The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[9Westy9]

You are the one who thinks:

1. Father and daughter having sex is fine.

2. Same-sex incestuous marriage and adoption is fine. (between brother and sister)

I would give you a morality rating of 0/10.

I don't care what you rate my morality as. I view your morality as completely lacking empathy and compassion anyway. Also please stop using ad hominem arguments. You're just making yourself look stupid

P.S. I like how you never denied my point

 

[McBell]

You are the ones trying to force your agenda onto the mainstream though.

yes, because wanting equal rights is an agenda...

You are the ones trying to denigrate the sanctity of marriage to fit your agenda.

:biglaugh:
"sanctity of marriage"
:biglaugh:

Since when was marriage created for man to marry man?

as if you know anything about the history of marriage...

 

[McBell]

P.S. I like how you never denied my point

I suspect that your point, much like a Boeing 747 in flight, went way over his head.

 

[9Westy9]

I suspect that your point, much like a Boeing 747 in flight, went way over his head.

Unfortunately it goes over his head and then he acts like it was never posted.

 

[McBell]

Unfortunately it goes over his head and then he acts like it was never posted.

Well, that does sorta make sense though.

It is likely all a part of his "natural order of things".
Think about it for a second...
If he does not understand something, it does not exist.
Now apply that thought process to his stance on incest...
on his stance on beastiality...

Since he cannot understand how it might be moral, it cannot be moral...

 

[9Westy9]

Well, that does sorta make sense though.

It is likely all a part of his "natural order of things".
Think about it for a second...
If he does not understand something, it does not exist.
Now apply that thought process to his stance on incest...
on his stance on beastiality...

Since he cannot understand how it might be moral, it cannot be moral...

Maybe he should become an auto-theist?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I did read those two posts. You made the accusation that tests regarding the homosexual lifestyle were being conducted without integrity such as taking samples outside of gay bars and clinics. Are there probably studies being used by both sides of the argument to support their position which suffer from poor methodology? Probably. Does that necessarily apply to every test? That''s a different question. This is what both sides of the debate accuse the other of doing with studies. It's exactly what those who oppose gay adoptions say about the tests that allegedly prove that kids raised in gay homes end up the same as anyone else. One side is just not being honest in this debate. You also gave a personal testimony. As far as that goes, there's not much I can say. If that's your experience, then that's your experience. But I do wonder if you've lived long enough to really get an accurate picture of the effect the behavior will have on you. Usually, things that are destructive eat away at us slowly.

Absolutely untrue. I'm turning 40 this year. And I am bisexual.

I was raised a Christian, spent years as a part of Campus Crusade for Christ in college, and prayed desperately to God in Jesus' name to help me with all my "depraved" thoughts and inclinations towards women. Years.

Years.

I spiralled into severe depression. I hated myself. I was terrified of going to hell. And all I got in my counseling was Scripture quotes, peer-led prayers, and reminders of how sinful I was in God's eyes (and that we all deserve punishment due to our fallen nature.) I was told to read my Bible and to have faith.

It nearly killed me. I felt no hope. For years. Cripes, I used to tear my hair out.

And it wasn't for lack of trying to convince myself that I was straight because of my attraction to men. But once I met a woman that made me go weak in the knees, which I felt like I did for men since I was a little girl, the whole cycle of self-loathing would start again.

I have been at peace with my orientation since I found myself 1) the freedom to be in long term relationships with a women in my 20's, and 2) out of the closet with my family. I have therefore been accepting my attractions and desires for nearly 20 years, and it has only been valuable, life-affirming, and has given me strength and peace of mind. When I was dating a woman that I loved, I felt the same joy, the same giddiness, the same WOW that I felt when dating a man.

Have you looked at the It Gets Better project/videos at all? For many, it really does get better only after we have been freed of the constant noise telling us how we're despicable creatures.

Meow Mix has been around long enough to know who she is, who she loves, and how living in integrity has made her life for the better. And I have lived long enough to validate her position 100%.

