Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[SkepticThinker]

But why are you doing that for. That is not what we were debating and nobody has claimed that heterosexuals have the market cornered on raising children in stable environments. It is a tactical tangent. It is a straw manI assume nothing, I know, through past experience, that most of them, in my opinion, are incapable of raising children in a stable environmentThere is very little evidence available for it to be labelled as vast, so some slight exaggeration there. What evidence that is available is both unreliable and equivocal.But you are throwing a straw man back at me. We were not discussing the capabilities of heterosexual parents. You have introduced a straw man and then preceded to knock him down. That is a logical fallacy.You like that word "demonstrable" don't you?

You say that because your consciousness has been conditioned by the masses. You are the product of a corrupt society. As Malcolm X summed it up, “The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” That is what you are attempting to do here, without really knowing it, to portray immorality as righteousness.And that is a prime example that you have been mentally conditioned. You think everything is fine.
Yes I do, when you were trying to take out the spiritual connection and replace it with science, because you are an atheist on General Religion section of the forum. I am quite shocked that you have to ask that question. Unconditional love produces and intense motivation to do ones very best for that child so the mind become ever vigilant and ultra organised to the needs of the child, insuring it's welfare in every conceivable way. As much as you don't agree with it, this bond is not as strong when the child is not yours because it is a biological bond and maybe related to the magnetic fields that we omit.

What does that have to do with your straw man, slavery.No, it is a case of letting sleeping dogs lie, If it ain't broke and still does what it is supposed to do, then leave it alone. Don't replace it with something that does not work as wellYes, of course you do, because your consciousness has been conditioned by the masses. You have been indoctrinated by the media and the government on how you should think and behave. You are the product of mental conditioning and you don't even know it.Why not go to him with a humble heart and a contrite spirit and ask him yourself. You will get the same response as any other christian has received.

You do like that "demonstrable" don't you? It's OK, I like the sound of certain word as well, Like "Serenity"

Demonstrable evidence is not required when you have the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You oughta try it.Now have I pooh poohed science. I haven't have I? What I said was that it is a necessity but it tends to step outside the realm of what is observable and reproducibleAgain, I asked you to produce a Peer Reviewed Published Paper showing that HIV is directly link to AIDS and you linked me to, what seemed like, a school boys opinion on how he thinks that HIV is directly link to AIDSNo, I asked you for peer reviewed studies and you gave me the opinion of a pro-gay schoolboy. You then searched the internet for a published paper showing that HIV is directly link to AIDS, however, you were unsuccessful in your plight and did not produce a single paper showing that HIV is directly link to AIDS. Oh you produced published papers that had the keywords in them that you put in your search engine but nothing to prove that HIV is directly link to AIDS. It amazes me that when ever a new aspect of the debate appears that yo have to search the internet on itYes, that is what you thought until I explained to you what a published paper is and how to detect the differences between an article and a peer reviewed published paper. Accredited by whom?
The only lie that I see here is you saying that I said that "I haven't received them or instead have been given links to pro-gay websites". A complete and irrefutable lie

I use the word "Demonstrable" a lot because if something is not demonstrable, then there's no reason to believe it's true. It's a scientific word. Scientists have to demonstrate the veracity of their claims.

Your psychoanalysis has failed again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You couldn't answer the exposure of your falsehoods then, just a puerile taunt.

That's not a falsehood. Read the study. Read some critiques of the study.

Being a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the methodology of a study.

 

[Serenity7855]

I can provide a couple of critiques of the study for you to read but I’m not sure you’d be able to my links to them because I have accessed them on a restricted site.

Check them out if you can:

Eric AndersonPhD, AcSS “The Need to Review Peer Review: The Regnerus Scandal as a Call to Action” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health (Volume 17,Issue 3, 2013)

Typical of the links you have selected. an ultra promiscuous homosexual

A CAMPAIGN has been launched to sack a Hampshire university professor for expressing what it is claimed are extreme views on child abuse and sexuality.

The call to remove controversial academic and gay rights campaigner Eric Anderson from his post comes after he made remarks about the damage caused by paedophiles during a speech delivered at Oxford University.

In a statement to the Daily Echo, Professor Anderson, who has been reprimanded by the University of Winchester following his speech, said he believed sex should only take place between consenting adults.

The 47-year-old professor of Masculinity, Sexuality and Sport told a gay and lesbian audience: “The damage that’s caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the Western world.”

He warned the audience his talk would include graphic sexual references and explained how he liked to bed youths aged between 16 and 18.

He boasted about sleeping around on cruise ships and bragged of notching up at least 1,000 sexual partners before vowing to double the number before his death.

Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad
February 10th, 2015

Published research employing the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), the ECLS (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study), the US Census (ACS), the Canadian Census, and now the NHIS all reveal a comparable basic narrative, namely, that children who grow up with a married mother and father fare best.

