The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Drolefille]

Since this is a topic almost always opposed from a religious standpoint, I think on this forum it may be prudent to agree to disagree since. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I strongly disagree with "agreeing to disagree."

This is saying that it is an acceptable position to want to remove rights from gay people, to insult them, to lie about them and so on. In the threads made about it being OK to beat a woman, no one said "Oh ok, we should just agree to disagree" because this is a religious belief." If I stated that Christian parents are inherently inferior to atheist parents in the face of mountains of evidence showing otherwise, I doubt anyone would say "agree to disagree." If I stated that black people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children I'm fairly certain no one would say "oh just let it go."

Insisting that gay parents are inherently inferior to straight parents is the equivalent of insisting that the moon is made of green cheese. We have direct evidence of the contrary. Studies show children thrive with two loving parents of any gender. So does the vast majority of anecdotal evidence, of which the video posted is simply a well spoken example.

Continuing to insist otherwise is nothing more than bigotry and willful ignorance. Just as insisting that women are just not mentally cut out to be scientists, or that black people are inherently less intelligent is ignorance and bigotry. And just because it is faith inspired, just because my holy book says to stone a sinner or beat a woman or kill someone who doesn't agree with you, doesn't make it acceptable and doesn't mean that it should be given a pass.

And no amount of complaint about discrimination against religion by the ~*evil sodomites*~ makes it true. Gay people are beaten and killed in the United States of America for being gay. Children are bullied and teenagers kill themselves because of how they are treated for WHO THEY ARE - it's not about their 'sexual deprivation' just their existence. And it took a sex advice columnist to get everyone to pay attention to this fact.

The same lies that politicians use to oppress the LGBT community are being used in this forum and I refuse to just 'agree to disagree' about it. Particularly when the hate that has been spewed in this thread is brushed off as "less than loving" and somehow supposed to be made better by "I'm praying for you" with the "but I'm going to continue lying about you" following right on its tail with no sense of irony.

 

[Storm]

I strongly disagree with "agreeing to disagree."

This is saying that it is an acceptable position to want to remove rights from gay people, to insult them, to lie about them and so on. In the threads made about it being OK to beat a woman, no one said "Oh ok, we should just agree to disagree" because this is a religious belief." If I stated that Christian parents are inherently inferior to atheist parents in the face of mountains of evidence showing otherwise, I doubt anyone would say "agree to disagree." If I stated that black people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children I'm fairly certain no one would say "oh just let it go."

Insisting that gay parents are inherently inferior to straight parents is the equivalent of insisting that the moon is made of green cheese. We have direct evidence of the contrary. Studies show children thrive with two loving parents of any gender. So does the vast majority of anecdotal evidence, of which the video posted is simply a well spoken example.

Continuing to insist otherwise is nothing more than bigotry and willful ignorance. Just as insisting that women are just not mentally cut out to be scientists, or that black people are inherently less intelligent is ignorance and bigotry. And just because it is faith inspired, just because my holy book says to stone a sinner or beat a woman or kill someone who doesn't agree with you, doesn't make it acceptable and doesn't mean that it should be given a pass.

And no amount of complaint about discrimination against religion by the ~*evil sodomites*~ makes it true. Gay people are beaten and killed in the United States of America for being gay. Children are bullied and teenagers kill themselves because of how they are treated for WHO THEY ARE - it's not about their 'sexual deprivation' just their existence. And it took a sex advice columnist to get everyone to pay attention to this fact.

The same lies that politicians use to oppress the LGBT community are being used in this forum and I refuse to just 'agree to disagree' about it. Particularly when the hate that has been spewed in this thread is brushed off as "less than loving" and somehow supposed to be made better by "I'm praying for you" with the "but I'm going to continue lying about you" following right on its tail with no sense of irony.

:clap Can't frubal you again.

 

[Badran]

I strongly disagree with "agreeing to disagree."

This is saying that it is an acceptable position to want to remove rights from gay people, to insult them, to lie about them and so on. In the threads made about it being OK to beat a woman, no one said "Oh ok, we should just agree to disagree" because this is a religious belief."

I don't disagree with what you said, but just wanted to say that as i recall people were actually begging in the end of those threads you mentioned that everybody just let the topic go.

In other words, when they realized it was getting absolutely no where, many felt its best to drop it since it was simply fruitless at that point. So i don't think this is suggested just because its about homosexuals.

The same goes with debates about Evolution and Creationism for example, some hold the position or view that these debates are, at least many times, a waste of time or worthless.

 

[Drolefille]

I don't disagree with what you said, but just wanted to say that as i recall people were actually begging in the end of those threads you mentioned that everybody just let the topic go.

In other words, when they realized it was getting absolutely no where, many felt its best to drop it since it was simply fruitless at that point. So i don't think this is suggested just because its about homosexuals.

The same goes with debates about Evolution and Creationism for example, some hold the position or view that these debates are, at least many times, a waste of time or worthless.

