PDA

View Full Version : Study: Gay parents more likely to have gay kids



Curtis24
10-17-2010, 03:53 PM
Oct. 17) -- Walter Schumm knows what he's about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.

Not all of the vitriol was hyperbolic. Cameron does not tolerate gay people. He believes that "homosexual practice is injurious to society."

The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron "the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America." Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an "ethical" violation.

Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose "overriding mission" is to publish "empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality."

Schumm doesn't go for that sort of research. After Cameron's 2006 paper, Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed little to no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.

Schumm began investigating the second premise. "I just want to know the truth about something," he tells AOL News. And he found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children's lives -- but not in any way their sexual orientation.

Lawyers for the state of Florida heard of Schumm's fledgling research and invited him in 2008 to testify in a case. The state's Department of Children and Families was attempting to uphold a ban on gay and lesbian parents adopting children. Schumm's testimony actually ended up aiding the gay parents in the trial.

He said: "Gay parents can be good foster parents," and "The decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis."

Schumm tells AOL News that he agreed to testify as one of the state's witnesses only if his evidence was not "slanted" for or against gay rights.

But also in his testimony was an inkling of the robust research Schumm has just completed. His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. "I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic," Schumm tells AOL News.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting; Cameron, for what it's worth, had only looked at three, and offered no statistical analysis in his paper. Schumm skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.

This is important because sometimes Schumm would come across a passage of children of gay parents who said they were "adamant about not declaring their sexual orientation at all." These people would be labeled straight, even though the passage's implication was that they were gay.

Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.

Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.)

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures' acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, "89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior."

Finally, Schumm looked at the existing academic studies, the ones used to pillory Cameron's work. In all there are 26 such studies. Schumm ran the numbers from them and concluded that, surprisingly, 20 percent of the kids of gay parents were gay themselves. When children only 17 or older were included in the analysis, 28 percent were gay.

Abbie Goldberg is a psychology professor at Clark University, and the author of "Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle," which this year won the Distinguished Book Award from the APA. She hasn't read Schumm's study, only seen the abstract. But she says, in general, that a meta-analysis of this nature relies on sample sizes that are often too small and may furthermore brim with participants whose perspective is firmly aligned with the LGBT community. In other words, they're aware of these sorts of studies and seek them out.

"The fundamental problem with this [type of meta-analysis] is such samples tend to be biased," Goldberg tells AOL News.

Schumm says he guarded against that by seeking out so many different works. And across all his data -- the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles -- he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women."


But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says.

Schumm says it shouldn't have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose "liberal or progressive political interpretations" on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. "It's kind of sad," he tells AOL News.

As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Eldritch
10-17-2010, 05:49 PM
If this works the other way around too -- that heterosexual people usually have heterosexual kids -- then how come homosexuals exist in the first place?

Crossbow
10-17-2010, 06:48 PM
If this works the other way around too -- that heterosexual people usually have heterosexual kids -- then how come homosexuals exist in the first place?

You're describing the normal situation where heterosexual parents are able to procreate. A homosexual child is therefore an anomality, an accident so to speak. And very important, gays don't make children, they don't have a normal bond with their 'children' like natural parents. They consider them to be free people, ready for anti-traditional indoctrination.
What homosexual parents do is prepare their 'children' (which is nonsense, because they don't have any) for a life as purely sexual orientated human beings, who can taste whatever they like. But let them be free to choose please! That's perverted and disgusting and irresponsible perception of things imo.

Loddfafner
10-17-2010, 06:49 PM
Quantitative studies in this field are notoriously unreliable. Sample sizes are too small to draw any conclusions from weak correlations,conservative legislators tend to interfere with the funding of any study with a sufficiently large sample, liberal funding sources pull away from studies that go off their scripts, political expectations interfere with the framing of questions, and vast gray areas, contradictions, and ambiguities interfere with categorizing observations consistently enough to draw meaningful comparisons.

A particular problem with cross-cultural studies is determining boundaries, given how cultures spread out from each other, influence each other, change through history, and vary internally. Would you count Norway and Sweden as separate cultures, Norwegian and Sami, Oslo and some rural hamlet? Is data collected from Philadelphia or Altoona more representative of Pennsylvanian culture?

Bloodeagle
10-17-2010, 06:49 PM
I never understood how any one who was not born a homosexual would ever want to become a homosexual. ;)
So, I do believe in the genetics of homosexuality!

Crossbow
10-17-2010, 06:50 PM
If this works the other way around too -- that heterosexual people usually have heterosexual kids -- then how come homosexuals exist in the first place?

You're describing the nomal situation where heterosexual parents are able to procreate. Homosexual offspring is therefore an anomality, an accident so to speak. And, very important imo, gays don't make children, they don't have a normal bond with their 'children' like natural parents. They consider them to be free people, ready for anti-traditional indoctrination.
What homosexual parents do is to prepare their 'children' (which is nonsense, because they don't have any) into purely sexual orientated human beings, who can taste whatever they like. But let them be free to choose please! That's a perverted and disgusting and irresponsible perception.

Curtis24
10-17-2010, 06:51 PM
That's debatable. It seems that homosexuality involves both genetics and environmental "triggers" - just as someone genetically prone to alcoholism needs to have a drink to become alcoholic, those who are genetically prone to homosexuality must have some sort of experience to make them homosexual. At the same time, if they don't have that experience, they would become heterosexual.

Just what these triggers are, is unknown. Psychotheray tradtionally held it was a weak father and domineering mother; and of course, actual homosexual experiences as a pre-adolescent would seem to contribute greatly as well.

Perhaps one trigger is exposure(not necessarily sexual exposure) to other homosexuals.

Bloodeagle
10-17-2010, 06:54 PM
That's debatable. It seems that homosexuality involves both genetics and environmental "triggers" - just as someone genetically prone to alcoholism needs to have a drink to become alcoholic, those who are genetically prone to homosexuality must have some sort of experience to make them homosexual. At the same time, if they don't have that experience, they would become heterosexual.

Just what these triggers are, is unknown. Psychotheray tradtionally held it was a weak father and domineering mother; and of course, actual homosexual experiences as a pre-adolescent would seem to contribute greatly as well.

Perhaps one trigger is exposure(not necessarily sexual exposure) to other homosexuals.

I don't believe heterosexuals need environmental triggers to become heterosexuals so why would the opposite be true for homosexuals. :confused:
It's instinct not learned behavior!

Curtis24
10-17-2010, 06:58 PM
I don't believe heterosexuals need environmental triggers to become heterosexuals so why would the opposite be true for homosexuals. :confused:
It's instinct not learned behavior!

Actually, they do need such triggers. Human sexuality, like all of human personality, is a combo of environment and genetics.

Gorillas raised in captivity have trouble mating with gorillas from the wild; obviously, there's a learned aspect of sexuality going on here.

In our own human societies, we have a wide range of abnormal sexual behavior which is often related to background and pre-puberty experiences.

Bloodeagle
10-17-2010, 07:12 PM
Actually, they do need such triggers. Human sexuality, like all of human personality, is a combo of environment and genetics.

Gorillas raised in captivity have trouble mating with gorillas from the wild; obviously, there's a learned aspect of sexuality going on here.

In our own human societies, we have a wide range of abnormal sexual behavior which is often related to background and pre-puberty experiences.
So gorillas or any other animal must witness a sexual act before they can successfully copulate? :rolleyes:
Show me the studies that prove this!
Also, show me the sources that proves or disproves any aspect of human sexual orientation.

~°2012°~
10-17-2010, 07:41 PM
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

Crossbow
10-17-2010, 08:04 PM
People in this forum are obsessed with the homosexual question. The Judaic virus of homophobia, brought to european cultures via Christianity is the reason that in 20 years, "50 Cent" will be considered the ideal for "manhood" in the eyes of european kids, and everything from classical music to great painting, sculptures, great poetry and martial arts (not mixed-martial-entertainment-bullshit) will be considered "omg gay!!!!". You people are batshit insane.

Quite normal in a forum dedicated to European cultural and ethnic preservation, obsessed is a little exaggerated though. And heterosexuals don't need homosexuals, yet gays need heterosexuals to produce partners for them. It is all very natural as you can see.
And what you say about paintings, poetry and classical music has something to do with the general destruction of white culture, the end of our civilization, hastened by gay rights and dominant gay behaviour among others. So yes, I am concerned.

Treffie
10-18-2010, 07:23 AM
Quite normal in a forum dedicated to European cultural and ethnic preservation, obsessed is a little exaggerated though. And heterosexuals don't need homosexuals, yet gays need heterosexuals to produce partners for them. It is all very natural as you can see.


Guess what? Gays have been having kids for thousands of years. We don't know who they were or what they did, but homosexuality itself has been around since year dot. The only difference these days is that society is more accepting and there is less taboo.

Psychonaut
10-18-2010, 09:25 AM
So gorillas or any other animal must witness a sexual act before they can successfully copulate? :rolleyes:
Show me the studies that prove this!
Also, show me the sources that proves or disproves any aspect of human sexual orientation.

That there are "learned" dimensions of sexuality isn't really questioned anymore, no? I mean, you don't exactly see chimps engaging in BSDM, do you?

~°2012°~
10-18-2010, 09:54 AM
Quite normal in a forum dedicated to European cultural and ethnic preservation, obsessed is a little exaggerated though. And heterosexuals don't need homosexuals, yet gays need heterosexuals to produce partners for them. It is all very natural as you can see.
And what you say about paintings, poetry and classical music has something to do with the general destruction of white culture, the end of our civilization, hastened by gay rights and dominant gay behaviour among others. So yes, I am concerned.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

Eldritch
10-18-2010, 10:10 AM
People in this forum are obsessed with the homosexual question.

There are currently 19,229 threads on the Apricity, and the term "homosexuality" appears in 174 of them, while "homosexual" in 204. Either way percentually that's less than virtually all the estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Hardly an indication of obsession.

However I think you're absolutely on the money with this:


Homosexuality is one thing, the "gay-pride culture" as a political tool is another.