A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analyzed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 respondents who participated in the (US) National Health Interview Survey(NHIS) at some point between 1997 and 2013.

Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

On a Thursday morning in late June 2015, Americans will be treated to the Court’s decision about altering an institution as old as recorded human history. But one thing that day will not change is the portrait of same-sex households with children. After a series of population-based data-collection projects, we know what that looks like: a clear step down, on average, from households that unite children with their own mother and father.

 

[Serenity7855]

. It's a scientific word.

.

I know, it is a part of my vocabulary, but why are you using it?

Your psychoanalysis has failed again

No, your accusation that I am psychoanalyzing you again has failed

 

[Serenity7855]

That's not a falsehood. Read the study. Read some critiques of the study.

Being a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the methodology of a study.

I set it out for you as simple as I could. I showed your words and then compared them to the actually words that showed a marked difference and a definite twisting that is unmistakable

Oh, i have read other critique of his study and uncanningly they are authored by gay, those of dubious character or just back street universities. It reminds me of all the discoveries that now bless our world that were discover by those who were accused of being mad.

Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes (but rarely, of course,) the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

 

[Shadow Wolf]

*flicks rubber band on wrist*

 

[Revoltingest]

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

But sometimes people mistake an Ignatius J Reilly for this true genius.

(I just had to address your literary reference with another.
Btw, the movie version of Toole's book is cursed.)

 

[Serenity7855]

Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad
February 10th, 2015

Published research employing the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), the ECLS (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study), the US Census (ACS), the Canadian Census, and now the NHIS all reveal a comparable basic narrative, namely, that children who grow up with a married mother and father fare best.

A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analyzed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 respondents who participated in the (US) National Health Interview Survey(NHIS) at some point between 1997 and 2013.

Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

On a Thursday morning in late June 2015, Americans will be treated to the Court’s decision about altering an institution as old as recorded human history. But one thing that day will not change is the portrait of same-sex households with children. After a series of population-based data-collection projects, we know what that looks like: a clear step down, on average, from households that unite children with their own mother and father.

Even research on “planned” same-sex families—those created using assisted reproductive technology (ART)—reveals the significance of biological ties. Sullins notes such studies

have long recognized that the lack of conjoined biological ties creates unique difficulties and relational stresses. The birth and non-birth mother . . . are subject to competition, rivalry, and jealousy regarding conception and mothering roles that are never faced by conceiving opposite-sex couples, and which, for the children involved, can result in anxiety over their security and identity.​

The population-based study pooled over 2,700 same-sex couples, defined as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” This is a measure similar to that employed in the US Census, but it has the advantage of clarity about the sexual or romantic nature of the partnership (being sure to exclude those who are simply same-sex roommates). Among these, 582 had children under 18 in the household. A battery of questions was completed by 512 of them.

The academy so privileges arguments in favor of same-sex marriage and parenting that every view other than resounding support—including research conclusions—has been formally or informally scolded. I should know. The explosive reaction to my 2012 research about parental same-sex relationships and child outcomes demonstrates that far more is at work than seeking answers to empirical research questions. Such reactions call into question the purpose and relevance of social science. Indeed, at least one sociologist holds that social science is designed “to identify and understand the various underlying causal mechanisms that produce identifiable outcomes and events of interest.” That this has not been the case with the study of same-sex households raises a more basic question.

Is the point of social science to win political arguments? Or is its purpose to better understand social reality?
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14417/

The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the "No Differences" Claim

by Ana Samuel
within Marriage, Science

June 14th, 2012

Two new peer-reviewed studies show that family structure matters and children do best when reared by their married biological mother and father.

The widely circulated claim that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children—a claim widely known today as the “no differences” thesis—is not settled science. Two new peer-reviewed studies released this week by the academic journal Social Science Research challenge the claim that there are no differences in outcomes between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and those raised by their biological mother and father in intact, stable marriages.

Family studies scholar Loren Marks of Louisiana State University reviews the 59 studies that are referenced in the 2005 American Psychological Association brief that came to the conclusion that there are “no differences.” Marks concludes that “not one of the 59 studies referenced … 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. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.”[1] Marks’s study casts significant doubt upon the older evidence on which the APA brief, and thus the “no differences” paradigm, rests.

Before detailing the results of the NFSS, two important points must be made: First, the results do not claim to establish causality between parenting and child outcomes. In other words, the results are not a “report card” on gay parenting, but a report on the average condition of grown children from households of gay and lesbian parents versus those from IBFs. So, for instance, when the study finds that children who have had a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship are much more likely to suffer from depression as young adults than the children who come from IBFs, this does not claim that the gay parent was the cause of the depression in his or her child; simply that such children on average have more depression, for reasons unidentified by the study. That said, however, the study controlled for variables like age, gender, race, level of mother’s education, perceived household income while growing up, the degree of legislative gay-friendliness of the respondent’s home state, and experience of being bullied as a youth. Controls help eliminate alternative explanations for a given outcome, making the causal link between parenting structure and children’s outcomes more likely when the results are statistically significant after controls.

