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.
The founding fathers believed in no moral law, except from the "God of nature", which is that killing people is bad, and hurting others to better yourself is bad.
But other then that, each man (and woman) should be left to their own devices.
Moral law, is not what the founding fathers had in mind.
That is how I see it. And my wife and I had a similar discussion last night. IMO the bolded is really THAT SIMPLE! What 2 consenting adults do is none of my business, and has no effect on my life what so ever!
I think of the world in terms of subjective well-being. And then look at the psychology of homosexuality.
The simple question you have to ask is, is humanity better off because homosexuality exists?
In my opinion, I see absolutely no benefit to society by the existence of homosexuality. And homosexuality itself is inherently inferior for a variety of reasons, regardless of its levels of acceptance.
Secondly, does homosexuality necessarily need to exist? Yes and No.
There is something called the Kinsey scale which was used to try to gauge sexual attraction. There has even been a recent scientific study that says that they can gauge sexual attraction by pupil dilation.
The interesting thing is, all women are basically attracted to other women biologically(but not necessarily consciously or emotionally), but men vary significantly. Either they are only attracted to men, only attracted to women, or attracted to both. And the percentage that are effectively "responsive" to both is a larger percentage than the current gay population.
So in my opinion, we both need to focus our efforts on getting rid of the root causes of homosexuality(genetics and hormonal imbalances during development), and also try to encourage anyone who effectively is "Bi" to stay heterosexual.
And part of the way to achieve that, is to encourage a more optimal family structure, while discouraging homosexuality.
I also believe that there should be no gay adoption.
While I understand, many gay couples might make good money, and have a relatively stable home. I would still say that it is far from an optimal environment for rearing children. It seems the argument about gay adoption is less about gay couples being good parents, but rather that they are "good enough" when comparing them to drug addicts and other irresponsible people.
If it was up to me, about a third of all the children would be taken out of their homes and their parents would be forcefully sterilized.
In my opinion, I see absolutely no benefit to society by the existence of homosexuality. And homosexuality itself is inherently inferior for a variety of reasons, regardless of its levels of acceptance.
How is homosexuality "inherently inferior"? Just because they can't reproduce naturally? This can be seen as a plus as well as a negative, because it isn't people who can reproduce naturally that generally adopt kids given up by people who have reproduced naturally. But of course, you see no benefit in a group of people more likely to adopt because you probably never lived in an orphanage personally
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
So in my opinion, we both need to focus our efforts on getting rid of the root causes of homosexuality(genetics and hormonal imbalances during development), and also try to encourage anyone who effectively is "Bi" to stay heterosexual.
In mine, we need to focus our efforts on goals that actually make a positive difference in society, like enabling homosexuals to marry (1 and 2) and adopt (3, 4, and 5).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And part of the way to achieve that, is to encourage a more optimal family structure, while discouraging homosexuality.
I also believe that there should be no gay adoption.
While I understand, many gay couples might make good money, and have a relatively stable home. I would still say that it is far from an optimal environment for rearing children. It seems the argument about gay adoption is less about gay couples being good parents, but rather that they are "good enough" when comparing them to drug addicts and other irresponsible people.
No, the argument is that gay parents do just as good a job (if not better) than heterosexual parents, and it's supported by consistent evidence (see links above), whereas the argument that gay parenting is anything less than "optimal" is not.
How is homosexuality "inherently inferior"? Just because they can't reproduce naturally? This can be seen as a plus as well as a negative, because it isn't people who can reproduce naturally that generally adopt kids given up by people who have reproduced naturally. But of course, you see no benefit in a group of people more likely to adopt because you probably never lived in an orphanage personally.
That is a major problem, they cannot reproduce naturally. And while many heterosexual people also do not want to have children. Many homosexuals do want to have children, their own children, and they can't. Adoption is simply not the same as having a child that is genetically yours.
But more importantly, I think that homosexual men lack the moderating force of women. Which is largely why homosexual men have such a high number of sexual partners, and have such a high prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse.
Lastly, I think homosexual households are effectively single-parent households, because they lack the insight that can only be gathered by having a parent of each sex. Especially in regards to how women and men are supposed to interact in a relationship.
I mean seriously, do you not see that homosexual relationships are inherently inferior? I don't mean that all homosexual relationships are completely dysfunctional. But simply that homosexual relationships are far from optimal. The optimal situation is a real mother and father. Homosexual adoption is near the bottom of the list, right above drug addict.
Quote:
No, the argument is that gay parents do just as good a job (if not better) than heterosexual parents, and it's supported by consistent evidence (see links above), whereas the argument that gay parenting is anything less than "optimal" is not.
As for your "statistics". No one with a brain that compares apples to apples, would ever believe that homosexual men would have a lower divorce rate than heterosexual men. And no one with a brain would believe that divorce rates have anything to do with whether or not a state bans same-sex marriage.