Crossbow
10-18-2010, 05:32 PM
Guess what? Gays have been having kids for thousands of years. We don't know who they were or what they did, but homosexuality itself has been around since year dot. The only difference these days is that society is more accepting and there is less taboo.

You must be referring to those who kept up appearances.
Of course it has been around for ages, but what bothers me most is the gay movement's aggressive ways to convince everybody of the marvel of being gay, and that it should be recognized as a normal way of living, equal to that of procreating heterosexuals. We should integrate 'gay-thinking' and other elements of gaydom in society. It is not right if there is no gay involved in no matter what. When no gay is available they invent one. I do not believe in that, it is just another hedonistic manifestation of modern freedom and of course, there has to be taken maximum advantage of that.

Guapo
10-18-2010, 07:00 PM
gays:teh niggers of europe.

Groenewolf
10-19-2010, 03:05 AM
You must be referring to those who kept up appearances.
Of course it has been around for ages, but what bothers me most is the gay movement's aggressive ways to convince everybody of the marvel of being gay, and that it should be recognized as a normal way of living, equal to that of procreating heterosexuals.

Even worse are all those politicians of parties sitting in parliament (except the SGP, not sure about the PVV) who are falling over each other trying to be a part of those decadent parties those homosexuals trow each year in the channels.

007
10-25-2010, 09:10 PM
That there are "learned" dimensions of sexuality isn't really questioned anymore, no? I mean, you don't exactly see chimps engaging in BSDM, do you?

So, it's the deviance that's learned, since chimps have no trouble procreating?

exceeder
01-31-2011, 01:14 AM
Just a thought but it might also be possible that lgbt parents are generally more accepting of their children being open about their own sexualities. On the whole, I think children of lgbt parents would feel more comfortable being honest with their sexuality then SOME children of SOME heterosexual parents who may potentially be homophobic and unnaccepting to the possibility they might have lgbt children. Just my thoughts though, not saying this is necessarily the case for this study.

Austin
01-31-2011, 01:16 AM
You won't ever convince the true naturalists and traditionalists that it is acceptable and conducive to a healthy society.

Adalwolf
01-31-2011, 01:28 AM
Yet another absurd study from the left. Besides, there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic birth defect. Personally I believe early environmental exposures can mold the mind of a young infant. The 'imprint theory' is the most logical.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691703/

And for those of you that are quick to counter that ''why then does homosexuality exist in the animal kingdom? The truth is that most animals are innately bisexual and if their primal needs are not being met by willing females(vice-versa), then they go for the closest alternative.

Debaser11
01-31-2011, 05:18 AM
Yet another absurd study from the left. Besides, there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic birth defect. Personally I believe early environmental exposures can mold the mind of a young infant. The 'imprint theory' is the most logical.


This is too blank slatist (Marxist) in emphasis, I think. You might as well give into the "intelligence is learned from an early age more so than it is a genetic thing" with that line of thinking.

I'd say there is a genetic predisposition to it but sexual norms (i.e. normalization) within our culture regarding homosexuality have varying effects on different individuals. It's quite likely the permissive attitudes of this century turn people who'd never otherwise consider having a same sex relationship under a more guarded culture into being "open" (a synonym for 'nondiscerning' with complete positive connotations these days) about it. Afterall, in some sub-cultures, it seems effeminite, hipster men who can convince people they are bi have street cred. They idolize people like Lou Reed and David Bowie (men who largely seem like heterosexuals (imo) based on 99% of their dating patterns aside from having shock sex with men to make some image about themselves).

Likewise, it's also possible that this current permissiveness STOPS people with homosexual-leanings who may actually to be able to overcome their urges and rechannel them into a more optimal relationship from trying to overcome this predisposition. In a more sexually restrained society, it's very likely many of the people who fall into this culture of gayness, so to speak, would feel pressure to try to find fulfillment through traditional (and arguably more healthy) avenues.

Psychonaut
01-31-2011, 09:08 AM
This is too blank slatist (Marxist)...

LOL, what's specifically Marxist about the tabula rasa? I mean, there's a vague connection through the general chain of liberal thought, since it was espoused by Locke and Hobbes, but its roots go all the way back to Aristotle.

Blossom
01-31-2011, 09:12 AM
I'll just never forgive what they're doing nowadays, disrupting the natural behaviour of our next youth by accepting the homosexual custody. Homosexuality is a disease...and they're just spreading it all over. So disgusting. So immoral.

Peasant
01-31-2011, 09:23 AM
I got the gay vaccine so I am safe. Terrible disease.

Eldritch
01-31-2011, 01:55 PM
I'll just never forgive what they're doing nowadays, disrupting the natural behaviour of our next youth by accepting the homosexual custody. Homosexuality is a disease...and they're just spreading it all over. So disgusting. So immoral.

Sorry, Liia, but's that's perhaps the most elemental mistake usually made by people who dislike gays (which you have every right to do, if you're that way inclined): claiming that homosexuality is both a disease, and an immoral sin or crime. But it cannot be both those things; diseases have no morality, and immorality on the other hand requires volition.

The Ripper
01-31-2011, 01:59 PM
Homosexuality is a very marginal phenomenon. Who benefits from attempting to mainstream it, using it as tool to attack tradtion, institutions, custom?

Blossom
01-31-2011, 02:02 PM
Sorry, Liia, but's that's perhaps the most elemental mistake usually made by people who dislike gays (which you have every right to do, if you're that way inclined): claiming that homosexuality is both a disease, and an immoral sin or crime. But it cannot be both those things; diseases have no morality, and immorality on the other hand requires volition.

I'm not calling the gays immoral, I'm calling the society and the laws who give custody of those children for homosexual persons.

poiuytrewq0987
01-31-2011, 02:02 PM
Study: Gay parents more likely to have gay kids

Yeah, studying the obvious.

Eldritch
01-31-2011, 02:07 PM
I'm not calling the gays immoral, I'm calling the society and the laws who give custody of those children for homosexual persons.

Okay, understood.

Peasant
01-31-2011, 02:31 PM
I'm not calling the gays immoral, I'm calling the society and the laws who give custody of those children for homosexual persons.

That is not what you said at all. Gays adopting kids etc is something I am certainly against.

EDIT: Ah, I missed the key word in the earlier post... custody.:thumb001:

Blossom
01-31-2011, 02:45 PM
That is not what you said at all. Gays adopting kids etc is something I am certainly against.

EDIT: Ah, I missed the key word in the earlier post... custody.:thumb001:

What's the point? That's my opinion. And I'll repeat it in case someone didnt understand me and my rusty english. I do not accept any law and I either forgive society and laws who allow gays getting custodies for children. Homosexuality should be treated but not spreaded (by make kids see its same normal as being heterosexual,..).
Better now?

exceeder
01-31-2011, 03:27 PM
Whilst I respect others opinions, I must say I never fully understood why some people have such deep seeded animosity towards gay people and/or homosexuality.

And Adalwolf, while I am not increadibly familiar with reasons for same-sexual activity within the animal kindgom, I do know one animal that is inately bisexual whether or not there are opposite gender members of their species present. The bonobo! Its truly a fascinating creature. :D

Blossom
01-31-2011, 03:47 PM
Maybe it's because we're used to see heterosexuality more natural, the only natural way you can get babies...and maybe because there were (back in history) and nowadays more heterosexuals than homosexuals. So we automatically deny the not-natural human behaviour. I sometimes understand homosexuality while the person got malformation on the genitals, but I do not understand it like a natural thinggy without that last reason I said.
I do not see it like a natural being, sorry, but that's my opinion. They got a Gay Parade. Why so much furor? Why dont we have a Heterosexual Parade? It's kinda disgusting the way then want to make people see how normal they are. They're sick (mentally) and they'd better wait for a good treatment. And for those with malformation, ok, I do understand their being. (...)

They're too noisy anyway and annoying many times, act like they got a carrot on the anus 24/7. At least the ones I know.

Fortis in Arduis
01-31-2011, 04:30 PM
Hmm, nature or nurture? :scratch:

Is the jury still out?

lol @ "malformation on the genitals"

Treffie
01-31-2011, 04:43 PM
I'll just never forgive what they're doing nowadays,

What is there to forgive? Have you been harmed by them? :confused:

Blossom
01-31-2011, 04:47 PM
Hmm, nature or nurture? :scratch:

Is the jury still out?

lol @ "malformation on the genitals"

Dear member, English is not my motherlanguage. Ok?
-''malformation in genitals'' I'm not going to post pics of those on here. I got several of those from Medicine books I own.
-and ''NATURE''. yeah nature.

Blossom
01-31-2011, 04:50 PM
What is there to forgive? Have you been harmed by them? :confused:

No..
forgive: 1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.

How do you want me to say that?:confused:
1. I will never excuse them (politicians) by accepting the law.
2. I will never pardon them...


What's the problem? Am I the only one ''disliking'' homosexuality?

Adalwolf
01-31-2011, 05:01 PM
Am I the only one ''disliking'' homosexuality?[/B]

Not at all. It's just that there is a difference from the(1) open homosexual who wants to flaunt his ideas to the world and make everyone accept it. And the(2) closeted one who is trying to suppress his knowingly perverse attractions, and hope to overcome it. I have sympathies for the second person.

Blossom
01-31-2011, 05:07 PM
Not at all. It's just that there is a difference from the(1) open homosexual who wants to flaunt his ideas to the world and make everyone accept it. And the(2) closeted one who is trying to suppress his knowingly perverse attractions, and hope to overcome it. I have sympathies for the second person.

Actually they say Plato was hermaphrodite :) your signature reminded me of that fact.

Here's some biological information about hermaphrodites: http://books.google.es/books?id=eVwgAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA723&lpg=PA723&dq=hermaphrodite+malformation&source=bl&ots=mN2m6dOQVY&sig=J8d8WP7eVWztJDgfqebcuqdKvrk&hl=es&ei=VPhGTcCRDNeqhAeV4unCAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hermaphrodite%20malformation&f=false

Fortis in Arduis
01-31-2011, 05:14 PM
People tend to like their own like, which is how poor afflicted Liia wound up with:


They're too noisy anyway and annoying many times, act like they got a carrot on the anus 24/7. At least the ones I know.