Second, the kind of gay parenting identified was rarely planned by two gay parents. The study found that the children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent. That parent then had at least one same-sex romantic relationship, sometimes outside of the child’s home, sometimes within it. To be more specific, among the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, a minority, 23%, said they had spent at least three years living in the same household with both their mother and her romantic partner. Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men.

This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples.[3] A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages”[4] such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.[5]
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's suppose that kids tend to not do as well with same sex parents.
Should this affect public policy?
Should they be prevented from being parents?

If this is a good thing to do, ie, banning parentage which has less than
optimum results, let's consider applying it to other parental situations.
Suppose it can be shown that kids don't do as well with.....
- Black parents
- Single parents
- Poor parents
- Old parents
- Parents with odd religions
Are we willing to discriminate against them too?

 

[Serenity7855]

Let's suppose that kids tend to not do as well with same sex parents.
Should this affect public policy?
Should they be prevented from being parents?

If this is a good thing to do, ie, banning parentage which has less than
optimum results, let's consider applying it to other parental situations.
Suppose it can be shown that kids don't do as well with.....
- Black parents
- Single parents
- Poor parents
- Old parents
- Parents with odd religions
Are we willing to discriminate against them too?

Do you know what Revoltingest, I have struggled with this one and have written a response then had to delete it several times. If you would have typed gay in from of all the list items it would have been easier. The problem is that you are right, however, that leads to a chain of interconnected reasons why you are right. What I believe it boils down to is that “One bad apple can spoil the bunch.” The bad apple being the gay activists and their agenda, and the bunch being you and me. It remind me of the story of the presumptuous camel. One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

The camel here represents the gay agenda and how it will deceive and manipulate us by its need for warmth, and its disregard for how cold we are. The gay agenda wants to remove our values and ancestral traditions by changing thing which have stood the test of time, like rearing children, that is sanction by God and a basic standard to the world. They want to make us miserable and fearful of death by taking away our religions and there moral standards of behaviour, they have changed what used to be a fundamentally fixed tradition of mankind, since records began, by stealthily changing the laws on marriage, they have convinced a large portion of the inhabitants of the world that they are victims of a faulty gene so cannot help the need in bedding hundreds of men. After all, they were born that way, and we just suck it up and ask for more. I like peanut butter, was I born a peanut butter lover. I also like rock music, was I born that way. If the feminine partner in a gay relationship was expose to high levels of the feminine hormone that made him gay then what makes his partner gay? It is the same principles. They have taken over the media in all areas and now gays are overly represented on our TV screens portrayed like they are a perfectly normal integral part of our society in an attempt to make them look normal and accepted, despite their acts of sexual perversion. Guess what? It has worked. Our News broadcast is vetted against anything negative about gays, but promoting everything good that they do. They are now trying to stifle our freedom of speech by introducing a law that prevents anyone talking negatively about them, calling it a hate crime. They even want to take away our right to raise children by them gradually raising them. They have changed our school curriculum to teach children that being gay is normal and perfectly acceptable, which is just one way of normalising themselves and what they do. We are so incredibly tolerant and embarrassingly so gullible that we think that they must be normal because animals are homesexual, no there are not, they are not that clever, they think conceptually. All of this clandestine behaviour and the immorality that they bring to humanity is morally degenerating our world, which is accepting it without question. The next thing you know is that they are saying that AIDS is not a gay disease, oh wait a minute.

To summarizes

1. They Fooled us into believing that their behaviour is acceptable because animals do it so why shouldn't they.
2. They have manipulate governments into changing the laws on marriage
3. They have change the adoption laws to allow them to raise children even though the children suffer because of it.
4. They have lied and deceived us into believing they are as good as us at raising children. No problems if they were, but it is a lie which is made worse by discrediting anyone who disagrees.
5. They have vilified professional people who speak negatively about them my telling the truth.
6. They have lied and deceived us on AIDS by saying that it is not gender specific and nothing to do with their lifestyle when it so clearly is when you take away the propaganda.
7. They ave changed the national curriculum to allow our children to be indoctrinated with their lies an insure their acceptance in future generations.
8. They have misused the human rights act to get their own way comparing themselves to persecuted black people.
9. They are in the process of changing the law to prevent anyone saying anything negative about them
10. They tried to dupe us into believing that they are born gay because of a gay gene. In order to fool society into thinking that they are normal.