The reality is that, the percentage of homosexual men seeking marriage is very low even where it is legal. The few that do want to be married, almost invariably have already been together for a very long time. And as for states and divorce rates. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is just that in those states people are less likely to get married to begin with, and tend to marry much later in life. In the southern states, people are more likely to get married, and to marry at much younger ages, which increases the odds of divorce.
As for the adoption studies you linked. All of them are based on lesbian couples, none are based on gay couples. And it doesn't say that lesbian couples are equal to the heterosexual couples, but simply that, you don't notice a big enough difference to be able to say this kid was definitely raised in a homosexual household and this one in a heterosexual household, by doing a psychological test on the kid. But I would be interested in finding out if they compare the children of lesbian couples to only the children of heterosexual couples, or if they also include the children of single mothers(which would obviously behave a lot like the children of lesbian couples).
The only interesting tidbit in the studies(which I think you alluded to), is that it says that lesbian couples might be better than heterosexual couples, because the non-parent lesbian partner is more likely to spend time with the children than a heterosexual man... In my view, that seems to just be saying that men suck at raising children(which is probably true).
And BTW, I don't see tolerance and gender role flexibility as a virtue. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 08-30-2012 at 02:35 PM..
That is a major problem, they cannot reproduce naturally. And while many heterosexual people also do not want to have children. Many homosexuals do want to have children, their own children, and they can't. Adoption is simply not the same as having a child that is genetically yours.
I have my own biological child. I used the same method that many heterosexuals use.
But more importantly, I think that homosexual men lack the moderating force of women. Which is largely why homosexual men have such a high number of sexual partners, and have such a high prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse.
Lastly, I think homosexual households are effectively single-parent households, because they lack the insight that can only be gathered by having a parent of each sex. Especially in regards to how women and men are supposed to interact in a relationship.
Many children are raised by single parents, and are quite normal even outstanding. Many heterosexual parents who are married abuse their children. I can, and do explain everything to my children, and there are many male and female friends and family members that they can go to.
There are many dysfunctional hetero couples raising children, is that they way to show children how to interact in a relationship? My children can learn about love and respect in a relationship from me and my partner just fine, in fact we can teach them about relationships better than some hetero couples.
I mean seriously, do you not see that homosexual relationships are inherently inferior? I don't mean that all homosexual relationships are completely dysfunctional. But simply that homosexual relationships are far from optimal. The optimal situation is a real mother and father. Homosexual adoption is near the bottom of the list, right above drug addict.
As for your "statistics". No one with a brain that compares apples to apples, would ever believe that homosexual men would have a lower divorce rate than heterosexual men. And no one with a brain would believe that divorce rates have anything to do with whether or not a state bans same-sex marriage.
The reality is that, the percentage of homosexual men seeking marriage is very low even where it is legal. The few that do want to be married, almost invariably have already been together for a very long time. And as for states and divorce rates. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is just that in those states people are less likely to get married to begin with, and tend to marry much later in life. In the southern states, people are more likely to get married, and to marry at much younger ages, which increases the odds of divorce.
As for the adoption studies you linked. All of them are based on lesbian couples, none are based on gay couples. And it doesn't say that lesbian couples are equal to the heterosexual couples, but simply that, you don't notice a big enough difference to be able to say this kid was definitely raised in a homosexual household and this one in a heterosexual household, by doing a psychological test on the kid. But I would be interested in finding out if they compare the children of lesbian couples to only the children of heterosexual couples, or if they also include the children of single mothers(which would obviously behave a lot like the children of lesbian couples).
The only interesting tidbit in the studies(which I think you alluded to), is that it says that lesbian couples might be better than heterosexual couples, because the non-parent lesbian partner is more likely to spend time with the children than a heterosexual man... In my view, that seems to just be saying that men suck at raising children(which is probably true).
No that would be legislating activities that harm others. How does SSM harm others?
What's wrong with harming others? Who are YOU or anyone, for that matter, to impose on me your anti-harm mentality? I can do WHAT I WANT, as long as *I* can defend myself. Law of the jungle, baby.
You seem to misunderstand me. Because you are conflating two different things.
In no way am I saying that all heterosexual and single-parent families are better at raising children than all homosexual families.
My argument is that, I concern myself with subjective well-being of humanity, and want the best for humanity.
If it was up to me, most people wouldn't even be allowed to have children to begin with. And if it was up to me, most of the children that already exist, would be removed from their homes and put in more appropriate homes.
Look at it like this, if people had to come to you to receive a parent license before they could have a child, how many of the people that you know would you grant that license? And even more, how many of the children who already exist, would not exist if their parents had to come to you to get permission to procreate.
The truth is, I would say less than 5% of the children that are alive today are to people I would grant a license. And the really messed up part is, had my own mother and father come to me for a permit, I would have told them no as well, and I never would have been born. And that doesn't bother me.
My mother was a great person, but my father is just not a parent. And sadly, he has six children under his belt from three different women... He isn't a terrible person, just not a good parent. He simply isn't loving or loyal, and he is selfish and cheap.