 

[Drolefille]

Not surprisingly, there are probably different versions of that story as well. I heard the story where gay activists would storm into their meetings uninvited unleashing angry tirades. They went about trying to gain support by likening their struggle to that of the black man and many were sold on their argument. It was in this climate that the APA changed their opinion. I editted the last post to make it a little clearer. I hope it answers your question about religious impositions

Again, "you heard." Do the research on it and leave the religious sites behind in the process. Why is it so weird that an organization would change its mind due to changed information? Why do you think gay people have all this political power to force all these professional organizations to say the wrong thing? Either your estimate of the % of the population who is gay is WAY off or there's a secret gay cabal if that's true. You're really not going the cabal route, are you?

The vote was overturned by the members of the APA, not outside activists, and many APA members were gay themselves, but fully closeted. It was in part exposure to the number of colleagues who were gay and fully functional human beings that changed the mind of some people.

And no, you edit doesn't change anything. We allow divorce, we allow single parenthood, we allow many things that are less than perfect situations for kids. If gay parents were inherently harmful to their children, to the extent that drug abusing parents are, we'd remove them from their care. That isn't the case, we'd know if it were something so extreme, right? So even if gay parents were just slightly less good than straight parents (which there's no evidence for) they're still better than orphanages, right?

And when it comes to marriage, isn't it better to encourage them to be gay and monogamous than gay and "promiscuous" as you claim?

This is very much about religious freedom, as the vast majority of the people who are on your side of the line are coming from a conservative Christian standpoint, including your sources. So this is very clearly a religious issue, otherwise you wouldn't quote the Bible so much.

Please address those questions specifically.

 

[Penumbra]

**Staff Advisory**


Please avoid personal insults and personal negative comments, whether directed in the first person or third person.
​

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And no, you edit doesn't change anything. We allow divorce, we allow single parenthood, we allow many things that are less than perfect situations for kids. If gay parents were inherently harmful to their children, to the extent that drug abusing parents are, we'd remove them from their care. That isn't the case, we'd know if it were something so extreme, right? So even if gay parents were just slightly less good than straight parents (which there's no evidence for) they're still better than orphanages, right?

And when it comes to marriage, isn't it better to encourage them to be gay and monogamous than gay and "promiscuous" as you claim?

This is very much about religious freedom, as the vast majority of the people who are on your side of the line are coming from a conservative Christian standpoint, including your sources. So this is very clearly a religious issue, otherwise you wouldn't quote the Bible so much.

Please address those questions specifically.

Many of the people fighting in this debate are motivated by religious conviction. That is definately true. FWIW, from a Christian perspective, God calls certain behavior "sinful" because it's destructive, not because he's looking to be the party pooper. In a secular society such as ours, using the argument "because God says so", just doesn't work when making policy. I'm not suggesting that we do use that argument. I'm arguing that we get to the truth and base our laws off that, not on what's politically correct, or necessarily popular. You might notice that new "findings" in the social sciences sometimes tend to agree with popular sentiment, especially in regards to sexuality which is behavior people are constantly trying to find reasons to justify. Is this phenomenon a result of people's moral attitudes shifting or is it just a coincidence that "science" advances like this? Knowing mankind's broken nature, I certainly have my guard up.

 

[Drolefille]

Many of the people fighting in this debate are motivated by religious conviction. That is definately true. FWIW, from a Christian perspective, God calls certain behavior "sinful" because it's destructive, not because he's looking to be the party pooper. In a secular society such as ours, using the argument "because God says so", just doesn't work when making policy. I'm not suggesting that we do use that argument. I'm arguing that we get to the truth and base our laws off that, not on what's politically correct, or necessarily popular. You might notice that new information coming out in the social sciences often tends to agree with popular sentiment, especially in regards to sexuality which is behavior people are constantly trying to find reasons to justify. Is phenomenon a result of people's moral attitudes shifting or is it just a coincidence that "science" advances like this?