Do you think that these people should raise children? What has not been raised here is the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals and is censored by the media. something like 70% of pedophiles admit to being gay, and we condone them raising children. If you are capable of inserting your penis into the faeces filled rectum of another man, without feeling that it is remotely wrong, then what else are they capable of doing, sex with animals? Sorry for going on but I don't understand why we cannot all see what is happening here. Have we become as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah? Are we being dumbed down in some way. Maybe it is the florid in our water?

Now watch as those who have become victims of the lies and deceit, persecute me because I speak the truth. My God and righteous principles make it worth all the insults. "Blessed are you when other poster insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before.

So, in answer to your astute and thought provoking question. No, we would not discriminate against those in your list, however, no one in your list is changing our way of lives, manipulating our media and in the process brain washing the general public into seeing immorality as morality, or lying and deceiving us into believing that sexual perversion is acceptable. There is no real comparison between clean living people trying to do their best and a scheming and conniving minority group that are trying to dishonestly be accepted by society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you know what Revoltingest, I have struggled with this one and have written a response then had to delete it several times. If you would have typed gay in from of all the list items it would have been easier. The problem is that you are right, however, that leads to a chain of interconnected reasons why you are right.

I'm taking a moment here to bask in the warm glow of being told I'm right.
Ahhhhhhhhh........
(Although I know I'm not really claiming anything....so I am merely not wrong.)

What I believe it boils down to is that “One bad apple can spoil the bunch.” The bad apple being the gay activists and their agenda, and the bunch being you and me. It remind me of the story of the presumptuous camel. One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

The camel here represents the gay agenda and how it will deceive and manipulate us by its need for warmth, and its disregard for how cold we are. The gay agenda wants to remove our values and ancestral traditions by changing thing which have stood the test of time, like rearing children, that is sanction by God and a basic standard to the world. They want to make us miserable and fearful of death by taking away our religions and there moral standards of behaviour, they have changed what used to be a fundamentally fixed tradition of mankind, since records began, by stealthily changing the laws on marriage, they have convinced a large portion of the inhabitants of the world that they are victims of a faulty gene so cannot help the need in bedding hundreds of men. After all, they were born that way, and we just suck it up and ask for more. I like peanut butter, was I born a peanut butter lover. I also like rock music, was I born that way. If the feminine partner in a gay relationship was expose to high levels of the feminine hormone that made him gay then what makes his partner gay? It is the same principles. They have taken over the media in all areas and now gays are overly represented on our TV screens portrayed like they are a perfectly normal integral part of our society in an attempt to make them look normal and accepted, despite their acts of sexual perversion. Guess what? It has worked. Our News broadcast is vetted against anything negative about gays, but promoting everything good that they do. They are now trying to stifle our freedom of speech by introducing a law that prevents anyone talking negatively about them, calling it a hate crime. They even want to take away our right to raise children by them gradually raising them. They have changed our school curriculum to teach children that being gay is normal and perfectly acceptable, which is just one way of normalising themselves and what they do. We are so incredibly tolerant and embarrassingly so gullible that we think that they must be normal because animals are homesexual, no there are not, they are not that clever, they think conceptually. All of this clandestine behaviour and the immorality that they bring to humanity is morally degenerating our world, which is accepting it without question. The next thing you know is that they are saying that AIDS is not a gay disease, oh wait a minute.

To summarizes

1. They Fooled us into believing that their behaviour is acceptable because animals do it so why shouldn't they.
2. They have manipulate governments into changing the laws on marriage
3. They have change the adoption laws to allow them to raise children even though the children suffer because of it.
4. They have lied and deceived us into believing they are as good as us at raising children. No problems if they were, but it is a lie which is made worse by discrediting anyone who disagrees.
5. They have vilified professional people who speak negatively about them my telling the truth.
6. They have lied and deceived us on AIDS by saying that it is not gender specific and nothing to do with their lifestyle when it so clearly is when you take away the propaganda.
7. They ave changed the national curriculum to allow our children to be indoctrinated with their lies an insure their acceptance in future generations.
8. They have misused the human rights act to get their own way comparing themselves to persecuted black people.
9. They are in the process of changing the law to prevent anyone saying anything negative about them
10. They tried to dupe us into believing that they are born gay because of a gay gene. In order to fool society into thinking that they are normal.

Do you think that these people should raise children? What has not been raised here is the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals and is censored by the media. something like 70% of pedophiles admit to being gay, and we condone them raising children. If you are capable of inserting your penis into the faeces filled rectum of another man, without feeling that it is remotely wrong, then what else are they capable of doing, sex with animals? Sorry for going on but I don't understand why we cannot all see what is happening here. Have we become as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah? Are we being dumbed down in some way. Maybe it is the florid in our water?

Now watch as those who have become victims of the lies and deceit, persecute me because I speak the truth. My God and righteous principles make it worth all the insults. "Blessed are you when other poster insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before.

