you for demonstrating how you feel about it, if the tables were turned on you.

No one is saying that homosexuals are guaranteed to be a bad parent and shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.

You seem to be saying exactly that!

What is being said is that their is a higher risk of the children being psychologically damaged and victimised when raised by same sex couples, so, for the sake of the children, leave it as it has always been, exclusive to heterosexuals. We know that it works, 7.4 billion members of the human race confirms it.

There is nothing that backs up such a claim, save for your personal opinion.

 

[Serenity7855]

One single study doesn't top every other study (looks like it's around 59) that don't support the findings of the single study.

Why doesn't it? If it is based on fact, which it is, then one is all that is needed

Regnerus' methodology in that study appears to be flawed. He tried to compare family structures but when it came to defining same-sex family structures, he instead focused on same-sex relationships, regardless of the family structure.

Right after his study was published, Regnerus defended his research and said he had no position on same-sex marriage or LGBT parenting. he defended – the methodological flaws of his study, arguing he did compare apples to oranges but only because same-sex relationships are inherently unstable, implying it would be impossible to find enough stably couples same-sex couple parents.

So he surveyed 3,000 out of the 15,000 person sample size, and asked only the 3,000 people if one of their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship. If they respondent answered “yes” to that question, then Regnerus considered the father “gay” or the mother a “lesbian.” Out of those, he decided that 163 of them were “lesbian mothers” and 73 of them were “gay fathers,” but of those, he only found 2 cases where the “lesbian mothers” and their partners were together for 18 years, 6 cases where the “lesbian mother” and her partner were together for 10+ years, and 18 cases where the “lesbian mother” and her partner were together for 5+ years. The majority of respondents answered that they had lived with their “lesbian mother” and her partner for less than a year, or not at all. The respondents of the “gay father” group rarely reported living with their “gay father” for very long or living with their “gay father” and his partner for more than 3 years. So all of these people were thrown into the same group, despite the vast differences between them.


So Regnerus inaccurately referred to these groups where the parents had broken up and one of the parents had been involved in a same-sex relationship at some point, as “same-sex parents.” Then he compared them to people whose opposite sex parents had been together for at least 18 years. The apparent fact that those children fared better is obviously the result of their growing up in a more stable environment than those whose parents did not stay together, rather than having anything to do with two same-sex parents. Most studies (including the ones I cited) will point out that children brought up in stable family structures, regardless of the sex of the parents will fare better than children raised in broken family structures.

Apparently the American Sociological Association has characterized the study as “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.”

You are not only unqualified to critique his work, you are openly biased against anything that shows homosexuals in a bad light, making your opinion on it tainted with fervent bigotry that prevents you from judging it with objective reasoning, borne out by your panicky goal post movement, misrepresentation on those who are known for their integrity and honesty, your combing of the internet looking for dirt on these people who stand against immorality and perversion, your use of ad homenim to discredit the purveyors of truth and your use of logical fallacies, such as straw men and two wrongs making a right. With you there is no open minded analysis of an alternative theory, that could prove that anti-gay rhetoric is justified, there is just a need to prove any point, that bring gays into question, wrong, even though commonsense says otherwise. It is imperative prove the point incorrect, at any cost or by any methodology and if that does not work then discredit the source by using ad homenim.

So no, this study doesn't "top all previous research" on the subject.

Oh, it does, you just will not accept it that which is blatantly true. The paper is no more than commonsense and the simple truth that you grandmother would tell you. Children should only be raised by a mum and dad, anything else is liable to harm the child. There are always critiques to any theory for many reasons, no doubt the University of Texas in Austin do not want to be sited in any controversy and probably has homosexuals on their board. It is their agenda to make their lifestyle acceptable by using all means available to them to change the norm in our society.

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.

One thing you fail to see is that our society is in the midst of a social and moral decline. what is acceptable today was condemned a decade ago. People have become to tolerant of abnormalities and desensitised to perverse sexual behaviour. As long as the do not harm anyone, says grandma, is something that we frequently here by the misinformed of our society. Homosexuals can be found in all walks of life and are ultra defensive of their sexuality so will be eager to write the trash that you linked to. Our world has been corrupted so nothing, outside of religion, can be trusted on being true

 

[SkepticThinker]

SkepticThicker


Again, more straw men. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[

I am sure that you could point them out but that is because there are more heterosexuals then homosexuals. On top of that, heterosexuals have been parenting for thousands of years longer than homosexuals.

I’m pointing out that we have far more to worry about with heterosexual parents as it is.

You keep going on about how heterosexuals make the best parents, that they are the only people fit enough to be parents, and how gay people are icky and do a bunch of stuff you don’t like and therefore are unfit to be parents just be virtue of being gay.