Again you avoid the questions and instead propose conspiracy. (And you claim God finds it destructive, God hasn't deigned to comment to me. I'm not unaware of the Christian perspective, I had decades of schooling in it.)

Seriously, if social sciences always agreed with the popular sentiment nothing would have ever changed with them. In truth, the research tends to come out ahead of popular sentiment when it can get the information to work with. How can you survey gay people when you don't have a population? Which is why studies occurred after people came out and were more accepted so that they'd agree to participate in studies. You see as suspicious what is pretty much only logic. You see studies of racial differences that show that black people are not lesser than white people before the civil rights movement, because black people are available.

In the 1910s you see IQ tests appear and they test Eastern and Southern Europeans as "less intelligent", in the 20s we see eugenics become popular, by the 30s in the US it was less favored by researchers but still very popular publically. You see racism re-rear its ugly head in the "intelligence" theories in the 60s following the civil rights movement, long after research had strongly coalesced around environmental factors rather than genetics being the basis for differences in school performance. Despite this, the research didn't change. If you think that there is genetic differences between races are indicative of intelligence, you're not just a relic, you're hanging around from the early 30s.

There is just one example of how social science is not "always" changing with the popular sentiment. Polyamory isn't popular by any means, and yet research is being done on it increasingly as more people are available to study.

Please answer the specific questions I asked, as I feel like you're dodging them on purpose because you don't have answers.

What legal, secular argument is there to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying? Lets leave children out of things entirely and start at the first step.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Again you avoid the questions and instead propose conspiracy. (And you claim God finds it destructive, God hasn't deigned to comment to me. I'm not unaware of the Christian perspective, I had decades of schooling in it.)

Seriously, if social sciences always agreed with the popular sentiment nothing would have ever changed with them. In truth, the research tends to come out ahead of popular sentiment when it can get the information to work with. How can you survey gay people when you don't have a population? Which is why studies occurred after people came out and were more accepted so that they'd agree to participate in studies. You see as suspicious what is pretty much only logic. You see studies of racial differences that show that black people are not lesser than white people before the civil rights movement, because black people are available.

In the 1910s you see IQ tests appear and they test Eastern and Southern Europeans as "less intelligent", in the 20s we see eugenics become popular, by the 30s in the US it was less favored by researchers but still very popular publically. You see racism re-rear its ugly head in the "intelligence" theories in the 60s following the civil rights movement, long after research had strongly coalesced around environmental factors rather than genetics being the basis for differences in school performance. Despite this, the research didn't change. If you think that there is genetic differences between races are indicative of intelligence, you're not just a relic, you're hanging around from the early 30s.

There is just one example of how social science is not "always" changing with the popular sentiment. Polyamory isn't popular by any means, and yet research is being done on it increasingly as more people are available to study.

Please answer the specific questions I asked, as I feel like you're dodging them on purpose because you don't have answers.

What legal, secular argument is there to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying? Lets leave children out of things entirely and start at the first step.

What questions are you talking about? You asked me to address religious freedom and making policy based on Christian teachings right? I just talked about it

 

[Me Myself]

Absolutely untrue. I'm turning 40 this year. And I am bisexual.

I was raised a Christian, spent years as a part of Campus Crusade for Christ in college, and prayed desperately to God in Jesus' name to help me with all my "depraved" thoughts and inclinations towards women. Years.

Years.

I spiralled into severe depression. I hated myself. I was terrified of going to hell. And all I got in my counseling was Scripture quotes, peer-led prayers, and reminders of how sinful I was in God's eyes (and that we all deserve punishment due to our fallen nature.) I was told to read my Bible and to have faith.

It nearly killed me. I felt no hope. For years. Cripes, I used to tear my hair out.

And it wasn't for lack of trying to convince myself that I was straight because of my attraction to men. But once I met a woman that made me go weak in the knees, which I felt like I did for men since I was a little girl, the whole cycle of self-loathing would start again.