So, in answer to your astute and thought provoking question. No, we would not discriminate against those in your list, however, no one in your list is changing our way of lives, manipulating our media and in the process brain washing the general public into seeing immorality as morality, or lying and deceiving us into believing that sexual perversion is acceptable. There is no real comparison between clean living people trying to do their best and a scheming and conniving minority group that are trying to dishonestly be accepted by society.

The difference between us is that I don't see normalization (ie, integration without stigma) of gay folk as wrong.
(I chalk it up to my being a libertarian type of heathen, & your being a Xian type of believer.)
I don't see their efforts to achieve this as any less legitimate than other groups who've managed the same.
Everyone lies, & I don't see gays as any better or worse than others.
But I notice that often what is called a "lie" is really just a different sincere set of values.
Tis best to presume honesty until evidence clearly indicates intent to deceive.

Now, back to public policy......
If I could wave my magic wand to eliminate parents raising little Democrats & Republicans,
and make them all little Libertarian atheists (preferably engineers & groundskeepers), I would.
But alas, we have a system of government which gives parents wide latitude, short of inflicting
real harm (as agreed upon by the majority of society). So as I see it, you'll be stuck with
tolerating gay parents, & I'll be stuck tolerating socialistic authoritarian parents.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know, it is a part of my vocabulary, but why are you using it?



No, your accusation that I am psychoanalyzing you again has failed

I told you why I'm using it. And then you cut off my explanation in this post to me. (??)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I set it out for you as simple as I could. I showed your words and then compared them to the actually words that showed a marked difference and a definite twisting that is unmistakable

Oh, i have read other critique of his study and uncanningly they are authored by gay, those of dubious character or just back street universities. It reminds me of all the discoveries that now bless our world that were discover by those who were accused of being mad.

Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes (but rarely, of course,) the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

Save me the melodramatic hero junk. This is how science works. Like I said, peer review doesn't end at publication. It continues long afterward. Criticisms and reviews are perfectly normal, and quite necessary. We need to see more studies that are able replicate the results of this one (with less methodological flaws, if possible). Because so far, the vast majority of studies don't support the findings of this one.

There was no twisting. And your numbers were wrong, not mine. I guess you're going to ignore the post where I pointed that out though, eh? Actually it was this very post, you were responding to, and like above, I see you've cut out the important part. Why do that?

Okay, so if you've read the critiques of Regnerus' study that I provided, what were there major issues that were pointed out as being potentially problematic?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad
February 10th, 2015

Published research employing the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), the ECLS (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study), the US Census (ACS), the Canadian Census, and now the NHIS all reveal a comparable basic narrative, namely, that children who grow up with a married mother and father fare best.

A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analyzed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 respondents who participated in the (US) National Health Interview Survey(NHIS) at some point between 1997 and 2013.

Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

On a Thursday morning in late June 2015, Americans will be treated to the Court’s decision about altering an institution as old as recorded human history. But one thing that day will not change is the portrait of same-sex households with children. After a series of population-based data-collection projects, we know what that looks like: a clear step down, on average, from households that unite children with their own mother and father.

Even research on “planned” same-sex families—those created using assisted reproductive technology (ART)—reveals the significance of biological ties. Sullins notes such studies

have long recognized that the lack of conjoined biological ties creates unique difficulties and relational stresses. The birth and non-birth mother . . . are subject to competition, rivalry, and jealousy regarding conception and mothering roles that are never faced by conceiving opposite-sex couples, and which, for the children involved, can result in anxiety over their security and identity.​

The population-based study pooled over 2,700 same-sex couples, defined as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” This is a measure similar to that employed in the US Census, but it has the advantage of clarity about the sexual or romantic nature of the partnership (being sure to exclude those who are simply same-sex roommates). Among these, 582 had children under 18 in the household. A battery of questions was completed by 512 of them.

The academy so privileges arguments in favor of same-sex marriage and parenting that every view other than resounding support—including research conclusions—has been formally or informally scolded. I should know. The explosive reaction to my 2012 research about parental same-sex relationships and child outcomes demonstrates that far more is at work than seeking answers to empirical research questions. Such reactions call into question the purpose and relevance of social science. Indeed, at least one sociologist holds that social science is designed “to identify and understand the various underlying causal mechanisms that produce identifiable outcomes and events of interest.” That this has not been the case with the study of same-sex households raises a more basic question.