Almost all the women I know who have children, are single-parents, or at least are with a man who is not the kids real father. Which is simply sub-optimal no matter how many excuses you want to make.
As for the studies that purport to justify gay-marriage or gay-adoption. Simple logic would negate most of the supposed findings as simply be selective and optimistic.
The ridiculous study discussing "tolerance" in gay households is totally useless. For one, I don't believe tolerance is necessarily a good thing. And I cringe at the word compromise. Which to me just means that a person sacrificed their principles for expediency.
You are confusing me with someone who thinks "flexibility" is a good thing. I want the best, and I will strive for the best. And I will not accept the inferiority that is homosexuality. Period.
That is a major problem, they cannot reproduce naturally.
Why!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And while many heterosexual people also do not want to have children. Many homosexuals do want to have children, their own children, and they can't. Adoption is simply not the same as having a child that is genetically yours.
Subjective. Some adoptive parents are quite fulfilled with their adoptive children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
But more importantly, I think that homosexual men lack the moderating force of women. Which is largely why homosexual men have such a high number of sexual partners, and have such a high prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse.
Links please, and from a credible source. Ultimately, your first sentence is just what you think, hardly qualifying it as reason to discriminate against an entire class of people. And your tying this "thought" in with these other claims is completely unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Lastly, I think homosexual households are effectively single-parent households, because they lack the insight that can only be gathered by having a parent of each sex. Especially in regards to how women and men are supposed to interact in a relationship.
Apparently not. What you think has been refuted by the evidence 100 times over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I mean seriously, do you not see that homosexual relationships are inherently inferior?
Gotta be real for me to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As for your "statistics". No one with a brain that compares apples to apples, would ever believe that homosexual men would have a lower divorce rate than heterosexual men. And no one with a brain would believe that divorce rates have anything to do with whether or not a state bans same-sex marriage.
So you're claiming the data is wrong... while providing none of your own to support that claim... Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The reality is that, the percentage of homosexual men seeking marriage is very low even where it is legal. The few that do want to be married, almost invariably have already been together for a very long time. And as for states and divorce rates. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is just that in those states people are less likely to get married to begin with, and tend to marry much later in life. In the southern states, people are more likely to get married, and to marry at much younger ages, which increases the odds of divorce.
Nice try. However,
Quote:
(The divorce rate) is calculated by taking the total number of divorces in the state that year, and dividing it by the number of married persons, as reported by the Census Bureau.
Meaning the people who marry are less likely to divorce, not just that there are fewer divorces in the state.
And can you confirm, with facts, that these states with high divorce rates also have more people getting married young than the states with lower divorce rates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As for the adoption studies you linked. All of them are based on lesbian couples, none are based on gay couples.
I'm stopping here. It's time for you to start supporting your claims, including this one, with something other than... more unfounded claims.
Subjective. Some adoptive parents are quite fulfilled with their adoptive children.
Take a poll of adoptive parents who wish they could have just had their own child. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people who adopt children are doing it because that is their only option. Making due with what you have available is more an act of desperation and settling, and is not the same as being optimal.
Quote:
Apparently not. What you think has been refuted by the evidence 100 times over.
I will agree that my evidence is largely anecdotal. But, it is most certainly the truth that young men learn a lot about how to interact with women, especially in relationships, from seeing how his father interacts with his mother. And men tend to treat their girlfriends how they treat their mother.
The truth is, boys need a male role-model. Every study I have ever seen says this exact same thing. They continually preach the need for male role models all the time. There are organizations like Big brother Big sister for this very purpose. To pretend that a boy doesn't need a father is absolutely ludicrous.
And while a boy might be able to find a male role-model even if he is being raised by lesbian mothers, I still don't see how it could possibly be the same thing. And it leaves a huge deficit in the boys mind in regards to how he should treat his girlfriend, because he never really sees it first-hand. And I'm sure this all applies in reverse to girls and female role-models, I'm just not a girl.
Quote:
So you're claiming the data is wrong... while providing none of your own to support that claim... Interesting.
Seriously, lets put all the data to the side for a minute, and I assume you are a homosexual male. Do you really believe that the homosexual male cohabitation failure rate is lower than the heterosexual cohabitation failure rate?
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it is a well-known fact that homosexual men are far more likely to have many many many more partners than heterosexual men on average. That homosexual men are more likely to have non-monogamous relationships. And that they are much more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. How in the hell could anyone with any sense believe that the homosexual male cohabitation failure rate is lower than it is for heterosexuals?
When it comes to statistics, I understand that it is about the number of people who get married vs the number of people who get divorced. But what I'm saying is that, the states with the lowest divorce rates are coincidentally the states with the lowest marriage rates. And if you ever look at the statistics, you will also see that the people who do marry, tend to marry later in life. And in bible-belt states which have high divorce rates, you see that people who marry tend to be younger. And this pattern existed long before gay-marriage existed in any state. So to pretend that gay-marriage has absolutely anything to do with divorce rates is completely unfounded.
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.