I have been at peace with my orientation since I found myself 1) the freedom to be in long term relationships with a women in my 20's, and 2) out of the closet with my family. I have therefore been accepting my attractions and desires for nearly 20 years, and it has only been valuable, life-affirming, and has given me strength and peace of mind. When I was dating a woman that I loved, I felt the same joy, the same giddiness, the same WOW that I felt when dating a man.

Have you looked at the It Gets Better project/videos at all? For many, it really does get better only after we have been freed of the constant noise telling us how we're despicable creatures.

Meow Mix has been around long enough to know who she is, who she loves, and how living in integrity has made her life for the better. And I have lived long enough to validate her position 100%.

I think this post is incredibly eduational. Thanks for sharing Mystic

May we all read and digest and understand.

Love comes in many forms.

 

[Drolefille]

What questions are you talking about? You asked me to address religious freedom and making policy based on Christian teachings right? I just talked about it

I've asked you multiple specific questions in each post. You've addressed maybe one or two obliquely at best. Begging off on not knowing how God thinks doesn't work when you're actively advocating that people act a certain way. State what you actually think.

Why is it so weird that an organization would change its mind due to changed information?

Why do you think gay people have all this political power to force all these professional organizations to say the wrong thing?

So even if gay parents were just slightly less good than straight parents (which there's no evidence for) they're still better than orphanages, right?

And when it comes to marriage, isn't it better to encourage them to be gay and monogamous than gay and "promiscuous" as you claim?

I'm stating that gay people are already living this way and are unhappy. So what are they doing wrong?

What is the reason that civil marriages cannot be legal for gays and lesbians with NO expectation that churches that oppose this would be imposed upon?

Do you really support laws that would oppress the beliefs of another faith?

Doesn't that just open up the opportunity for another Christian denomination to oppress yours?

Are you saying then that no one should get married and everyone should be celibate? Or are you advocating the chastity that your faith actually promotes?

If the former, then do you live by this standard? If the latter, then do you recognize that many gay and lesbian people have tried this and been desperately unhappy?


Oh yeah and the most important one, the one you ignored in the current post:
What legal, secular argument is there to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying? Lets leave children out of things entirely and start at the first step.

And this doesn't even get into you ignoring Mystic's very well written and educational response to you.

 

[Me Myself]

I did read those two posts. You made the accusation that tests regarding the homosexual lifestyle were being conducted without integrity such as taking samples outside of gay bars and clinics. Are there probably studies being used by both sides of the argument to support their position which suffer from poor methodology? Probably. Does that necessarily apply to every test? That''s a different question. This is what both sides of the debate accuse the other of doing with studies. It's exactly what those who oppose gay adoptions say about the tests that allegedly prove that kids raised in gay homes end up the same as anyone else. One side is just not being honest in this debate. You also gave a personal testimony. As far as that goes, there's not much I can say. If that's your experience, then that's your experience. But I do wonder if you've lived long enough to really get an accurate picture of the effect the behavior will have on you. Usually, things that are destructive eat away at us slowly.

Mystic gave you a good post about this above. It doesn´t need to get wworse in the long run, rather, it gets better the sooner you accept it.

About "one side" needing to not be wrong. That is a logical falacy. BOTH sides ARE making unconclusive studies. Not just one. We still have testimonies like suchs of Mystic and Meow which can bring light to this and teach us how the "homosexual is always "Bad" " is not only inaccurate, but an unhealthy thought in and on itself that has made a lot of homosexuals commit actions like suicide because of this harmfull thoughts that society has promted about the way they love.

As soon as this way of thinking goes away, it can all go better.

For everyone

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I've asked you multiple specific questions in each post. You've addressed maybe one or two obliquely at best. Begging off on not knowing how God thinks doesn't work when you're actively advocating that people act a certain way. State what you actually think.