The lol @ malformation on/of the genitals was at the very idea of such a thing being a cause of homosexuality. What utter horseshit!

Some people are, some people are not and some people are bisequel etc.

Different societies have organised themselves differently around this unchanging reality.

Some societies deny that they have any homosexuality at all, such as India.

lol @ that too, and the overbearing reproductive ethos which probably underpins it.

Blossom
01-31-2011, 05:17 PM
The lol @ malformation on/of the genitals was at the very idea of such a thing being a cause of homosexuality. What utter horseshit!

That's just ONE of the so many causes...I thought that was clear..:)

Treffie
01-31-2011, 05:20 PM
That's just ONE of the so many causes...I thought that was clear..:)

When you state `malformation of the genitals`, do you mean that their penis/vagina are mis-shaped?

exceeder
01-31-2011, 05:39 PM
No..
forgive: 1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.

How do you want me to say that?:confused:
1. I will never excuse them (politicians) by accepting the law.
2. I will never pardon them...


What's the problem? Am I the only one ''disliking'' homosexuality?

:) There is no problem liia, I think some of us are just confused, likely due to the language barrier, thats all. Whilst I might disagree with you, you are free to 'dislike' homosexuality/homosexuals. I will admit however, that your choice of words are a bit confusing to me though.

Debaser11
01-31-2011, 06:22 PM
Actually they say Plato was hermaphrodite :) your signature reminded me of that fact.

Who are "they"? Primary sources? The clergy of modern academia? Both?

Loddfafner
01-31-2011, 08:07 PM
I really, really hope Liia is trolling and does not seriously expect the state to enforce her personal taste and justify it with such illogical fantasies. I defend the right to be repulsed by the behavior of fellow humans; I am repulsed by certain kinds of music but I don't expect the government to prohibit them.

Psychonaut
01-31-2011, 08:38 PM
When you state `malformation of the genitals`, do you mean that their penis/vagina are mis-shaped?

Come on, Treff. Surely you're aware of the vast amount of psychophysiological research which has concluded that the bearers of hook penises and square vaginas are far more inclined towards homosexuality than the rest of us!

Raikaswinþs
01-31-2011, 08:56 PM
What's the point? That's my opinion. And I'll repeat it in case someone didnt understand me and my rusty english. I do not accept any law and I either forgive society and laws who allow gays getting custodies for children. Homosexuality should be treated but not spreaded (by make kids see its same normal as being heterosexual,..).
Better now?

That is utterly absurd Señorita. homosexuality and heterosexuality aren´t affections and can´t be treated, they are both cultural and societal preferences. If your society choses male-female only relations as a standard and outcasts same-sex (or the other way around, which has also happened in some cultures) there´s always going to be outcasts among those who prefer the other option, or no option at all

I could explain you how sexual conducts beyond reproduction between same-genre partners, is nothing but natural and part of the societties of houndreds of species, mamals included , and also observerd in primates

some baboons for the record live in same-gender societies and only gather together for mating. However that fact doesn´t prevent them for having a healthy same-sex sexual life the rest of the time.

In my opinion we exceed ourselves in classifying human relations in simple labels and give too many importance to sex. All are those judeo-christian values from pathricarcal societies (the tabooing of sex)

Blossom
01-31-2011, 09:08 PM
Anyway, I do not mean that I want society/governmet to prohibit people's own lifestyle or that the government/laws/politicians should decide for our sexuality. The only thing I'm trying to say is that I do not like homosexuality and either homosexual adopting or getting kids by whatever source. This is my last post here. In any case, it was nice to share my opinion with you.


Good night.

Treffie
01-31-2011, 09:23 PM
Come on, Treff. Surely you're aware of the vast amount of psychophysiological research which has concluded that the bearers of hook penises and square vaginas are far more inclined towards homosexuality than the rest of us!

Oh! I thought that trying to fit a round peg into a square hole would be quite interesting as well as satisfying :p

Fortis in Arduis
01-31-2011, 09:38 PM
Anyway, I do not mean that I want society/governmet to prohibit people's own lifestyle or that the government/laws/politicians should decide for our sexuality. The only thing I'm trying to say is that I do not like homosexuality and either homosexual adopting or getting kids by whatever source. This is my last post here. In any case, it was nice to share my opinion with you.


Good night.

Why not post the pictures of malformed genitalia in spoiler tags? :thumbs up

Jamt
01-31-2011, 09:54 PM
Homosexuals have some kind of spirutal demonic obsession, how else can one explain it?

Debaser11
02-03-2011, 03:40 AM
LOL, what's specifically Marxist about the tabula rasa? I mean, there's a vague connection through the general chain of liberal thought, since it was espoused by Locke and Hobbes, but its roots go all the way back to Aristotle.

Touche.

But I in no way meant to imply that Karl Marx invented the blank slate idea. Marxists just have a unique way of applying this viewpoint to justify their populist politics which seeks to deify the masses. I won't pretend to be a well-read person, but perhaps you've seen me make posts regarding my admiration for men like Kant and Aquinas? They based their understanding of being more in line with Aristitotlian conceptions probably in order to establish some legitimacy for their systems of morality, I think. But Kant and Aquinas, unlike Marx, didn't extend this premise to the point that the very nature of humanity and existence itself could be altered (at least by my primitive understanding).

Afterall, it would seem much easier on the surface to make the claim that you are your own independent moral agent like Kant and Aquinas (and Locke) argued from the tabula rasa perspective than if you are biased by your inherent nature (genetics) which could be a materialized form of some prior essence more in line with Platonian thought. That being said, I'm not sure which point of view is less politically correct regarding the nature of homosexuality. I've seen gays get offended by the notion that they were born a certain way and I've seen them offended by the idea that the behavior is learned. The "community" is always offended! I think they're more offended by the latter, though. However, the latter does play well into the current Marxist paradigm of choosing to build a utopia. Of reshaping the nature of existence. I do believe environment plays some role in determining sex norms but I would not be so foolish to rule out pre-dispositions.

Fortis in Arduis
02-03-2011, 08:58 AM
Genital malformation...


:evil

Magister Eckhart
02-03-2011, 09:15 AM
Well I certainly missed out on a bit of fun in this thread.

So gay parents indoctrinate their kids to be sodomites too? This is probably true and unsurprising news - and mounting evidence of why buggerers and other perverts should be kept far away from children and forcibly sterilized just to be safe.

Psychonaut
02-03-2011, 09:38 AM
Afterall, it would seem much easier on the surface to make the claim that you are your own independent moral agent like Kant and Aquinas (and Locke) argued from the tabula rasa perspective than if you are biased by your inherent nature (genetics) which could be a materialized form of some prior essence more in line with Platonian thought.

Well, so many of the arguments surrounding the tabula rasa are intertwined with the issue of free will. Blank slatists tend to be metaphysical libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29), while those who ascribe a distinct inborn nature to humans are, by definition, some kind of determinist.

Raikaswinþs
02-03-2011, 09:44 AM
I don´t see how homophobia is related with european preservationism, but there is a lot of it here... Is there not a single gay aprician?

Magister Eckhart
02-03-2011, 09:52 AM
I don´t see how homophobia is related with european preservationism, but there is a lot of it here... Is there not a single gay aprician?

"homophobia"? Spare us your leftist neologisms.

Sodomitic practises, especially buggery, are a bane to European civilization, indicating the collapse of sexual ethics and of the desire of Europeans and Euro-Americans to procreate and further any form of our culture. We are talking about the break-down of social order and social ethics when we speak of this phenomenon: the destruction of the European in the face of the far more virile and morally clear-headed foreigners.

Buggery and other perversions being openly accepted in society is but one chink in our armour as we face off against the foes that would see us destroyed. Buggery alone is not the only problem, this is true: it is all sexual hedonism and animalistic lust that destroys the cornerstones of decent, moral society: marriage, family structures, devotion to the community, and religious devotion.

No one can claim to desire the preservation of Europe and endorse anything that destroys it, so I would be very surprised -- appalled, in fact -- to find any sodomites or buggerers here.

Raikaswinþs
02-03-2011, 10:01 AM
well you are not european so you shouldn´t moan about whatever is good or bad for european civilization.You don´t like gays? well, do something in your little corner of the new world.

But leave euros alone. Took us hard to get rid of judeo-christian superstitions and taboos, that you Yanks seem very fond of , (I guess it was good that America parted ways with europe a few centures ago. As you see we have evolved in differen ways)


... to ad-hominem me (calling me a leftist, which is probably one of the most offensive things you can think of) doesn´t prove your point either

Specially since if something, I would be considered a right wing by most european standards... I´m just no hater

but........haters gonna hate


PD: It is funny how most haters are obssessed with anal sex and tend to identify homosexuality with "buggery" and "sodomy" ,even when at least half of homosoexuals (you know, the females) of the world lack a certain sexual organ necesary for that practice, which is nevertheless a practice not unknown to heterosexual couples either way). Sure these same guys try to stick it up their girl friend´s arse whenever they have the chance

Eldritch
02-03-2011, 10:23 AM
´

PD: It is funny how most haters are obssessed with anal sex and tend to identify homosexuality with "buggery" and "sodomy" ,even when at least half of homosoexuals (you know, the females) of the world lack a certain sexual organ necesary for that practice, which is nevertheless a practice not unknown to heterosexual couples either way). Sure these same guys try to stick it up their girl friend´s arse whenever they have the chance

Anal sex isn't universal among gay men, either.

Magister Eckhart
02-03-2011, 10:28 AM
well you are not european so you shouldn´t moan about whatever is good or bad for european civilization.You don´t like gays? well, do something in your little corner of the new world.

But leave euros alone. Took us hard to get rid of judeo-christian superstitions and taboos, that you Yanks seem very fond of(I guess it was good that Aerica parted ways with europe for good a few centures ago. As you see we have evolved in differen ways


So, you're another one of those "Americans aren't real Europeans" types? When Europe is overrun and destroyed and we're the last bastion of Western Culture, I wonder if the anti-Americans will be singing the same tune.