Is the point of social science to win political arguments? Or is its purpose to better understand social reality?
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14417/

This study has a very similar flaw to the Regnerus study. I can't tell from reading Sullins' study whether he actually measured children who were raised from birth by same-sex parents (as in the case of biological parents) or if the children came from homes where heterosexual parents broke up at some point in the children's life and then went on to enter into same-sex relationships. That's an important difference because we already know that children who grow up in broken homes don't fare as well as children who live in intact homes. Also, as in the Regnerus study, some of the data comes from as far back as 1997, when attitudes on homosexuality were different than they are today and people would have been treated somewhat differently by society in general, and would have probably answered questions somewhat differently than they would today.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know what Revoltingest, I have struggled with this one and have written a response then had to delete it several times. If you would have typed gay in from of all the list items it would have been easier. The problem is that you are right, however, that leads to a chain of interconnected reasons why you are right. What I believe it boils down to is that “One bad apple can spoil the bunch.” The bad apple being the gay activists and their agenda, and the bunch being you and me. It remind me of the story of the presumptuous camel. One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

The camel here represents the gay agenda and how it will deceive and manipulate us by its need for warmth, and its disregard for how cold we are. The gay agenda wants to remove our values and ancestral traditions by changing thing which have stood the test of time, like rearing children, that is sanction by God and a basic standard to the world. They want to make us miserable and fearful of death by taking away our religions and there moral standards of behaviour, they have changed what used to be a fundamentally fixed tradition of mankind, since records began, by stealthily changing the laws on marriage, they have convinced a large portion of the inhabitants of the world that they are victims of a faulty gene so cannot help the need in bedding hundreds of men. After all, they were born that way, and we just suck it up and ask for more. I like peanut butter, was I born a peanut butter lover. I also like rock music, was I born that way. If the feminine partner in a gay relationship was expose to high levels of the feminine hormone that made him gay then what makes his partner gay? It is the same principles. They have taken over the media in all areas and now gays are overly represented on our TV screens portrayed like they are a perfectly normal integral part of our society in an attempt to make them look normal and accepted, despite their acts of sexual perversion. Guess what? It has worked. Our News broadcast is vetted against anything negative about gays, but promoting everything good that they do. They are now trying to stifle our freedom of speech by introducing a law that prevents anyone talking negatively about them, calling it a hate crime. They even want to take away our right to raise children by them gradually raising them. They have changed our school curriculum to teach children that being gay is normal and perfectly acceptable, which is just one way of normalising themselves and what they do. We are so incredibly tolerant and embarrassingly so gullible that we think that they must be normal because animals are homesexual, no there are not, they are not that clever, they think conceptually. All of this clandestine behaviour and the immorality that they bring to humanity is morally degenerating our world, which is accepting it without question. The next thing you know is that they are saying that AIDS is not a gay disease, oh wait a minute.

To summarizes

1. They Fooled us into believing that their behaviour is acceptable because animals do it so why shouldn't they.
2. They have manipulate governments into changing the laws on marriage
3. They have change the adoption laws to allow them to raise children even though the children suffer because of it.
4. They have lied and deceived us into believing they are as good as us at raising children. No problems if they were, but it is a lie which is made worse by discrediting anyone who disagrees.
5. They have vilified professional people who speak negatively about them my telling the truth.
6. They have lied and deceived us on AIDS by saying that it is not gender specific and nothing to do with their lifestyle when it so clearly is when you take away the propaganda.
7. They ave changed the national curriculum to allow our children to be indoctrinated with their lies an insure their acceptance in future generations.
8. They have misused the human rights act to get their own way comparing themselves to persecuted black people.
9. They are in the process of changing the law to prevent anyone saying anything negative about them
10. They tried to dupe us into believing that they are born gay because of a gay gene. In order to fool society into thinking that they are normal.

Do you think that these people should raise children? What has not been raised here is the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals and is censored by the media. something like 70% of pedophiles admit to being gay, and we condone them raising children. If you are capable of inserting your penis into the faeces filled rectum of another man, without feeling that it is remotely wrong, then what else are they capable of doing, sex with animals? Sorry for going on but I don't understand why we cannot all see what is happening here. Have we become as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah? Are we being dumbed down in some way. Maybe it is the florid in our water?

Now watch as those who have become victims of the lies and deceit, persecute me because I speak the truth. My God and righteous principles make it worth all the insults. "Blessed are you when other poster insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before.

So, in answer to your astute and thought provoking question. No, we would not discriminate against those in your list, however, no one in your list is changing our way of lives, manipulating our media and in the process brain washing the general public into seeing immorality as morality, or lying and deceiving us into believing that sexual perversion is acceptable. There is no real comparison between clean living people trying to do their best and a scheming and conniving minority group that are trying to dishonestly be accepted by society.