I just wanted to let you know that I'm glad we're on speaking terms again. I also want you to know that this is very much a social justice issue for me as well. I seek only righteousness and justice for our society. If it can be proven that homosexual relationships are indeed healthy in nature then by all means change the laws. I've got my guard up because there will always be deceivers who serve their own interests over society's and children's but will argue to the contrary. I also believe they'll be able to make arguments that many will find very compellling often made by "experts" in their field. When it comes to sexual behavior, I've got my guard high up because I consider this the "god" of America in the sense that sex is often the one thing we will completely rearrange our lives around in order to get, more so than anything else. Not only that, but we're often willing to subject ourselves and others to destructiveness in order to acheive it

Why is it so weird that an organization would change its mind due to changed information?

I absolutely addressed this. I said when it comes to sexual behavior, the new "findings" that emerge often seem to agree with shifting moral attitudes. Given that people constantly are looking to justify the sexual behaviors that they want to indulge in and the fact that mankind has a broken nature, I'm highly suspect of many of these "findings".

Why do you think gay people have all this political power to force all these professional organizations to say the wrong thing?

I think LGBT activists have seized the opportunity afforded them by the sexual revolution to sell the masses on the idea that their behavior is perfectly healthy and that their struggle is equal to the black man's. In other words, the public's moral attitudes toward sexuality were already changing due to the sexual revolution. A public already more open to "exploring" sexuality beyond just committed marriages were very open to the new teachings of the LGBT community.

So even if gay parents were just slightly less good than straight parents (which there's no evidence for) they're still better than orphanages, right?

Can't speak for orphanages right now. This gets into a "lesser of two evils" conversation. I'm not blowing this question off, I just don't know enough about orphanages to comment right now

And when it comes to marriage, isn't it better to encourage them to be gay and monogamous than gay and "promiscuous" as you claim?

Absolutely. By all means practice monogamy. Make a covenant between each other and before God if you feel like it. No one's stopping you

I'm stating that gay people are already living this way and are unhappy. So what are they doing wrong?

By saying this, I'm not claiming to speak for Christianity or God/Jesus. This is just my own opinion which could be worthless. If you don't wish to serve Jesus and do things in God's strength, you might as well do whatever the hell makes you feel good.

What is the reason that civil marriages cannot be legal for gays and lesbians with NO expectation that churches that oppose this would be imposed upon?

I answered this below I think

Do you really support laws that would oppress the beliefs of another faith?

This isn't about faith, it's about truth

Doesn't that just open up the opportunity for another Christian denomination to oppress yours?

Again, this isn't about faith

Are you saying then that no one should get married and everyone should be celibate? Or are you advocating the chastity that your faith actually promotes?

This question doesn't even make sense. How you could possibly extrapolate that I'm advocating that no one gets married is beyond me.

If the former, then do you live by this standard? If the latter, then do you recognize that many gay and lesbian people have tried this and been desperately unhappy?

As long as I've been a Christian which has been over 8 years, I've practiced celebacy. I'm still waiting for the woman I need in my life as I haven't found much contentment in celebacy, to be perfectly honest. It's been a trial for my faith but I haven't lost it and I've felt the presence of God helping me with the burden even though he's refused to make it easy.

Oh yeah and the most important one, the one you ignored in the current post:
What legal, secular argument is there to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying? Lets leave children out of things entirely and start at the first step.

I have serious doubts that these are truly healthy relationships for anyone involved. Like I said before, we can argue about studies until we're blue in the face. We've seen that already. There are "experts" on both sides of the issue presenting evidence that might be considered credible by their peers. I view the family as the foundation of our society. If there is something inherently broken in the relationships you're advocating I see little reason to approve of them by designating them a "marriage".

And this doesn't even get into you ignoring Mystic's very well written and educational response to you.

I know what it means to feel like God let you down. I've been there. It can cause DEEP emotional wounds. Commenting on this requires the utmost sensitivity. It sounds as though God placed a burden on Mystic. It wouldn't be the first time he's done such a thing to a person. Despite her testimony, I believe it's possible to carry these burdens through his grace and power. I've carried plenty of them in my Christian walk.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thank you for the consideration.

