The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[9Westy9]

"In 2003, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) issued its response to public debate about the effect of marriage of same-sex couples on children. CPA’s review of the psychological research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and their gender identity."

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...les Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

"This review has provided an overview and summary of the main bodies of research about parenting by LGBT people, and located the research within the broader family studies field, which it is both informed by and informs. In keeping with the broader family studies literature, the literature discussed here indicates that the family factors that are important for children’s outcomes and well-being are family processes and the quality of interactions and relationships. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families. Of particular importance, this review has provided information that can assist psychologists to take an informed approach to some of the important debates that will continue to arise in Australia, as people in same sex parented families and others advocate the removal of the remaining discrimination in laws, public policies, and social attitudes. Like many other expert and professional bodies, the APS is committed to contributing the knowledge of psychology in the public interest, and to fostering a social environment in which all children and their families experience support, recognition, and are valued, and in which discrimination and prejudice have no place"

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

Your move jungle

bump

 

[-Peacemaker-]

bump

There's only two reasons why you don't acknowledge that I "made my move" pages ago. You're either too lazy to find it, meaning that you're just not very interested in having a serious discussion, or like many here, you don't have the integrity to be honest about what I've posted.

 

[9Westy9]

There's only two reasons why you don't acknowledge that I "made my move" pages ago. You're either too lazy to find it, meaning that you're just not very interested in having a serious discussion, or like many here, you don't have the integrity to be honest about what I've posted.

I posted links to studies and research. You posted a link to an article. Also I can't find the research it references. Could you post one or two?

 

[no-body]

There's only two reasons why you don't acknowledge that I "made my move" pages ago. You're either too lazy to find it, meaning that you're just not very interested in having a serious discussion, or like many here, you don't have the integrity to be honest about what I've posted.

Statistics and conclusions taken by some random homosexual newspaper aren't real scientific research but it does make the bigots feels better to use pseudo science I guess.

 

[Draka]

The general argument is that the picture that the pro gay side has painted about their "families", being at least as stable as herosexual families, is a complete fabrication. Many people have simply take taken the gay's word on it, but there is alot of research considered very credible that casts serious doubts on the claim.

Did you bother to read my post at all really? Because, yet again, you didn't really answer it. Let's try this again, and this time maybe take a minute or so to actually read the couple paragraphs of questions and points I laid out for you.

Back and forth, this study, that study, this source, that source. The argument goes on for pages and pages. What is not really being addressed is any logic behind the stance and what, exactly, the stance is.

Jungle, what IS your point? What do you think should be done about it?

Going back to the OP, do you think that same-sex relationships should be shown and treated like opposite-sex relationships in the public? Do you believe it inappropriate for teens (because, let's face it, it's not like 8y/o's are playing a lot of MMORPGs) to see in video games what they can see in real life in schools and grocery stores and in their work places? If so, why? Why should video games be censored when real life isn't?

Secondly, and really completely off-point of the OP, if you are against same-sex couples adopting children because (and no "studies" here please, just your opinion) you feel they are in general worse parents than heterosexuals, then why do you not feel it is appropriate to either prohibit homosexuals from having biological kids OR removing biological children from their homes entirely? I mean, if they are such dangerous parents to you, why stop at just adoption prohibition? Why do you only seem to "care" about the welfare of the kids who need homes the most? What of the kids already in these "dangerous" homes? Seems pretty inconsistent to me. Either you really believe that children should not be in the care of homosexuals and should therefore be denied having children across the board OR you are just trying to concoct some kind of "reasonable" argument to back up your prejudiced stance.

Have some decency here and answer the questions honestly. No studies or sources or what is and is not a "fabrication". Just answer the dang questions.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Back and forth, this study, that study, this source, that source. The argument goes on for pages and pages. What is not really being addressed is any logic behind the stance and what, exactly, the stance is.

Jungle, what IS your point? What do you think should be done about it?

Going back to the OP, do you think that same-sex relationships should be shown and treated like opposite-sex relationships in the public? Do you believe it inappropriate for teens (because, let's face it, it's not like 8y/o's are playing a lot of MMORPGs) to see in video games what they can see in real life in schools and grocery stores and in their work places? If so, why? Why should video games be censored when real life isn't?