At any rate, your attempt to simply dismiss me because of my origins does not speak very highly of either your position or yourself. You might reflect on this before pursuing the point.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that opposition to unnatural sex acts and hedonistic orgies are found in most European cultures except the Mediterraneans, so you may want to narrow the group for whom you are speaking when you damn "judeo-christian [sic] superstitions and taboos".

Just because Greeks and Romans gave themselves over to disgusting sexual practises does not mean that Europe has a generalised history of such immorality and indecency; if you wish to speak for these dead, pre-Western cultures, I encourage you to use language befitting such representation. Otherwise I would be very wary of using "European" is such a blanketing manner in reference to those you purport to represent.


Oh BTW... to ad-hominem me (calling me a leftist, which is probably one of the most offensive things you can think of) doesn´t prove your point.

I don't resort to ad hominems to win an argument, sir. If you would take the time to learn a little more English grammar you would see that the adjective "leftist" is modifying the noun "neologisms". "Homophobe" is a leftist neologism. Granted, that doesn't have a positive affect on anyone who uses the terminology, but it does not make that an ad hominem.

Also, if the term "leftist" is the most vulgar word that I can think of, that speaks rather highly of my own sense of decency, so I thank you for the compliment.


Specially since if something, I would be considered a right wing by most european standards... I´m just no hater

haters gonna hate

I'm really not terribly interested in where you would stand on the ever-shifting political spectrum that has been established by liberal parliamentarianism throughout the West. Considering the fact that David Cameron and Angela Merkel are considered right-wing by most European standards, I don't find you to be in especially attractive company.

Your use of nigger pidgin is not helping your cause.


PD: It is funny how most haters are obssessed with anal sex and tend to identify homosexuality with "buggery" and "sodomy". Sure these same guys try to stick it up their girl friend´s arse whenever they have the chance

Buggery is a vile practise in all circumstances; some hypocrisy among certain persons opposed to the homosexual perversion does not discredit those who rightly find it morally reprehensible, and your clichéd attempt to assassinate my character and the character of general opposition to sodomites is both misguided and in extremely poor form. Furthermore, your vulgarity in language is at the very best extremely off-putting.

Raikaswinþs
02-03-2011, 10:51 AM
yes, I am one of those who consider Americans to be a civilization of their own .

You mentioned that mediterraneans approve gay conducts whilst other europeans don´t. Well, then mediterraneans must have a very important voice in the Euro PArlament since most laws protecting the rights of Homosexuals in Europe have been passed through in the nordic countries too.

I am uncertain about what ALL europeans thought about homo sexual practices before the arrival of the levantine cults (the judeo-christian morality)

You mentioned that Romans and Greeks (and probably others too) didn´t seem to have a problem with it though.

Nevertheless , those mediterranean countries are still European and more representative of european civilization than your country ever will be.

I also don´t believe in "western civilization", as an aglomeration of all the developed countries in a globalized pan-culture of American Style capitalism, republic and christianity.

For me and many europeans, America is as much a thread to Europe as the Muslim world or China

First of all, because most europeans (at least the young generations) are religiously dettached, and while they respect those who aren´t, they don´t want their politics or society to be ruled any longer by bronze age superchery.

You keep on insisting on the "evil" of buggery (whatever is evil about that, is something that we can´t discuss, since we part from oposed civilizational perspectives, you being a white , christian new worlder and me being a atlantic mediterranean rationalist european)

But you still fail to recognize that the so called "sodomy" is not a frequent practice for most of the homo-sexual people, and, as somebody else pointed out, it also exists among non homo-sexual couples.

Magister Eckhart
02-03-2011, 01:26 PM
yes, I am one of those who consider Americans to be a civilization of their own .

You mentioned that mediterraneans approve gay conducts whilst other europeans don´t. Well, then mediterraneans must have a very important voice in the Euro PArlament since most laws protecting the rights of Homosexuals in Europe have been passed through in the nordic countries too.

This is the best you can come up with? You rant about Judeo-Christian morality, and I highlight to you how much older morality native to Europe also shared these sexual ethics and you appeal to contemporary liberal and social democratic governments as refutation? Do you have any sense of history at all? :rolleyes:

I frankly feel as though I'm arguing with a twelve-year-old, so I'm not going to soil my hands with any more of this nonsense.

Raikaswinþs
02-03-2011, 05:29 PM
This is the best you can come up with? You rant about Judeo-Christian morality, and I highlight to you how much older morality native to Europe also shared these sexual ethics and you appeal to contemporary liberal and social democratic governments as refutation? Do you have any sense of history at all? :rolleyes:

I frankly feel as though I'm arguing with a twelve-year-old, so I'm not going to soil my hands with any more of this nonsense.

like your ad-hominem is any better.

some readings here about same-sex relationships throughout history in case someone´s interested:

The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law
Kuefler, Mathew (2007).

Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage".

Bruce L. Gerig, "Homosexuality in the Ancient Near East, beyond Egypt"

John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80–85.

T. Watanabe & J. Iwata, The Love of the Samurai: A Thousand Years of Japanese Homosexuality, London: GMP Publishers, 1987

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uocp-acu082307.php


oh... and the wiki article of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_ref-25

Adalwolf
02-03-2011, 05:37 PM
Just because Greeks and Romans gave themselves over to disgusting sexual practises does not mean that Europe has a generalised history of such immorality and indecency

The Vikings actually used to execute men who engaged in homosexual practices.

exceeder
02-03-2011, 05:43 PM
The Vikings actually used to execute men who engaged in homosexual practices.

Really? Well I guess after reading the following article it might somewhat (DEBATABLY) make sense for the 'receptive partner'... althoug perhaps this source isn't 100% credible (I found it after a quick google search), it was an interesting read nevertheless. :D

Here: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/gayvik.shtml

Adalwolf
02-03-2011, 05:56 PM
I've read that link before and can tell you it is utter shit. That lady just likes to twist viking history to support her own agenda.

_______
09-13-2011, 10:40 AM
Sure these same guys try to stick it up their girl friend´s arse whenever they have the chance

most guys i know are like that :mad:

BeerBaron
09-13-2011, 10:46 AM
Ya well lets just pretend for a moment that all gays that adopt children, 100% of them turn gay, even that wouldn't be a problem.

Now what percentage of children in foster homes grow up to be criminals? live in poverty? violence, assaults ect ect. It's pretty high, certainly higher than average family.

Point being, a loving home is preferable to a child bouncing around foster homes, even if the result is they turn out gay. Oh and gays are under represented in crime, so.

_______
09-13-2011, 10:50 AM
Ya well lets just pretend for a moment that all gays that adopt children, 100% of them turn gay, even that wouldn't be a problem.

Now what percentage of children in foster homes grow up to be criminals? live in poverty? violence, assaults ect ect. It's pretty high, certainly higher than average family.

Point being, a loving home is preferable to a child bouncing around foster homes, even if the result is they turn out gay. Oh and gays are under represented in crime, so.

i see your point, but it is not ideal.

BeerBaron
09-13-2011, 10:55 AM
i see your point, but it is not ideal.

Well I don't think it is ideal either, but homosexuality has been around longer than Christianity, so its not going anywhere just because we don't agree with it. Given the situation, I think the best thing to do is mitigate the issues, there are lots of foster kids that need homes, gays can adopt. It doesn't really kill two birds with one stone, but its a step in the right direction imo

_______
09-13-2011, 11:00 AM
Well I don't think it is ideal either, but homosexuality has been around longer than Christianity, so its not going anywhere just because we don't agree with it. Given the situation, I think the best thing to do is mitigate the issues, there are lots of foster kids that need homes, gays can adopt. It doesn't really kill two birds with one stone, but its a step in the right direction imo

or they could make it easier for straight people to foster children - i don't know about canada, but in britain it is a stupidly slow and painful process...

Argyll
09-13-2011, 12:01 PM
Just to pipe in- my best friend, Brighid, was/is raised by her FATHERS and she is straight as an arrow. Hell, she hardly hangs out with any females, she says that most of them are too catty and bitchy for her, but she does have some female friends though. She's very feminine (not in the girly way but more like she knows she's a woman) and even thinks that two guys doing stuff is hot :D

AussieScott
09-13-2011, 12:55 PM
Don't know if this was posted but it doesn't read healthy to me.

http://www.news.com.au/national/lesbian-foster-couple-put-six-year-old-boy-in-girls-clothes-and-post-photos-on-facebook/story-e6frfkvr-1226134422557

_______
09-13-2011, 01:20 PM
Don't know if this was posted but it doesn't read healthy to me.

http://www.news.com.au/national/lesbian-foster-couple-put-six-year-old-boy-in-girls-clothes-and-post-photos-on-facebook/story-e6frfkvr-1226134422557

that's not cool :(

_______
09-13-2011, 01:21 PM
Just to pipe in- my best friend, Brighid, was/is raised by her FATHERS and she is straight as an arrow. [/B]:D

that's interesting :)

Moonbird
09-13-2011, 01:59 PM
If this works the other way around too -- that heterosexual people usually have heterosexual kids -- then how come homosexuals exist in the first place?

Nobody indicates that all children to homosexuals become gay, just that it's more likely than if they were brought up by heterosexuals parents.

Very few things in life are 100% genetic, and I doubt that homosexuality is one of them.

Turkey
10-16-2011, 12:30 AM
Just to pipe in- my best friend, Brighid, was/is raised by her FATHERS and she is straight as an arrow. Hell, she hardly hangs out with any females, she says that most of them are too catty and bitchy for her, but she does have some female friends though. She's very feminine (not in the girly way but more like she knows she's a woman) and even thinks that two guys doing stuff is hot :D

I don't know if you are trying to help your own cause or sabotage it.:confused:

Argyll
10-16-2011, 12:58 AM
I don't know if you are trying to help your own cause or sabotage it.:confused:

I believe that if it's their biological child, then they should have the same rights as any other parent.

Himera
10-16-2011, 01:21 AM
Endocrine imbalance has occured on Mother Earth , although you have strong wish to be "aliens who just cooperate with rest of the world" , people, when you will realase , that you don't exist , and you should be TO BE .... of human kind :rolleyes2::p

Argyll
10-16-2011, 01:32 AM
Endocrine imbalance has occured on Mother Earth , although you have strong wish to be "aliens who just cooperate with rest of the world" , people, when you will realase , that you don't exist , and you should be TO BE .... of human kind :rolleyes2::p

.................what?

rhiannon
10-22-2011, 09:01 AM
This reminds me of a one of my old college friends back during my undergrad years.