I have no need for a theology that suggests I'm carrying a burden due to my desires and loves. After letting go of that belief that I need to perceive my orientation as depraved, I have been truly free.

There is no more shame. There is no more internal conflict, no self-loathing that i need to fight. I accept who I am, and I am at peace with my sexuality.

Any attempt to throw that burden back on my shoulders might very result in a waste of time. Instead, let's put that aside to see how we can put our heads together to tackle some truly important issues....energy independence, health care, education, and how to care for the aging baby boomers.

What I do in my bedroom is of little consequence compared to these other critical issues that we all face. Arguing about the validity of same sex marriage and adoption is such a waste of time. It's like arguing whether women have a soul. And look how much suffering that caused in our history by oppressing women for so long because of theological interpretations.

Haven't we learned our lesson when it comes to legislating morality and deciding who is unworthy of certain rights that others enjoy?

So again, thank you for the consideration, but I left the Christian community and accepted the concept of God as a concept a long time ago. I am a better person for it, but that is just me.

 

[Me Myself]

I know what it means to feel like God let you down. I've been there. It can cause DEEP emotional wounds. Commenting on this requires the utmost sensitivity. It sounds as though God placed a burden on Mystic. It wouldn't be the first time he's done such a thing to a person. Despite her testimony, I believe it's possible to carry these burdens through his grace and power. I've carried plenty of them in my Christian walk.

Believing that loving those she loves is wrong is the only burden I heard she had to carry there.

For what I read, I think she is much more in grace and full of power since she released that unhealthy thought.

If she is happy now, that is a good fruit. If it bears good fruit, how can you say it is wrong? there is no bad fruit and there is good fruit.

It is good to carry a cross if there are going to be good fruits for it. In this case, it was doing all the contrary. Thank God she let it go

this happens to thousands of homosexuals around. And those who get squashed by this unneeded and forcefully placed burden kill themselves.

Saying this to kids and people is placing burden in their shoulders that they are not meant to carry, that no one benefits from them carrying, and that have ultimately killed many.

It´s just very unhealthy.

 

[Meow Mix]

Many of the people fighting in this debate are motivated by religious conviction. That is definately true. FWIW, from a Christian perspective, God calls certain behavior "sinful" because it's destructive, not because he's looking to be the party pooper. In a secular society such as ours, using the argument "because God says so", just doesn't work when making policy. I'm not suggesting that we do use that argument. I'm arguing that we get to the truth and base our laws off that, not on what's politically correct, or necessarily popular. You might notice that new "findings" in the social sciences sometimes tend to agree with popular sentiment, especially in regards to sexuality which is behavior people are constantly trying to find reasons to justify. Is this phenomenon a result of people's moral attitudes shifting or is it just a coincidence that "science" advances like this? Knowing mankind's broken nature, I certainly have my guard up.

Here is a statement by the EPA that children who grow up in "black and African American" homes were drastically more likely to suffer from ill effects of second hand smoke.

According to your "reasoning" re: homosexual marriage and adoption, if we want to be consistent, we should ban adoption of children into African American/black homes.

Do you agree?

Here is some information on the demographics of children faring relatively poorly in black, latino, and other minority households -- by a large ratio.

According to your "reasoning," if we want to be consistent on protecting the children based on the indications of studies, we should ban adoption into any minority home.

Do you agree?

----------------------------

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. Do you understand why it's a mistake to try to make a sweeping ban on a group over a statistic when there are completely functional people in the group with the negative stereotype?

 

[Agnostic75]

You're suggesting it's possible that certain.......verses in Romans might be inspired but others may not. Right?

Yes, at least partly. I do not believe that a God inspired any of the Bible, but for the sake of argument, if he inspired and preserved parts of the Bible, what evidence do you have that he inspired and preserved the parts about homosexuality?