That's not the same as agreeing to disagree though. I'm not replying directly to the bigotry in this thread anymore. I'll report any ongoing harassment, but I'm not replying to it. But at the same time I refuse to simply agree to disagree. It is not and never will be OK.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

We're talking about children, not guinea pigs. You're damn right it should be guilty until proven innocent when we're talking about children

I can't emphasize enough how wrong that remark is. With that remark, you've as much as admitted that gays were not given due process and were judged as incompetent parents from the beginning. Based on what? Religious beliefs.

Innocent until proven guilty is a very sound and just way to conduct jurisprudence that works very well. Christians don't get to employ a double standard and change the rules just because they feel strongly about it. Your emotions and beliefs are irrelevant because they tend to taint objectivity which is why our system is based on innocent until proven guilty in the first place.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I can't emphasize enough how wrong that remark is. With that remark, you've as much as admitted that gays were not given due process and were judged as incompetent parents from the beginning. Based on what? Religious beliefs.

Innocent until proven guilty is a very sound and just way to conduct jurisprudence that works very well. Christians don't get to employ a double standard and change the rules just because they feel strongly about it. Your emotions and beliefs are irrelevant because they tend to taint objectivity which is why our system is based on innocent until proven guilty in the first place.

You're reading too much into that statement by bringing up treatment of alleged criminals in our justice system. My only intention was to say that children should not be considered disposable test subjects to be used in social experiments

 

[Me Myself]

You're reading too much into that statement by bringing up treatment of alleged criminals in our justice system. My only intention was to say that children should not be considered disposable test subjects to be used in social experiments

I don´t see how that is even on subject.

Now back on subject:

In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated: "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood. If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage children’s psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful."

In other words, unless it has been effectively proven differently, it is plain unfounded sexual discrimination, be it supported by religious views or not.

As we speak there are a lot of orphanage childs out there that need parents, and a lot of homosexuals out there that would love to be parents and also fit all the requirements for an emotional and economicaly stable family.

This affirmation makes that clear enough.

Now I will tell you what is definetely bad for the kids (no, it´s not a guinea pig study, it is definetely bad for them).

Not having parents aside from a government institution.

So you are right, let´s think on the kids.

But... you know... with basis.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You're reading too much into that statement by bringing up treatment of alleged criminals in our justice system. My only intention was to say that children should not be considered disposable test subjects to be used in social experiments

No, I didn't read too much into it. I was merely using the justice system as a comparison to illustrate that we should use the same strategy outside the courts. To do otherwise is unfair to those gays wishing to marry and raise children. It also means that judgments of other people and their actions will be based on emotions, beliefs and personal opinions as Christians have done regarding this issue from the very start.

And it's not a social experiment, it's caring people wanting to raise children.

 

[Me Myself]

No, I didn't read too much into it. I was merely using the justice system as a comparison to illustrate that we should use the same strategy outside the courts. To do otherwise is unfair to those gays wishing to marry and raise children. It also means that judgments of other people and their actions will be based on emotions, beliefs and personal opinions as Christians have done regarding this issue from the very start.

And it's not a social experiment, it's caring people wanting to raise children.

It´s unfair to all the children that want to have parents.

Trust me, they prefer two mommys or two daddys than no mommy or no daddy at all.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It´s unfair to all the children that want to have parents.

Trust me, they prefer two mommys or two daddys than no mommy or no daddy at all.

Absolutely.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I'm married to my beautiful wife from Russia; we have a very christian marriage, and our union looks nothing like your atheist liberal depiction above.

Um...Do you not understand the source material? If not, I suggest you read your bible. I'm not Atheist, and I know this much about my own religious history.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I don´t see how that is even on subject.

Now back on subject:

In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated: "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood. If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage children’s psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful."

In other words, unless it has been effectively proven differently, it is plain unfounded sexual discrimination, be it supported by religious views or not.

As we speak there are a lot of orphanage childs out there that need parents, and a lot of homosexuals out there that would love to be parents and also fit all the requirements for an emotional and economicaly stable family.

This affirmation makes that clear enough.

Now I will tell you what is definetely bad for the kids (no, it´s not a guinea pig study, it is definetely bad for them).

Not having parents aside from a government institution.

So you are right, let´s think on the kids.

But... you know... with basis.

No this affirmation does not make things clear. We can play "quote the scholar" all night. Believe me we can. I posted some scholars, you posted some scholars. This game could never end if we wanted. I'll let you get the last word with the scholars.

 

[McBell]

No this affirmation does not make things clear. We can play "quote the scholar" all night. Believe me we can. I posted some scholars, you posted some scholars. This game could never end if we wanted. I'll let you get the last word with the scholars.

How about you play "quote the expert" instead?

In fact, how about you only quote people who actually have accredited degrees in related fields?

of course, you will be severely lacking in support since you would not be able to use anything you have so far presented in this thread....

 

[-Peacemaker-]

How about you play "quote the expert" instead?

In fact, how about you only quote people who actually have accredited degrees in related fields?

of course, you will be severely lacking in support since you would not be able to use anything you have so far presented in this thread....

Or I could use even more conclusive evidence............. such as You Tube clips:biglaugh:

 

[Me Myself]

No this affirmation does not make things clear. We can play "quote the scholar" all night. Believe me we can. I posted some scholars, you posted some scholars. This game could never end if we wanted. I'll let you get the last word with the scholars.