Secondly, and really completely off-point of the OP, if you are against same-sex couples adopting children because (and no "studies" here please, just your opinion) you feel they are in general worse parents than heterosexuals, then why do you not feel it is appropriate to either prohibit homosexuals from having biological kids OR removing biological children from their homes entirely? I mean, if they are such dangerous parents to you, why stop at just adoption prohibition? Why do you only seem to "care" about the welfare of the kids who need homes the most? What of the kids already in these "dangerous" homes? Seems pretty inconsistent to me. Either you really believe that children should not be in the care of homosexuals and should therefore be denied having children across the board OR you are just trying to concoct some kind of "reasonable" argument to back up your prejudiced stance.

Like I said, there's alot to respond to and I only have so much mental energy.

First the video game question: The reality is that the video game is preaching a subtle message that this type of behavior is perfectly acceptable and normal. This message cannot be totally silenced but we don't want it brought it into our homes with video games. It's more than that though, it's us taking a stand against a message we believe is flat out filthy evil and those who would like children to learn "tolerance" which for us is a nice way to say legitimize evil. Regarding reproductive right's, I'm of the belief that there are some things that we can control, like who can adopt, and there are somethings that are better left in the hands of providence, like when people have sex and get pregnant.

 

[no-body]

Like I said, there's alot to respond to and I only have so much mental energy.

First the video game question: The reality is that the video game is preaching a subtle message that this type of behavior is perfectly acceptable and normal. This message cannot be totally silenced but we don't want it brought it into our homes with video games. It's more than that though, it's us taking a stand against a message we believe is flat out filthy evil and those who would like children to learn "tolerance" which for us is a nice way to say legitimize evil. Regarding reproductive right's, I'm of the belief that there are some things that we can control, like who can adopt, and there are somethings that are better left in the hands of providence, like when people have sex and get pregnant.

Nice taking the easiest question. Care to explain how two consenting adults having sex is "evil" ?

 

[nnmartin]

Add in
Episcopal
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Old Catholic
and
United Church of Christ

Because some of those yellow squares have less to do with a denomination's theology and more to do with an individual priest or bishop.

If they accept gays as members, and ordain gay ministers as well as it being possible to get a union blessed in some way, I'm considering that a fairly open minded position.

the post that I was referring to with the list though was this:

Originally Posted by Drolefille
Multiple christian denominations have zero problems with gay couples, multiple other religions have zero problem with homosexuality...

so any church that will not marry a same sex couple or where and individual priest has issues with it cannot be classed as having zero problems.

do you know what zero means?

It means nothing, nada or just simply the digit 0.

So the churches above do not count.

 

[nnmartin]

With what credentials do you presume to judge who is and who is not "Christian"™©?

How about the Bible.....ever read it?

 

[no-body]

How about the Bible.....ever read it?

Yep. The new testament especially muddies who is a Christian. Old testament says one thing, Paul et al says a bunch of stuff, Christ says a bunch of socialist humanist communist stuff. So hard to tell what to believe !?

 

[9Westy9]

Jungle: Still waiting for you to post a link to a study/ research that supports your view.

 

[nnmartin]

I suspect that he has not yet found anything that will not be shown to be complete bull ****.

As opposed to Mestemia the foundation of wisdom you mean?:sarcastic

I haven't seen you offer much on this thread other than your usual empty one liners.

 

[nnmartin]

Because this is bigotry and ignorance and everyone should see it so they know what it looks like.

It's not bigotry at all - it's just called having a different point of view.

You seem to think you must be right because you have the consensus of the board on your side - try having this debate out in the real world and it's a different story.

Safety in numbers and all that.

 

[no-body]

It's not bigotry at all - it's just called having a different point of view.

You seem to think you must be right because you have the consensus of the board on your side - try having this debate out in the real world and it's a different story.

Safety in numbers and all that.

Well sure, the likes of Rosa Parks and MLK experienced the same thing. The irrationality of the majority is the first thing that must be battled. When bigotry has been the norm for centuries it is difficult to battle even now it is hard to get people to stop saying the n word and it has been centuries since that battle started. We are just getting started with sexuality... it will probably take centuries for that too and it is sad that you will be seen as bigots in the next few decades but you know "forgive them for they know not what they do" and all that.

 

[Draka]

Like I said, there's alot to respond to and I only have so much mental energy.