Heterosexual couples should be the only ones qualified to raise children.

They aren’t.

They have been doing it for centuries, and by and large, they are good at it.

That’s debatable. I would say that a person isn’t necessarily a good parent just because they’re heterosexual. I don’t know how anyone could say that.


But where do you think gay people were for all these centuries? Hiding under rocks?

They are the standard in child rearing.

Slavery used to be the standard too. Now it’s not.

Why fix something that isn't broken with something that is broken.

That isn’t what is happening at all.

What will happen is that society will end up even more corrupt then it already is because what is unnatural will become natural and what is wrong will be called right turning our world into another Sodom and Gomorrrah, suffering the same consequences. As soon as society accepts homosexuality as normal then we will know that time is fast running out. God set the moral principles and determined what is natural and what is not, for us to live by, and it did not include same sex marriage and parenting. He specified that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. That is the norm, anything else is abnormal. It is His work and glory, this is His earth and only He can change those principles that were set in stone by Him.

Many countries have had gay marriage for over a decade now. Most western countries have had gay parents for many decades now (and probably far longer). Society has not collapsed, or become more corrupt because of it. And if you think so, I’d love to see how you could demonstrate that.


We can’t govern our society based on one guy’s religious beliefs. We have to go with demonstrable, observable, provable things.

I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.

The Family Research Council disagrees with you in their resent in depth study "New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research"

I provided the studies I am referring to which if you actually read them, will back up what I’ve said.

There are not, in the UK there are children in the various stages of adoption but none are waitng around with no prospects.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/its-not-just-syrian-children-who-need-taking-in/

This is about fostering and not adoption. We have too many children waiting for temperary care here by foster parents.

There are children who still need homes in the UK. Foster children need homes too.

There are millions of heterosexual couples waiting to give them that, along with a better chance of happiness

There are many homosexual couples waiting to give them the same chance of happiness.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why doesn't it? If it is based on fact, which it is, then one is all that is needed

I've explained this so many times now. I can't believe you are seriously asking this question, at this point.

Right after his study was published, Regnerus defended his research and said he had no position on same-sex marriage or LGBT parenting. he defended – the methodological flaws of his study, arguing he did compare apples to oranges but only because same-sex relationships are inherently unstable, implying it would be impossible to find enough stably couples same-sex couple parents.

Then he's a liar.

http://www.politicalresearch.org/tag/mark-regnerus/#sthash.X3KfNnF2.dpbs
http://www.hrc.org/press/judge-orders-disclosure-of-documents-detailing-publication-of-regnerus-junk
http://bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2013/11/regnerus_testifying_in_michigan.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBoer_v._Snyder

At least he can admit that his methodology is flawed. You can't explain that away.

You are not only unqualified to critique his work, you are openly biased against anything that shows homosexuals in a bad light, making your opinion on it tainted with fervent bigotry that prevents you from judging it with objective reasoning, borne out by your panicky goal post movement, misrepresentation on those who are known for their integrity and honesty, your combing of the internet looking for dirt on these people who stand against immorality and perversion, your use of ad homenim to discredit the purveyors of truth and your use of logical fallacies, such as straw men and two wrongs making a right. With you there is no open minded analysis of an alternative theory, that could prove that anti-gay rhetoric is justified, there is just a need to prove any point, that bring gays into question, wrong, even though commonsense says otherwise. It is imperative prove the point incorrect, at any cost or by any methodology and if that does not work then discredit the source by using ad homenim.

Funny how I just critiqued his work using facts and figures from his study then isn’t it.

Yadda yadda. Stick your fingers in your ears and sing all day long if you want. This study you keep citing has been called into question by the scientific community for containing methodological flaws. Go read the study. Then read some criticisms of it. Peer review doesn’t end at publication. Just because you found some site that asserts that this study tops the other 59 studies done on the subject, doesn’t make it so.

You aren’t biased at all, right?

Oh, it does, you just will not accept it that which is blatantly true.

A laughable claim. But again, you insist on attacking me personally, instead of responding to MY ACTUAL CRITIQUE OF THE STUDY. All the while claiming that I am personally attacking you and the people you keep citing as experts.

The paper is no more than commonsense and the simple truth that you grandmother would tell you. Children should only be raised by a mum and dad, anything else is liable to harm the child. There are always critiques to any theory for many reasons, no doubt the University of Texas in Austin do not want to be sited in any controversy and probably has homosexuals on their board. It is their agenda to make their lifestyle acceptable by using all means available to them to change the norm in our society.

Maybe they realize that one study with methodological flaws doesn’t trump dozens of other studies that don’t contain methodological flaws. There’s some common sense for you.

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.

The answer so far, is no.