There's no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. Stop trying so desperately to demonize people!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know what Revoltingest, I have struggled with this one and have written a response then had to delete it several times. If you would have typed gay in from of all the list items it would have been easier. The problem is that you are right, however, that leads to a chain of interconnected reasons why you are right. What I believe it boils down to is that “One bad apple can spoil the bunch.” The bad apple being the gay activists and their agenda, and the bunch being you and me. It remind me of the story of the presumptuous camel. One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

The camel here represents the gay agenda and how it will deceive and manipulate us by its need for warmth, and its disregard for how cold we are. The gay agenda wants to remove our values and ancestral traditions by changing thing which have stood the test of time, like rearing children, that is sanction by God and a basic standard to the world. They want to make us miserable and fearful of death by taking away our religions and there moral standards of behaviour, they have changed what used to be a fundamentally fixed tradition of mankind, since records began, by stealthily changing the laws on marriage, they have convinced a large portion of the inhabitants of the world that they are victims of a faulty gene so cannot help the need in bedding hundreds of men. After all, they were born that way, and we just suck it up and ask for more. I like peanut butter, was I born a peanut butter lover. I also like rock music, was I born that way. If the feminine partner in a gay relationship was expose to high levels of the feminine hormone that made him gay then what makes his partner gay? It is the same principles. They have taken over the media in all areas and now gays are overly represented on our TV screens portrayed like they are a perfectly normal integral part of our society in an attempt to make them look normal and accepted, despite their acts of sexual perversion. Guess what? It has worked. Our News broadcast is vetted against anything negative about gays, but promoting everything good that they do. They are now trying to stifle our freedom of speech by introducing a law that prevents anyone talking negatively about them, calling it a hate crime. They even want to take away our right to raise children by them gradually raising them. They have changed our school curriculum to teach children that being gay is normal and perfectly acceptable, which is just one way of normalising themselves and what they do. We are so incredibly tolerant and embarrassingly so gullible that we think that they must be normal because animals are homesexual, no there are not, they are not that clever, they think conceptually. All of this clandestine behaviour and the immorality that they bring to humanity is morally degenerating our world, which is accepting it without question. The next thing you know is that they are saying that AIDS is not a gay disease, oh wait a minute.

To summarizes

1. They Fooled us into believing that their behaviour is acceptable because animals do it so why shouldn't they.
2. They have manipulate governments into changing the laws on marriage
3. They have change the adoption laws to allow them to raise children even though the children suffer because of it.
4. They have lied and deceived us into believing they are as good as us at raising children. No problems if they were, but it is a lie which is made worse by discrediting anyone who disagrees.
5. They have vilified professional people who speak negatively about them my telling the truth.
6. They have lied and deceived us on AIDS by saying that it is not gender specific and nothing to do with their lifestyle when it so clearly is when you take away the propaganda.
7. They ave changed the national curriculum to allow our children to be indoctrinated with their lies an insure their acceptance in future generations.
8. They have misused the human rights act to get their own way comparing themselves to persecuted black people.
9. They are in the process of changing the law to prevent anyone saying anything negative about them
10. They tried to dupe us into believing that they are born gay because of a gay gene. In order to fool society into thinking that they are normal.

Do you think that these people should raise children? What has not been raised here is the link that exist between pedophilia and homosexuals and is censored by the media. something like 70% of pedophiles admit to being gay, and we condone them raising children. If you are capable of inserting your penis into the faeces filled rectum of another man, without feeling that it is remotely wrong, then what else are they capable of doing, sex with animals? Sorry for going on but I don't understand why we cannot all see what is happening here. Have we become as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah? Are we being dumbed down in some way. Maybe it is the florid in our water?

Now watch as those who have become victims of the lies and deceit, persecute me because I speak the truth. My God and righteous principles make it worth all the insults. "Blessed are you when other poster insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before.

So, in answer to your astute and thought provoking question. No, we would not discriminate against those in your list, however, no one in your list is changing our way of lives, manipulating our media and in the process brain washing the general public into seeing immorality as morality, or lying and deceiving us into believing that sexual perversion is acceptable. There is no real comparison between clean living people trying to do their best and a scheming and conniving minority group that are trying to dishonestly be accepted by society.

Those pesky black people looking for equal rights certainly did change everyone's way of life, at least in the US.

Those uppity black people should have shut up and stayed slaves, and should have been happy for their lot in life. How dare they brainwash the public into thinking they're equal to white people! How can they think that when they're clearly only 3/5 of a person! Such lies and deceit! And all that demonstrating and marching on Washington trying to brainwash the public into seeing immorality as morality, lying and deceiving us into believing that their freedom from slavery and oppression is acceptable. I bet it has something to do with GMOs!

That's what you sound like to me.



The rest of the nonsense in you post has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread.

 

[Serenity7855]

There's no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. Stop trying so desperately to demonize people!

Is there a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?

Yes. Homosexuality is 4 to 20 times more common in pedophiles than in the general population. In addition, homosexual pedophiles on average abuse twice as many children as heterosexual pedophiles.

Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. [15] Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts

http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/homosexuality-pedophilia/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903178/-
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/
http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is there a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?

Yes.Homosexuality is 4 to 20 times more common in pedophiles than in the general population. In addition, homosexual pedophiles on average abuse twice as many children as heterosexual pedophiles.

Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. [15] Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts

Homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different things. Just as heterosexuality and pedophilia are completely different things.

But, if you want to say that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia (as you appear to want to do exactly that), you also have to say there is a correlation between heterosexuality and pedophilia. Where does that leave you?

http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm

This is useless. Not a reference to be found anywhere. And from a “news” source that is heavily into conspiracy theories and the like.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/homosexuality-pedophilia/

“Six LGBT and progressive groups — including the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and theSouthern Poverty Law Center— purchased the ad last week, which was an open lettercalling onRepublican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus to disassociate the GOP from the Family Research Council, which hosts theValues Voter Summit, and from other anti-LGBT groups that sponsor annual conference of conservative Christian voters.

“The reason is simple,” the LGBT and progressive groups stated in the ad. “These groups engage in repeated, groundless demonization of LGBT people — portraying them as sick, vile, incestuous, violent, perverted, and a danger to the nation. The Family Research Council, the summit’s host, is vigorously opposed to extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Its president, Tony Perkins, has repeatedly claimed that pedophilia is a ‘homosexual problem.’”

I agree.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903178/-

This one doesn’t even support your argument. In fact, it argues directly against it and supports my argument. You probably should have read past the headline.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

These people not only misunderstand the definitions of pedophilia and homosexuality, but they cite a whole bunch of numbers that have nothing to do with homosexuality but then try to use them to link them with pedophilia. Shame on them.

And they shoot themselves in the foot in the same way you did above.

http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

This is the same article you already gave me above.

http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm

This is the third link of the same article.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

This doesn’t help make your case either:


“Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problemrelated to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label ofmale-malemolestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls asmale-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.”



It gets even better though. The bottom portion of the article directly refutes the claims made in the link you gave me from the Family Research Council (above). So needless to say, this article doesn’t support your assertion either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm
http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/
http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm

Those are all the same study. And even something cited on those sources is:
"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/homosexuality-pedophilia/

That brings up nothing except various articles, including many that do not support your position. But one of those articles links to here:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-.../2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked#.UXHUZrXvv2s

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
MYTH # 2
Same-sex parents harm children.
THE FACTS
No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.
MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.
THE FACTS
No scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.
MYTH # 4
LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.
THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.
MYTH # 5
Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.
THE FACTS
The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.
MYTH # 6
Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.
THE FACTS
The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.
MYTH # 7
Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.
THE FACTS
Gays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.
MYTH # 8
Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.
THE FACTS
All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
MYTH # 9
No one is born gay.
THE FACTS
Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.
MYTH # 10
Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.
THE FACTS
"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.

This article draws on many studies. You may want to check it out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903178/-

Seriously? This is entirely counter to your position. Are you even reading what you're citing, or are you just doing a google search and posting what comes up?
Gays are pedophiles? No. Here's the proof.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

This is one of those groups that must be very selective, because no one else agrees with them, and their studies have been thoroughly discredited. They are also a group that promotes Conservative Christian ideology, so of course you won't find anything that is counter to such ideology on their site. That alone makes for very poor "science."

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

Again, are you even reading the things you cite?

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia

No.

There's not only no correlation, but as one source says, "It's like comparing apples to rat poison." The simple answer is that pedophiles are attracted to children, not gender. (Though, some pedophiles prefer one gender over another.)

I could go on, but I'd be repeating a very well-written resource found at WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relatio...

I also found this very in depth article about pedophilia very interesting: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/ra...
...
There is absolutely no evidence that gay men are pedophiles, and if anything the exact opposite is true, with us seeking to stay away from kids. When 98% of all criminal cases against pedophiles are committed by hetero men on young girls, and nearly all of those are girls they know; family members are far more likely to abuse/molest children, mostly girls, than gay men do anything. Unless one is saying that gay men are molesting little girls, the evidence is severely lacking. There's no evidence that gay men were molested either. Indeed, gay men have little contact with or interest in children whatsoever. It just happens to be the "recruiting" canard rehashed over and over again.

And for the numbers "gay men abuse 150 children," it would then seem nigh on impossible for any boy to ever have not been molested whatsoever. And to argue that there is 4 to 20 times the number of boy-abusing men than actual adult-seeking gay men is preposterous. If there are say, 5,000,000 gay men, that presupposes there would then be some 20,000,000 to 100,000,000 men abusing boys. The very idea is absurd, especially given that recently the Oregon Attorney General, in mid-2011, seeking newly expanded police powers over child molesters, cited only 750,000 abused Girls in the entire nation, and didn't even see fit to mention in his Supreme Court pleadings boys at all. How easy it is to lay child molesting on gays, we get blamed for so much, eh? But we're not molesting anyone, and especially not girls, who are the vast overwhelming majority of abuse victims.

You're so desperate to discredit and denounce homosexuals that you don't even realize the shots your are taking are counter to your own position.