She was a lesbian whose mother had married long enough to produce HER....ultimately ended up ending her marriage to become a lesbian herself.

My friend lived with her mother and her mother's lover. I must admit, going over to her house to study used to give me the heebie jeebies.....especially because she would jokingly make attempts to *convert* me....LOL!

Aces High
10-22-2011, 09:12 AM
Just to pipe in- my best friend, Brighid, was/is raised by her FATHERS and she is straight as an arrow. Hell, she hardly hangs out with any females, she says that most of them are too catty and bitchy for her, but she does have some female friends though. She's very feminine (not in the girly way but more like she knows she's a woman) and even thinks that two guys doing stuff is hot :D

Comedy gold....:rofl:

Turkey
10-22-2011, 09:54 AM
This reminds me of a one of my old college friends back during my undergrad years.

She was a lesbian whose mother had married long enough to produce HER....ultimately ended up ending her marriage to become a lesbian herself.

My friend lived with her mother and her mother's lover. I must admit, going over to her house to study used to give me the heebie jeebies.....especially because she would jokingly make attempts to *convert* me....LOL!

we do try to emulate our parents. So it is quite feasible that this could happen. we learn most before the age of 5 so....

Mordid
10-22-2011, 09:58 AM
If the gay couple want kids then its a good idea. I dont think just because they are gay doesnt mean they can't adopt

Turkey
10-22-2011, 10:04 AM
If the gay couple want kids then its a good idea. I dont think just because they are gay doesnt mean they can't adopt

as long as they don't adopt a negro. get a dog. They are less common and more trustworthy.

Aces High
10-22-2011, 10:24 AM
If the gay couple want kids then its a good idea.

Not for the kid,i bet he would prefer to stay in the orphanage eating gruel and sleeping on wooden slats than get adopted by a couple of chutney ferrets who want a token kid as some sort of PC fashion accessory.

research_centre
10-22-2011, 11:40 AM
If the gay couple want kids then its a good idea. I dont think just because they are gay doesnt mean they can't adopt

What it is was your son being put up for adoption? How would you feel then?

Mordid
10-22-2011, 11:54 AM
What it is was your son being put up for adoption? How would you feel then?

Feel bad...

derange
10-29-2011, 06:09 AM
Most gays I know would be horrified if their child was gay.

Leliana
10-29-2011, 02:08 PM
How can gay parents have kids at all? It should be illegal for them to adopt children.

safinator
10-29-2011, 02:16 PM
How can gay parents have kids at all? It should be illegal for them to adopt children.
Some Gays have procreated.

SaxonCeorl
10-29-2011, 02:32 PM
Most gays I know would be horrified if their child was gay.

Why? Is it because they don't want their children to go through the ridicule they've gone through?

Supreme American
10-29-2011, 06:16 PM
People with genetic dysfunctions, in other words birth defects, tend to be unable to procreate. In a sense its a good thing then that most gays don't pass on their birth defect by procreating through, say, a surrogate.

People with downs syndrome are sterile, and with good reason. IMO homosexuality is a birth defect and as such shouldn't be procreating.

Magister Eckhart
10-29-2011, 10:20 PM
People with genetic dysfunctions, in other words birth defects, tend to be unable to procreate. In a sense its a good thing then that most gays don't pass on their birth defect by procreating through, say, a surrogate.

People with downs syndrome are sterile, and with good reason. IMO homosexuality is a birth defect and as such shouldn't be procreating.

Have we proven that this tendency toward sodomy is a genetic defect?

derange
10-29-2011, 10:21 PM
Why? Is it because they don't want their children to go through the ridicule they've gone through?

Not exactly, but sort of. It's just everyone wants a child who achieves and who is happy. Being gay isn't really the best platform for that.

There are some twisted souls out there but most gays would want normal children. I don't know if the child would be influenced by accident though.

Turkey
10-29-2011, 11:03 PM
People with genetic dysfunctions, in other words birth defects, tend to be unable to procreate. In a sense its a good thing then that most gays don't pass on their birth defect by procreating through, say, a surrogate.

People with downs syndrome are sterile, and with good reason. IMO homosexuality is a birth defect and as such shouldn't be procreating.

You have a black president! Your national bank is owned by jews!

Don't you think this might need attention before you can open your concentration camps?

Argyll
10-31-2011, 11:51 AM
Have we proven that this tendency toward sodomy is a genetic defect?

Your use of the word sodomy and sodomite makes you sound like you were raised in a convent in the medieval era. Please, homosexual is a fine word :)

Unurautare
10-31-2011, 12:41 PM
If this works the other way around too -- that heterosexual people usually have heterosexual kids -- then how come homosexuals exist in the first place?

It's some sort of disease.I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a sexual minority just for the heck of it and the 'benefits' of being discriminated in public life and maybe in family life too. But parenting is also very important when choosing life partners(even in non-gay/lesbi families).
This is relevant: "But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says. ". Disgusting to the max. Suggestion: form an angry mob and burn liberals. :coffee:

Raikaswinþs
10-31-2011, 01:09 PM
You're describing the normal situation where heterosexual parents are able to procreate. A homosexual child is therefore an anomality, an accident so to speak. And very important, gays don't make children, they don't have a normal bond with their 'children' like natural parents. They consider them to be free people, ready for anti-traditional indoctrination.
What homosexual parents do is prepare their 'children' (which is nonsense, because they don't have any) for a life as purely sexual orientated human beings, who can taste whatever they like. But let them be free to choose please! That's perverted and disgusting and irresponsible perception of things imo.

That's a lot of baloney. Sexual orientation is a social construct. (both gay, hetero,and bi, etc)

Sex is something more than a reproductive tool. You can easily observe in the natural world how same-sex sexuality is extremely common.It is used to establish roles in a group, for experimentation, training, bonding and in many cases,also as the MAIN form of sex.

Many species of mammals, even within our primate cousins, live in same-sex groups their whole lives and only gather to procreate. That doesn't stop them to engage in same-sex sexual intercourse, and even form same-sex partners, and that is only one example. And of course they raise their kids in same-sex groups

No species has ever gone extinct for same-sex relations. Even within humans, societies where homosexuality has been tolerated and even well seen , have survived until today and even become very prosperous, both in number and in well-being. If you don't believe me, ask the Japanese.

Same story goes for pederasty. And I am not talking about kiddy fidlers, that is certainly a sexual aggression similar to rape. But as the relation between a teenager (let's say 13-17 years old) and a grown up adult (over 30), which was the original meaning of the world pederasty and one of the cultural and social pillars of Japan, Reinassance Italy or Ancient Greece among many others.

I am not judging, not saying homosexuality, hetereo-sexuality or pederasty are right or wrong.They are just as wrong as society wants them to be.

Hence pederasty is today wrong for Europeans, but right for Indians ormany other societies where they marry very early. Homosexuality is being accepted again by North Europeans which have considered it taboo for most of their history whereas some Southern Euros are increasingly homophobic and Middle Easterners can even put you to death for sodomy even though these regions have historically had many periods where homo-sexuality was accepted.


I, as a Western European, am not sexually interested in anything but women,and in a pretty Catholic one-to-one way, (even though I was raised by a lesbian) , and yet, I support the acceptance of most forms of rational consented sentimental and sexual relationship between two (or more) individuals

Monolith
10-31-2011, 01:48 PM
That's a lot of baloney. Sexual orientation is a social construct. (both gay, hetero,and bi, etc)
Sexual orientation, when defined as a social construct, belongs in the spectrum of ultraliberal ideological propaganda.

Even the term 'Sexual Orientation' is stupid as hell. It's an imaginary definition to provide reasoning for queer sexual behaviour. Humans have the unique ability to think freely, act in the most ridiculous behaviour imaginable, and justify it with absurd theories to explain it.

There's just common and deviant. Everything else is crap.

Argyll
10-31-2011, 03:51 PM
It's some sort of disease.I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a sexual minority just for the heck of it and the 'benefits' of being discriminated in public life and maybe in family life too. But parenting is also very important when choosing life partners(even in non-gay/lesbi families).
This is relevant: "But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says. ". Disgusting to the max. Suggestion: form an angry mob and burn liberals. :coffee:

A disease? Come now...... :rolleyes:

Magister Eckhart
11-01-2011, 01:28 AM
Your use of the word sodomy and sodomite makes you sound like you were raised in a convent in the medieval era. Please, homosexual is a fine word :)

No, actually, it's not, because it describes something that doesn't actually exist. I'm going to agree (partially) with ECE here, "sexual orientation is a social construct", because it is. Homosexuality did not exist two centuries ago - these notions of sexual identity and sexual "orientation" are all inventive. Human sexual urges are not naturally categorised according to what one does. Human sexual activity is, but then only in terms of normal intercourse and its opposite, namely perverse intercourse. Normal intercourse is a very narrow category, and perverse intercourse, necessarily, very broad. By nature, normal intercourse is intercourse for reproduction, non-normal intercourse is everything else. It's pretty much that simple; how we choose to define individual cases of non-normal sexual intercourse is entire subject to social changes, meaning that each and every one is not real, because it's so subject to change - there's no objective reality attached to it. Homosexuality, therefore, is not objectively real, only real in terms of the society that uses that term and recognises that "orientation".

Sodomy, on the other hand, describes a reality that is objective, namely "non-normal sexual intercourse". People who actively, regularly, and openly engage in sodomy are called "sodomites".

Furthermore, as a male, I would not have been raised in a convent; I would have been raised in a monastery. I'm not terribly surprised you should be confused in terms of gender considering your chosen "lifestyle". :coffee:

askra
11-01-2011, 02:22 AM
i have read studies where is written that children adopted by gay parents have the same % of possibilities to become gays of children raised by not gay parents.
while i have read that homosexuality has a biological hereditary component, in the families where there is one or more gay members, there is more possibilities to have a homosexual son.