First the video game question: The reality is that the video game is preaching a subtle message that this type of behavior is perfectly acceptable and normal. This message cannot be totally silenced but we don't want it brought it into our homes with video games. It's more than that though, it's us taking a stand against a message we believe is flat out filthy evil and those who would like children to learn "tolerance" which for us is a nice way to say legitimize evil. Regarding reproductive right's, I'm of the belief that there are some things that we can control, like who can adopt, and there are somethings that are better left in the hands of providence, like when people have sex and get pregnant.

A video game is not preaching anything. As is, it was just incorporating some aspects of the reality of society into a fantasy setting. For it to be excluding same sex relationships purposely with the backing reasons you seem to have then the creators would indeed be making a statement. As is now though, they aren't. They are just adapting the game to be more realistic and allow more immersion into the game. You have a problem with it, as a parent, you can just not allow your children to play it. Although I fail to see how you can censor reality completely from your children. Goodness forbid they see two men holding hands in a park or two women shopping for groceries together while a kid calls them both "mommy". You can't censor reality from your kid, so why censor a video game for it. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the violence in a game instead of whether or not two male characters flirt with each other? Priorities kind of messed up there aren't they?

If a drug abuser gives birth, usually, her baby is taken away from her while in the hospital because she is deemed a danger to the child. Nor are they allowed to adopt. If you really are of the opinion that homosexuals are bad enough to not be able to adopt then why do you not push for their children to be taken away by social services on the premise that they are a danger to their children? Have some consistency here.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I hate to rehash this because I take no pleasure in being harsh with you. Since you refuse to let it go I will try to be gentle. You have admitted to living a certain lifestyle, a lifestyle that I believe to be less than conducive to maintining healthy families, to put it nicely. If all your eductation has convinced you that this is o.k then, in my mind, it doesn't say much for your teachers. I can only assume that the people you quote as authoritative are like minded people

And you ignored the critical examinations of your copy and paste material because you didn't like what was said. And you chose the cowardly method of attacking someone's character rather than their words. Which is what you've done with gay people as well, attacked their character rather than their actions. They raise happy and healthy children but because they have sex with each other they're bad people. So they shouldn't raise happy and healthy children anymore.

.

 

[9Westy9]

I hate to rehash this because I take no pleasure in being harsh with you. Since you refuse to let it go I will try to be gentle. You have admitted to living a certain lifestyle, a lifestyle that I believe to be less than conducive to maintining healthy families, to put it nicely. If all your eductation has convinced you that this is o.k then, in my mind, it doesn't say much for your teachers. I can only assume that the people you quote as authoritative are like minded people

I don't care what you believe, we're giving you the facts. The fact is that homosexuals CAN raise children. You've given NO evidence that says they can't.

 

[nnmartin]

If a drug abuser gives birth, usually, her baby is taken away from her while in the hospital because she is deemed a danger to the child. Nor are they allowed to adopt. If you really are of the opinion that homosexuals are bad enough to not be able to adopt then why do you not push for their children to be taken away by social services on the premise that they are a danger to their children?

Logical fallacy time now.

So you seem to be saying that a drug abuser having their child taken away from them also means that a homosexual should do also.

How do you manage to link these two scenarios together?

They are completely different topics.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The reality is that there are no doubt alot of heterosexuals coming to the defense of gay marriage and adoption. I've noticed something about many of those people. From how I've seen them live their lives and how they express their beliefs on sex, it appears they seem to hold litte value for committed sex in general. This by extention has serious implications for child rearing. For instance, how many supports of this position have no qualms with sex outside of marriage, which is the REAL INDICATOR? How many here don't have a problem with one night stands? How many have zero problem with abortion? Who here has no problem with pornography? How many people here see no problem with divorce for reasons other than infidelity? My guess is that the answer to most of these questions is an affirmative by those arguing for gay adoption and marriage. If that's the case, there is little chance you'll be swayed by any of these arguments. And I don't believe that is proves you don't care at all about the welfare of children. I do believe that it proves you're just a little more concerned with sexual gratification than you are about their welfare.

 

[Quagmire]

Logical fallacy time now.

Thanks for the heads up.

So you seem to be saying that a drug abuser having their child taken away from them also means that a homosexual should do also.

I'm betting you're the only one it seems that way to.

How do you manage to link these two scenarios together?

She just showed you (or tried to).