"Let me" ? Does that mean you understood that you have no reliable sources of information?

Does that mean you understood your theologian posted really lousy studies that are no longer relevant and thus discrediting any source that he spoke of?

I don´t need to post all night. I have one reliable source more than you with that quote.

It´s an 2010 source.

Please tell me what evidence you have that a lot of children around the world don´t diserve loving parents that have the economical and emotional stability to care for them if they happen to be gay.

A current source please. Something that comes from someone who knows what he is talking/writing about.

 

[Me Myself]

Or I could use even more conclusive evidence............. such as You Tube clips:biglaugh:

Let´s put the youtube clip aside. We have a quote from 2010 from a respectable source of psychological and sociological information.

What respectable source you have? (from someone who knows what´s s/he talking about please. Comes from respectable)

 

[McBell]

Or I could use even more conclusive evidence............. such as You Tube clips:biglaugh:

I see you are staying true to form.

At least you are consistent...

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Please tell me what evidence you have that a lot of children around the world don´t diserve loving parents that have the economical and emotional stability to care for them if they happen to be gay.

This is most important point. I wish Gay folks all the love and peace in the world. But...... Its not about Gay Adults for me. It is about Children. The foster car system in America is a travesty against kids. The children are being past from home to home. It is a training ground for prisons. Children need loving parents. If Gay folks can do it then they deserve or support. If Gay men or lesbians want to have children themselves and are willing to put the time and energy like any good parent. Then we a society should welcome and support them in creating a better future.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Let´s put the youtube clip aside. We have a quote from 2010 from a respectable source of psychological and sociological information.

What respectable source you have? (from someone who knows what´s s/he talking about please. Comes from respectable)

http://www.familywatchinternational.org/fwi/Quickexpertwitnessstatement.pdf
Testimony from a so called expert witness in 2007 Iowa same sex marriage case

"Dr. Sharon Quick in an expert witness affidavit in the Iowa same-sex marriage case (posted on the FWI Web site) concluded:
Scientific studies on same-sex parenting are flawed…The body of research upon which [the AAP recommendation was made] consists largely of studies with methodological flaws significant enough to invalidate any conclusions…Contrary to the commonly stated conclusions that there are no significant differences in various outcomes for children of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" parents, many differences have been tabulated in the original studies. In fact, this same body of research contains findings and comments by the authors that raise concerns about the well-being of children in households with [same-sex] parents.5 "


From 2006.
Presented to the French National Assembly, Paris, January 26, 2006

Reviewing this same research, the French Parliamentary Commission Report on the Family and the Rights of Children found that:
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]During the [commission’s] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]deliberations, it was not formally demonstrated that approving legal filiation with two fathers or two mothers has no effect on the building of the child’s identity…These scientific basis and the representativeness of the population samples studied were widely criticized and disputed at the hearings…The lack of objectivity in this area is blatant. [/FONT]3

2007

In 2007, Dr. Alan Hawkins, Professor of Family Life at Brigham Young University, reviewed those
studies done since the evaluations by Drs. Rekers and Nock and concluded that:
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]With respect to woman/woman child-rearing and man/man child-rearing, a number of researchers have asserted that their studies show that children raised by homosexual persons or same-sex couples experience "no differences" in outcomes as compared to children raised by married couples. These child-rearing modes, however, have not been "adequately studied." In other words, that body of research has not yet matured to the point that they meet the high standards for reliability and validity that rationally sustains strong conclusions. (Complete affidavit in the Iowa same-sex marriage case is posted on the FWI Web site.)




From 2001..the stone age

In an exhaustive scientific review of these studies, Dr. George Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science, Research Director for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Chairman of Faculty in Psychology at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, characterized these studies this way:
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]…the few studies available are biased with regard to subject selection in that they generally report on a small group of research subjects which are not randomly selected and which do not constitute a scientifically representative sample of homosexual parents and their children. Furthermore, although the research designs of the available studies are replete with numerous other methodological deficiencies, many of the authors make illegitimate generalizations or unwarranted conclusions from their flawed research studies. Thus, although the available research to date essentially constitutes a number of poorly designed, exploratory pilot studies, both the authors of the studies and many reviewers of the studies have concluded substantially more from these methodologically flawed studies than was warranted scientifically[/FONT][/FONT].1
Dr. Rekers is not alone in pointing out the fatal flaws in all of this research. The late Dr. Steven Nock, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Marriage Matters Project at the University of Virginia said this in an expert witness affidavit filed in the 2001 Canadian [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Halperin [/FONT][/FONT]same-sex marriage case:
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]In sum, all the articles offered by Professor Bigner, [/FONT][/FONT][an academic citing all of this research] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]including the study considered the most rigorous, cannot be taken as establishing the claim that scientific research shows no differences between the children of gay parents and the children of heterosexual parents in terms of gender identity or sexual orientation[/FONT][/FONT]. (Complete affidavit, which is a long and technical but a very good review of the accepted methodological practices for good social science research, is posted on FWI Web



Do you see how this game works? You run to your apologetic websites and I run to mine. Like I said before, we can play this all night
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[blackout]

The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

That has to be the best thread title ever.