Argyll
11-01-2011, 12:05 PM
No, actually, it's not, because it describes something that doesn't actually exist. I'm going to agree (partially) with ECE here, "sexual orientation is a social construct", because it is. Homosexuality did not exist two centuries ago - these notions of sexual identity and sexual "orientation" are all inventive. Human sexual urges are not naturally categorised according to what one does. Human sexual activity is, but then only in terms of normal intercourse and its opposite, namely perverse intercourse. Normal intercourse is a very narrow category, and perverse intercourse, necessarily, very broad. By nature, normal intercourse is intercourse for reproduction, non-normal intercourse is everything else. It's pretty much that simple; how we choose to define individual cases of non-normal sexual intercourse is entire subject to social changes, meaning that each and every one is not real, because it's so subject to change - there's no objective reality attached to it. Homosexuality, therefore, is not objectively real, only real in terms of the society that uses that term and recognises that "orientation".
Homosexuality is the liking of the same sex. And if you are going on that it doesn't exist, then how does heterosexuality or bisexuality exist?


Sodomy, on the other hand, describes a reality that is objective, namely "non-normal sexual intercourse". People who actively, regularly, and openly engage in sodomy are called "sodomites".
Non normal to your religion. Guess what? Christianity isn't the only religion in Europe, not even the oldest :/ Show some respect to other people's beliefs. There's even a theory, right now, that sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality, but sexual heathen rights to a fertility god/ess.


Furthermore, as a male, I would not have been raised in a convent; I would have been raised in a monastery. I'm not terribly surprised you should be confused in terms of gender considering your chosen "lifestyle". :coffee:
Ah, now we're throwing around insults to try and make our argument more "effecitve". I can see that you don't know any or many homosexual people at all. That would explain your lack of knowledge.

Magister Eckhart
11-01-2011, 07:27 PM
Homosexuality is the liking of the same sex. And if you are going on that it doesn't exist, then how does heterosexuality or bisexuality exist?

I had thought this would be clear by my post: they do not. None of them exist, because all of them are social constructs to describe fantastical realities invented by sodomites to describe artificial divisions in sexual behaviour.



Non normal to your religion. Guess what? Christianity isn't the only religion in Europe, not even the oldest :/ Show some respect to other people's beliefs. There's even a theory, right now, that sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality, but sexual heathen rights to a fertility god/ess.

Normal, natural sexual activity has only one goal: to further the species. All else is non-normal. This has little to do with religion, though religion, being itself a means by which man interacts with and makes order of nature, has much to say on the topic.

Furthermore, if you had bothered reading my post at all instead of knee-jerking against it like you have, you would have noticed that I never claimed sodomy and homosexuality were synonymous - I said sodomy was non-normal sexual intercourse. That's a fairly broad category which you, arrogantly and selfishly, are attempting to monopolise. The relationship of "homosexuals" to sodomy is not terribly different than the relationship of Jews to the Nazi genocide: you all try to monopolise a reality that is not solely your own. The fact that many people who oppose "homosexuality" call homosexuals sodomites and do equate the two does not challenge the error of this habit.

Now then, Christianity is the only Western religion. Every other religion is either pre- or post-Western, but Western Civilization itself is defined by Christianity, specifically by Latin Christianity. It does not surprise me that you hold otherwise, especially since you think a sodomite can be a conservative. Whatever your "religion" (witch-craft! :rolleyes:!), to think of it as Western or European is pure error; it's all contrived nonsense. There are some post-Western religions that do qualify as religions, and do offer a path for a new Civilization (I immediately think of Folkish Heathenry and Mormonism, but there are others). Wicca, "magick", neo-paganism, and other such childish peasant superstitions and social ideologies are not among them.


Ah, now we're throwing around insults to try and make our argument more "effecitve". I can see that you don't know any or many homosexual people at all. That would explain your lack of knowledge.

I do often find it rather hard to keep my temper when dealing with persons who are blatantly my inferiors. This lack of patience is a fault, and I do regret it - I say that without the slightest hint of irony. I ought to be more patient, I ought to be more kind, but, frankly, you're an idiot kid, and that makes it very difficult. Before you call the "ad hominem" police, I want it made clear to you and the entire board that none of what I have just said is meant as a personal attack, though it is insulting. As far as I'm concerned, it's a statement of fact - I'm not calling Argyll an idiot to insult or attack him, but because he is objectively uninformed and clearly shows no effort to read and understand what I have written, which makes him, in the parlance of our times, an idiot.

Argyll
11-01-2011, 07:46 PM
I had thought this would be clear by my post: they do not. None of them exist, because all of them are social constructs to describe fantastical realities invented by sodomites to describe artificial divisions in sexual behaviour.




Normal, natural sexual activity has only one goal: to further the species. All else is non-normal. This has little to do with religion, though religion, being itself a means by which man interacts with and makes order of nature, has much to say on the topic.

Furthermore, if you had bothered reading my post at all instead of knee-jerking against it like you have, you would have noticed that I never claimed sodomy and homosexuality were synonymous - I said sodomy was non-normal sexual intercourse. That's a fairly broad category which you, arrogantly and selfishly, are attempting to monopolise. The relationship of "homosexuals" to sodomy is not terribly different than the relationship of Jews to the Nazi genocide: you all try to monopolise a reality that is not solely your own. The fact that many people who oppose "homosexuality" call homosexuals sodomites and do equate the two does not challenge the error of this habit.

Now then, Christianity is the only Western religion. Every other religion is either pre- or post-Western, but Western Civilization itself is defined by Christianity, specifically by Latin Christianity. It does not surprise me that you hold otherwise, especially since you think a sodomite can be a conservative. Whatever your "religion" (witch-craft! :rolleyes:!), to think of it as Western or European is pure error; it's all contrived nonsense. There are some post-Western religions that do qualify as religions, and do offer a path for a new Civilization (I immediately think of Folkish Heathenry and Mormonism, but there are others). Wicca, "magick", neo-paganism, and other such childish peasant superstitions and social ideologies are not among them.



I do often find it rather hard to keep my temper when dealing with persons who are blatantly my inferiors. This lack of patience is a fault, and I do regret it - I say that without the slightest hint of irony. I ought to be more patient, I ought to be more kind, but, frankly, you're an idiot kid, and that makes it very difficult. Before you call the "ad hominem" police, I want it made clear to you and the entire board that none of what I have just said is meant as a personal attack, though it is insulting. As far as I'm concerned, it's a statement of fact - I'm not calling Argyll an idiot to insult or attack him, but because he is objectively uninformed and clearly shows no effort to read and understand what I have written, which makes him, in the parlance of our times, an idiot.

Well, I think you just made an ass of yourself.
So, if I may understand this correctly, because I don't agree with what you say, I'm automatically an idiot?
For your information, this sexuality discussion has happened many times. You're a bit too late to really make a difference. We've already had the "is it a choice" "is it real", etc, conversations.
If you had an inkling into actual biology and psychology, you would know that humans aren't animals. And, if you haven't noticed, we don't particularly follow a survivalist approach to life. We can achieve pleasure throghout things. That being said, if you look at more intelligent animals themselves, you would see that they also engage in sex for pleasure as well.
Therefore, sex just isn't for "to further the species". A lot of what you say is typical of the conservative christian approach to sex.
Christianity is the only western religion? So, what do you call the aboriginal heathen practices? Seeing as you're a christian superiorist, I can already guess your answer.
Really, learn some respect for the other European folk, and not crowd everything to your ideals. Learn about people, ME.

Argyll
11-01-2011, 07:47 PM
FYI- Witchcraft isn't a religion.

Magister Eckhart
11-01-2011, 08:07 PM
Well, I think you just made an ass of yourself.
So, if I may understand this correctly, because I don't agree with what you say, I'm automatically an idiot?

If I say amoeba reproduce asexually and you disagree, then, yes, you're an idiot.


For your information, this sexuality discussion has happened many times. You're a bit too late to really make a difference. We've already had the "is it a choice" "is it real", etc, conversations.

A fact cannot be decided upon by a committee: it simply is.



If you had an inkling into actual biology and psychology, you would know that humans aren't animals. And, if you haven't noticed, we don't particularly follow a survivalist approach to life. We can achieve pleasure throghout things. That being said, if you look at more intelligent animals themselves, you would see that they also engage in sex for pleasure as well.

I'm quite glad you're willing to admit this, it makes things much easier, and I no longer need to argue strictly from a naturalistic standpoint (I'm no great fan of Darwinian arguments, but when I must I resort to them). Indeed, you are correct, there is much more to humanity than animal urges and needs. This leads us into the realm of humanity's interaction with the Divine, which is ultimate and objective, meaning that the morality that flows therefrom is likewise. Therefore, normal and non-normal behaviour become now "moral" and "immoral" behaviour - or, better, "civilized" and "savage" behaviour. By savage we must here mean both primitive and decadent, since in either state a culture displays moral degeneracy with especial attention to sexual activity.

Now then, it is easily enough asserted that sexual liberality and a specifically sexual hedonism seem historically to accompany societies with very little sense of real moral order - that is to say, savage societies. We see it especially prevalent among societies which are violent or brutish, such as head-hunters (among the primitive) and those who glory in blood-sport (among the decadent). It is, therefore, easy to assert what is a "normal" or "moral" form of sexual behaviour and what is a "non-normal" or "immoral" form. The categories remain, ultimately, the same as above: sexual intercourse for the purpose of creating a family remains normal, hedonistic sexual intercourse or intercourse purely for pleasure remains non-normal. Animals with higher brain capacities can in fact figure out that sexual intercourse is enjoyable, but human beings are the only creature with the ability to discern the dangers and evils of living the life of pleasure rather than the life of goodness.


Therefore, sex just isn't for "to further the species". A lot of what you say is typical of the conservative christian approach to sex.

That's quite a polemical way to use "conservative" considering you like to claim you are one yourself.


Christianity is the only western religion? So, what do you call the aboriginal heathen practices? Seeing as you're a christian superiorist, I can already guess your answer.

