Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What possible relevance does the sexual preference of a historical figure have to their contribution to California history?
There is ZERO reason to mention homosexuality to elementary school age children - except for purposes of indoctrination.
Or when discussing different family structures. Some families are mom and dad, dad and step mom, mom and step dad, just mom, just dad, aunt and uncle, mom and mom, or dad and dad.
As I have explained MANY times, homosexuals are not sterile, and many have biological children either from a previous relationship, IVF, or surrogacy. Just like heterosexuals.
More and more gay male couples (if they can afford it) are turning to surrogacy, etc. to have BIOLOGICAL children.
Funnily enough, the three couples I know that have gone that route are all now raising twins.
These are very good households: Lawyers, doctors, publishers, wall streeters.
I track the progress of one couple, who live out of state. One partner stays at home with the kids and is constantly posting photos of the kids at museums, the parks, the beach, cultural events.... these kids will have 100x the advantages going into life that the kids of conservative yokels will have. They are certainly getting a more enriching upbringing than I did!
I don't know if the parents are "serial monogamists".... I honestly couldn't care, and wouldn't pass judgment so long as they are safe. I don't see how it has any bearing on childrearing, anymore than whether or not the parents have sex with eachother. I also know of a heterosexual couple with a VERY interesting sex life with some very involved and active, well adjusted children. Their business, not mine.
Perhaps the biggest child abusers of all are those like the OP, churchgoers and propagandists who expose their children to harmful religious dogma that is known to cause guilt, insecurity, feelings of anger and confusion in children, and later, adults:
Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were ‘hard-shell’ Baptists and Methodists.”
You don't get it - the willful placement of a child in a homosexual household is harmful to the child's development - they are being exposed to an immoral lifestyle and they are being deprived of both male and female parental influences. Doing so should be considered child abuse.
You are deflecting by talking about specific - overt acts.
The willful placement of a child in a home with negative societal attitudes such as yours is harmful to a child's development- they are being exposed to an immoral lifestyle and they are being deprived of emotionally healthy, accepting parents regardless of gender. Doing so should be considered child abuse.
I have quite a few friends who were raised by gay or lesbian parents. All went on to college. None got pregnant as teenagers. Most went on to grad school are are now gainfully employed, well adjusted, and very loved. Most of my friends born of traditional families cannot boast the same qualities. Furthermore, many of my gay friends were kicked out of their homes as teenagers. One was sent to a "pray away the gay" camp when we were 16 and has been homeless and involved with drugs ever since. Those who hold prejudice against the LBGTQ community cannot be good parents. They cannot raise children in a caring, supportive environment. Why are they allowed to raise children without question when gays and lesbians who have to jump through societal, legal, and financial hurdles to have children are looked down on?
My boyfriend is a former foster care kid. Do you know how much he would have cared about the genders of the parents who adopted him? Not one bit.
Some of my best friends are gay. Sure getting a lot of that silliness in this thread.
Lots of angry rhetoric from our c-d gay brigade and their lefty supporters. Must suck to go through life as them.
So much compassion. Unless the homosexual is a conservative...
Are you suffering from psychosis?
I don't care what sex, religion, race, or political group a homosexual belongs to, they ALL have a right to marry their partner and adopt children. Case closed. Not one shred of valid evidence have you or anyone else put forward that proves otherwise. In fact we, the gay brigade, have provided several items as evidence that proves you wrong.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,668,633 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Sorry, this is a red herring. A heterosexual married father with five children by his wife molesting his daughters is a bizzare aberration, almost unheard of.
Molestation was not the point of the story. Read the interview. Her experience is not some kind of freak, marginal case like the Browns. It's mainstream "gay culture".
But, to use your same reasoning, isn't the anecdotal evidence provided by the OP equally as marginal? I'll explain this further below.
And just to clarify: a "red herring" fallacy of argument intentionally shifts the stasis, which helenejean didin't do. A better example of a "red herring" argument goes something like this:
My opponent has consistently raised taxes, and he favors legalizing prostitution. We must vote against him because tax increases equal legalizing prostitution.
A "red herring" argument almost by definition must include an enthymeme or a syllogism, or premises which lead to a stated conclusion. It's true that all the premises don't have to be stated, depending on one's audience. That explains why premises that get stated all the time on C-D, such as "homosexual parents produce warped children," are bandied about with so much aplomb and apparent good will. Using deductive reasoning, let's turn that claim around.
Homosexual parents raise abused children.
X is a homosexual parent.
X's children will be abused.
This line of reasoning is clearly flawed; almost no one but the most homophobic would grant the first premise, so the next premise and the conclusion pretty much have to be thrown out. (The conclusion is that X's children will be abused), and premise 1 is the first line, and premise 2 is the second.
Inductive reasoning works in the opposite direction, and it is what the OP did here. He gave one example of a child (now grown) who has claimed to be injured by being raised in a homosexual environment, and from that incredibly small sample size he has generalized a conclusion encompassing the entire gay and lesbian population in the U.S.! Amazing!
Last edited by diva360; 07-10-2012 at 09:11 AM..
Reason: tired and no music
(to Ed from California) Are you suffering from psychosis?
I don't care what sex, religion, race, or political group a homosexual belongs to, they ALL have a right to marry their partner and adopt children. Case closed. Not one shred of valid evidence have you or anyone else put forward that proves otherwise. In fact we, the gay brigade, have provided several items as evidence that proves you wrong.
Excellent summary!
I'm finding it very suspicious that they won't even respond to some of our points at all...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