Hardly a Christian "superiorist" (I believe the word you want is "supremacist"), I should say, considering my close affinity for the religions at the very heart of great civilizations like India, as well as my recognition of the tremendous value in recent, post-Western religions like Mormonism and Folkish Heathenry to bring about the next Civilization after the West. However, anyone who holds that the West is not Christian, and that Christianity does not define everything the West is and was, is simply blind or ignorant. The West was born of the Germanic spirit meeting Christianity and giving birth to the two great expressions of the Occident: monasticism and chivalry. By the time this came to pass, the other "folks", as you call them, of Europe had either already passed away (like the Celts and Latins) or had not yet become a significant cultural force (like the Slavs). Spengler held that the Slavs would be the root of the next great Civilization; I tend to disagree simply because it today seems so late in their development that whatever Civilization they might create will be stunted and misshapen, having grown up under pressure from the West during the prime of its life. Nevertheless, it is fairly clear that they represent something unique of Western Civilization except where they have been absorbed by Western Christianity (such as the Croats, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Magyars).


Really, learn some respect for the other European folk, and not crowd everything to your ideals. Learn about people, ME.

Your usage continues to appal; do at least make some effort if you claim to live in an English-speaking country to use the language with some respect.


FYI- Witchcraft isn't a religion.

I've been maintaining that for quite a long time now, but none of the neo-pagans seem to want to listen to me.

Loddfafner
11-01-2011, 09:15 PM
None of them exist, because all of them are social constructs to describe fantastical realities invented by sodomites to describe artificial divisions in sexual behaviour.


Sexual categories are indeed social constructs but so is everything else. Being a social construct does not mean they are not real, they are simply historically-specific ways of making sense of reality. Race is a social construct but it is very real, even if the categories have shifted over the years. Homosexuality has always existed as a practice and sometimes as a sort of identity, but the categories for making sense out of it and the customs for social organization around it have changed. The pre XIX concept of sodomy overlaps with, but is not coextensive with, more modern categories.

The notion of the homosexual as a type of person was refined by late nineteenth century German and English psychologists and internalized by later individuals who lusted for people of similar genitalia, but the Foucault-influenced historians have greatly overstated that argument. Foucault was relying on written evidence, and there was a vast increase in the domain of human experience that could be described in writing at that same historical moment.

Magister Eckhart
11-01-2011, 11:19 PM
Sexual categories are indeed social constructs but so is everything else. Being a social construct does not mean they are not real, they are simply historically-specific ways of making sense of reality. Race is a social construct but it is very real, even if the categories have shifted over the years. Homosexuality has always existed as a practice and sometimes as a sort of identity, but the categories for making sense out of it and the customs for social organization around it have changed. The pre XIX concept of sodomy overlaps with, but is not coextensive with, more modern categories.

The notion of the homosexual as a type of person was refined by late nineteenth century German and English psychologists and internalized by later individuals who lusted for people of similar genitalia, but the Foucault-influenced historians have greatly overstated that argument. Foucault was relying on written evidence, and there was a vast increase in the domain of human experience that could be described in writing at that same historical moment.

There is that which is artificial and that which is organic - not everything is a social construct; such a view holds that nothing exists a priori, and society shapes all reality, but this is not accurate nor is it supported. Society encounters certain realities that would exist independently entirely of human society. Race is certainly one of them; the Eternal is another; man's animal nature yet another. To suggest that everything is a social construct is to suggest that humanity is the sole author of reality, and denies any objective reality. I tire of this old academic cliché; reality exists, even if we in the last two hundred years have forgotten how to recognise it.

The homosexual as a type of person probably finds its roots, you are correct, during that time - don't forget the input of French poets as well as psychologists playing with this notion, trying to define and to categorise perversions and urges - perversions and urges which, I reiterate, existed before society could construct a category for them which we have since gotten used to calling "sexual orientation". But this construct is little over 150 years old; it possesses neither the force nor the realities of the organic urges and temptations that it attempts to explain away and deconstruct.

Argyll
11-02-2011, 11:33 AM
* humans are animals, but intelligent animals.

Argyll
11-02-2011, 11:48 AM
If I say amoeba reproduce asexually and you disagree, then, yes, you're an idiot.
I know amoeba reproduce asexually. I was saying that, close to more opinion oriented things. But, as we know, factual things can be refuted as well.



A fact cannot be decided upon by a committee: it simply is.





I'm quite glad you're willing to admit this, it makes things much easier, and I no longer need to argue strictly from a naturalistic standpoint (I'm no great fan of Darwinian arguments, but when I must I resort to them). Indeed, you are correct, there is much more to humanity than animal urges and needs. This leads us into the realm of humanity's interaction with the Divine, which is ultimate and objective, meaning that the morality that flows therefrom is likewise. Therefore, normal and non-normal behaviour become now "moral" and "immoral" behaviour - or, better, "civilized" and "savage" behaviour. By savage we must here mean both primitive and decadent, since in either state a culture displays moral degeneracy with especial attention to sexual activity.

Now then, it is easily enough asserted that sexual liberality and a specifically sexual hedonism seem historically to accompany societies with very little sense of real moral order - that is to say, savage societies. We see it especially prevalent among societies which are violent or brutish, such as head-hunters (among the primitive) and those who glory in blood-sport (among the decadent). It is, therefore, easy to assert what is a "normal" or "moral" form of sexual behaviour and what is a "non-normal" or "immoral" form. The categories remain, ultimately, the same as above: sexual intercourse for the purpose of creating a family remains normal, hedonistic sexual intercourse or intercourse purely for pleasure remains non-normal. Animals with higher brain capacities can in fact figure out that sexual intercourse is enjoyable, but human beings are the only creature with the ability to discern the dangers and evils of living the life of pleasure rather than the life of goodness.
Interesting. I, myself, do not agree with what the "gay community" (I use it in quotes because I don't think it's really a community, but a twisted sub culture, which I guess can be defined as a community), they prommote promiscuity and many, many other things (a lot to do with politcally, especially the liberal aspect). To me, sex and sexual relations are something to be taken seriously. I say, at least have a relationship with the person, before you have sex with them.
We do, as humans, have the capacity to find out what is very pleasurable, but we can also know when what is pleasurable will become decadent, then immoral. I'm pretty okay with the decadent part, because I'm very passionate about things, I guess, and can get carried away with it, but there is that part to where it goes to far, and becomes completely wrong.




That's quite a polemical way to use "conservative" considering you like to claim you are one yourself.



[quote]Hardly a Christian "superiorist" (I believe the word you want is "supremacist"), I should say, considering my close affinity for the religions at the very heart of great civilizations like India, as well as my recognition of the tremendous value in recent, post-Western religions like Mormonism and Folkish Heathenry to bring about the next Civilization after the West. However, anyone who holds that the West is not Christian, and that Christianity does not define everything the West is and was, is simply blind or ignorant. The West was born of the Germanic spirit meeting Christianity and giving birth to the two great expressions of the Occident: monasticism and chivalry. By the time this came to pass, the other "folks", as you call them, of Europe had either already passed away (like the Celts and Latins) or had not yet become a significant cultural force (like the Slavs). Spengler held that the Slavs would be the root of the next great Civilization; I tend to disagree simply because it today seems so late in their development that whatever Civilization they might create will be stunted and misshapen, having grown up under pressure from the West during the prime of its life. Nevertheless, it is fairly clear that they represent something unique of Western Civilization except where they have been absorbed by Western Christianity (such as the Croats, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Magyars).
I wouldn't say christianity wholly defines the west, because there have been some survivals of the heathen religions. Though, they have come extremely close to extinction. But, thankfully today, heathenry has had a revival. Unfortunately, most of it is due to Gerald Gardner and his neo pagan spawn.




Your usage continues to appal; do at least make some effort if you claim to live in an English-speaking country to use the language with some respect.
I don't really find too many errors in my posts, unless I'm in a hurry in writing it. Sometimes, though, my posts get a little mixed up or don't make sense to a lot of people because my brain works much faster than my hands.




I've been maintaining that for quite a long time now, but none of the neo-pagans seem to want to listen to me.

Witchcraft is a tool. It's an art. I don't understand how working magic makes it a religion. A lot of neo pagans use more divine magic because a lot of their rituals and spells have them invoking their deities, etc. So, that wouldn't make them a witch, but a priest/ess.

Hevneren
11-02-2011, 02:29 PM
How can gay parents have kids at all? It should be illegal for them to adopt children.

Why? There are plenty of straight people who neglect their kids, drink, do drugs, beat them, sexually abuse them. How is being gay any worse than being abusive or a neglectful druggie? There are plenty of gay couples who make better parents than some straight couples.

Hevneren
11-02-2011, 02:34 PM
IMO homosexuality is a birth defect and as such shouldn't be procreating.

Homosexuality can't procreate, but homosexual people can.

To me, Fascists and Neo Nazis have a defect in the mind and shouldn't be able to procreate.

Hevneren
11-02-2011, 02:44 PM
No, actually, it's not, because it describes something that doesn't actually exist. I'm going to agree (partially) with ECE here, "sexual orientation is a social construct", because it is. Homosexuality did not exist two centuries ago - these notions of sexual identity and sexual "orientation" are all inventive. Human sexual urges are not naturally categorised according to what one does. Human sexual activity is, but then only in terms of normal intercourse and its opposite, namely perverse intercourse. Normal intercourse is a very narrow category, and perverse intercourse, necessarily, very broad. By nature, normal intercourse is intercourse for reproduction, non-normal intercourse is everything else. It's pretty much that simple; how we choose to define individual cases of non-normal sexual intercourse is entire subject to social changes, meaning that each and every one is not real, because it's so subject to change - there's no objective reality attached to it. Homosexuality, therefore, is not objectively real, only real in terms of the society that uses that term and recognises that "orientation".

Sodomy, on the other hand, describes a reality that is objective, namely "non-normal sexual intercourse". People who actively, regularly, and openly engage in sodomy are called "sodomites".

Furthermore, as a male, I would not have been raised in a convent; I would have been raised in a monastery. I'm not terribly surprised you should be confused in terms of gender considering your chosen "lifestyle". :coffee:

If we are to categorise humanity into normal and abnormal, it would be a good idea to start with nature and human history. Christianity and monotheism, for instance, is both abnormal in the animal world and in human history. All monotheists are therefore abnormal.

Homosexuality and anal sex is normal in the animal world and has been part of humanity longer than monotheism. Homosexuality and anal sex is therefore more normal than monotheism.

Hevneren
11-02-2011, 02:52 PM
Now then, Christianity is the only Western religion.

Correction. Christianity is an Eastern religion. Middle Eastern to be exact. It was created by desert dwelling Bronze Age Jews in one of the most backwards and illiterate parts of the world. Mind you, it was also in a part of the world known for open homosexuality.

Monolith
11-02-2011, 03:17 PM
The categories remain, ultimately, the same as above: sexual intercourse for the purpose of creating a family remains normal, hedonistic sexual intercourse or intercourse purely for pleasure remains non-normal.
I take you equate this 'creating a family' with procreation? Then sex between a sterile man and/or a barren woman can't be justified either since there is no way for them to procreate. The sex for procreation only argument is unscriptural.

Why? There are plenty of straight people who neglect their kids, drink, do drugs, beat them, sexually abuse them. How is being gay any worse than being abusive or a neglectful druggie? There are plenty of gay couples who make better parents than some straight couples.
I think this is a non-argument. Just because some straight people suck at parenting doesn't automatically qualify gays to be adoptive parents. The first group should have their children taken away by social services and the latter should not get an opportunity to adopt them.

For what it's worth, most pedagogues I know would vehemently oppose gay adoptions. They largely base their reasoning on this: the welfare of children is paramount and if there's only one discernible factor that may potentially hinder a child's natural development (not just physiological but also psychological, emotional and social), the potential adoptive parents should not get the chance to actually adopt the child.

Makes much sense if you ask me, since the inherent tendency in children is to first identify with their mother (during infancy and early childhood) and then with their father (during late childhood, adolescence and early adulthood).

2DREZQ
11-02-2011, 03:45 PM
...sexual intercourse for the purpose of creating a family remains normal, hedonistic sexual intercourse or intercourse purely for pleasure remains non-normal.

Wait a minute.

Are you contending that procreation is the only morally acceptable reason for sexual intercourse? Does that include exclusive, committed, monogamous heterosexual activity (of various types) engaged in by a husband and wife when conception is impossible (sterile or post-menopausal)?

Magister Eckhart
11-03-2011, 07:02 PM
Correction. Christianity is an Eastern religion. Middle Eastern to be exact. It was created by desert dwelling Bronze Age Jews in one of the most backwards and illiterate parts of the world. Mind you, it was also in a part of the world known for open homosexuality.

No, Christianity is a Western religion. The only truly Western religion. Christianity is completely divorced from Judaism: it is beyond and above Judaism. Furthermore, it did not arise in the Bronze Age, unless you extend the Bronze Age much further forward than actual historians. The terminus of that period was around 600 BC, long, long before even the Greeks began to discern the oneness of God. Christianity is a religion based in the teachings of Jesus, who is the Christ, whose arrival in this world made the Jews as a nation and Judaism as a religion irrelevant, and confirmed those dispersed detections of God's nature among the Greeks, the Germanics, and the Romans through the teachings of His apostles. The Church is a Western phenomenon, the doctrine of Christianity is a Western creation, and the entire religion is permeated by Western ideals, sensibilities, and philosophy.

This idiocy of considering Christianity to be Eastern or Jewish largely derives from Judaised Christian heretics, especially in the United States, who place tremendous faith in the mythological Hebrew texts that constitute the first half of the Scriptures, meant to be nothing more than historically attested prophecies pertaining to the errors and failures of the Jews and the coming of the Christ.


I take you equate this 'creating a family' with procreation? Then sex between a sterile man and/or a barren woman can't be justified either since there is no way for them to procreate. The sex for procreation only argument is unscriptural.

I do not; procreation does not require marriage, it does not require love, it does not require any form of human connexion. All it requires is the insertion of slot A into tab B and the successful deposit of semen by a fertile egg. Creating a family is a moral experience of sexual intercourse that is impossible without a deep spiritual awareness and the Holy Sacrament of matrimony between a man and a woman.

Further, you are wrong to say that sexual intercourse between a so-called "sterile" husband and/or a so-called "barren" woman is unjustified. If you argue from scripture, then these thoroughly human and faithless categories of sterility and barrenness are meaningless. "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26)

Also, do not forget Zachariah and Elizabeth and the myth of Abraham and Sarah, both of which communicate quite clearly the message that it is in God that man must have faith rather than himself. Morally acceptable sexual intercourse, therefore, only ever takes place out of the intention of a husband and wife to manifest their spiritual oneness created through matrimony in the physical form of a child, and with that child to form a family who are bound to one another and together bound to God. While to the banal scientist, this will have no apparent difference from sexual intercourse merely for procreation, any person not predisposed against human relationships will recognise the fundamental and huge difference that exists between starting a family and merely procreating.


Wait a minute.

Are you contending that procreation is the only morally acceptable reason for sexual intercourse? Does that include exclusive, committed, monogamous heterosexual activity (of various types) engaged in by a husband and wife when conception is impossible (sterile or post-menopausal)?

No. I am contending that starting a family is the only morally acceptable reason for sexual intercourse; mere procreation is not human, but animalistic: humans start families. If, however, you wish to ask me if the birth of a child is the only acceptable reason to engage in sexual intercourse, then yes, I am saying that, because conception is never impossible. The nature of miracles is that they are utterly dependant on the will and mind of God, and what man can claim to know the mind of God? Even the Christ Himself acknowledges His own ignorance of the mind of the Father (see Mark 13:32). How can anyone claim absolute knowledge of impossibility when not even the Son of God would claim absolute knowledge of the mind and will of God? Even the arch-atheist David Hume asserted the necessary agnosticism of science when he asserted that chance did not allow for 100% certainty in everything, and all ratios of possibility had to be one to something, and if one admits that one, then there is one chance of something happening, making it possible, though improbable. Therefore, there is never a 0% chance of anything, and even if doctors and scientist pronounce a man "sterile" and a woman "barren", it is for God to decide whether than >0% chance of conception becomes a miraculous occurrence or whether the efforts of the husband and wife bear no fruit. No Christian can claim otherwise and remain a Christian: the teaching is clear on this matter, both from Scripture and from the Tradition of the Church.

For the impatient, of course, there is always the social institution of adoption to skip the step of sexual intercourse and start a family.

Loddfafner
11-03-2011, 08:16 PM
So I take it that only devout Christians can be truly married, and that all the marriages of heterosexual agnostics and atheists are as bogus as those between gays?

Magister Eckhart
11-04-2011, 02:44 AM
So I take it that only devout Christians can be truly married, and that all the marriages of heterosexual agnostics and atheists are as bogus as those between gays?

Part A: no, I should say any couple joined spiritually in the sight of what we Christians call "God" are in a more or less legitimate marriage.

Part B: yes, unless of course the godlessness came after the marriage.

Turkey
11-04-2011, 03:29 AM
If gay people are going to have European offspring, while many normal people won't, then kudos to them!:thumb001:

Fortis in Arduis
11-04-2011, 09:54 AM
Part A: no, I should say any couple joined spiritually in the sight of what we Christians call "God" are in a more or less legitimate marriage.

That's far too liberal for me.

They must be Roman Catholics, so I am assuming that when you said "we Christians" you meant Roman Catholics. ;)

Argyll
11-04-2011, 10:32 AM
That's far too liberal for me.

They must be Roman Catholics, so I am assuming that when you said "we Christians" you meant Roman Catholics. ;)

Are you talking about the only true marriages?

@ME Do heathen marriages count as real marriages, in your eyes?

Magister Eckhart
11-04-2011, 06:00 PM
That's far too liberal for me.

They must be Roman Catholics, so I am assuming that when you said "we Christians" you meant Roman Catholics. ;)

Well Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy are the only true forms of Christianity, all the rest is just heresy. Nevertheless, I think one would be a fool not to recognise the legitimacy of the spiritual bonds formed between two Japanese when they are married according to their cultural tradition of Shinto, or between two of our cousin Indians joined as Hindus. These are legitimate spiritual experiences that accomplish by and far the same thing in fact and in theory as the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Of course, this is only true of legitimate religions. New-age idiocies like Wicca or open corruptions like Ba'hai and Hari Krishna hardly qualify as such, so marriages according to these would certainly be illegitimate, but I see no reason to consider all Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, to be bastards. I have some reservations about polygamist sects like Mohammedanism and Mormonism, and I might go as far as to say polygamist Jewish marriages are illegitimate, but that is a point which I think is certainly open to questioning.

Of course, we must also look at things like Mormonism and the emerging Germanic Heathen religion with questioning eyes because they represent new traditions that have the potential to be legitimate due to the complexity of their religious approach and also the depth of their theology and real mythical property of their rites. Admittedly, Germanic Heathens have a long way to go, and as long as they cling to simple "revivalism" or to new-age superficiality, they will remain an illegitimate semi-religion dedicated to physical and sentimental satisfaction rather than spiritual exploration and realisation. Nevertheless, after seeing things like the Journal of Contemporary Heathen Thought and reading works by people like Steve McNallen, I can say that there is some genuine potential there. The problem is you also have idiots like the Odinic Rite and Mark Stinson running about collecting more followers than any of the thoughtful, truly religious Germanic Heathens, and that keeps the whole movement relegated to the land of live-action role-play and out of the realm of religion.

sean
10-18-2020, 04:55 AM
Most children raised by gay parents would rather be raised by straight parents. There is only one way to raise children if you want your children to grow into mature adults who are capable of reaching their full potential in life; with a MOTHER and a FATHER who can provide for the children their security, discipline, education, and of course love.

The salient point is that children are best off with two parents of opposite sex. The use of in vitro and surrogacy to undermine the natural family unit with either same-sex or single parents is an abomination and detrimental to the psychosocial well-being of a child. I have absolutely no problem with those technologies being used to help infertile couples who are otherwise normal and have no major genetic disorders.

These stats are from the study referenced in the OP.

https://i.imgur.com/vYaHSpD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/j8wKwhI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kZPIzoU.jpg
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1533396496355.jpg