Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[KNB]

You also bring up another interesting point.

To be a non breeder most heterosexuals have to take very expensive steps just to enjoy sex with their partner. Homosexuals don't.

Wow, I call that a huge difference.

What "expensive steps" must be taken to avoid pregnancy? Oral sex? Anal sex? Pulling out? Those are free, and there are millions of people on the internet all over the world who look like they're enjoying it.

Then why does it need to be written into law that everyone else has to pay for your birth control. If it's that ******* easy why do I need to pay for it when I have been telling you the entire time it's up to you not to get pregnant. Why if by your own admission is avoiding pregnancy so easy you keep pushing for laws that go counter to that and women are too ******* stupid to understand and need government birth control.

Does Hobby Lobby need a pull out or swallow rule in their company practices instead of a mandate to provide an abortion drug? I'm guessing the Sister's of the Poor would be much better off with the take it in the ass or swallow option instead of the you are forced to pay for abortions thing.

Because sometimes people get pregnant even when they take precautions and when that happens, they have the right to terminate the fertilized egg because the Bible doesn't run this country.

 

[GreenBean]

God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.

God didn't write the Bible, humans did.

Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.

As a casual student of theology and an agnostic I have to agree that God probably didn't wriite the Bible, however, to snatch your own wording "Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible." Not true at all, not even close to being factual - the Bible states

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

There are many more verses which are speculatiive as to whether they actually relate to homosexuals or not , but this passage from leviticus is nondeniable, in any translation.

Not quoted from Jesus or God.

via a prophet was considered as from God by the ancients. But ho-hum no point , that's another topic altogether. Yes you are right not from the big Guy in the sky himself.

 

[GISMYS]

SEXUAL PERVERTS COMPOUND THEIR SIN they deny their sin is sin and deny the truth of GOD'S word= sin compounded!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere in the Amendment do we find the words “individual” or “self-defense,” but the individual right to possess a firearm to exercise the right to self-defense in fact exists:

[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Just as there is an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense, so too is there a right to privacy and a right to marry.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere in the Amendment do we find the words “individual” or “self-defense,” but the individual right to possess a firearm to exercise the right to self-defense in fact exists:

[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Just as there is an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense, so too is there a right to privacy and a right to marry.

Actually the 2A doesn't provide a right to self defence. There is one, it's just not in the 2A.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

SEXUAL PERVERTS COMPOUND THEIR SIN they deny their sin is sin and deny the truth of GOD'S word= sin compounded!!!

And isn't going around calling people names and bullying them not a sin?

 

[KNB]

SEXUAL PERVERTS COMPOUND THEIR SIN they deny their sin is sin and deny the truth of GOD'S word= sin compounded!!!

The Bible wasn't written by God so it isn't God's words. It was written by men who told you that it was the word of God. They lied to you because they want to control your mind.

 

[GreenBean]

SEXUAL PERVERTS COMPOUND THEIR SIN they deny their sin is sin and deny the truth of GOD'S word= sin compounded!!!

The Bible wasn't written by God so it isn't God's words. It was written by men who told you that it was the word of God. They lied to you because they want to control your mind.

Sounds like Liberals to me - damn thos liberals, they just don't stop .

 

[Seawytch]

So more related to homosexuality?

Please explain.

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

The participant could all be gay. When he masturbated in the cup, intending to donate to a female, he participated as a male fertilizing a female.

That is far closer to Hetero than homosexual. Had it been homosexual, there would be, by definition, no children.

As for the "breeder" designation. Proud I am part of that club, as are my offspring and theirs.

By the way, take the debate out of this for a moment. I hope you and your kids are all healthy and happy.

What occurred was procreation, not coupling. You don't need heterosexual coupling for procreation.

 

[Seawytch]

So more related to homosexuality?

Please explain.

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

That's the most convoluted ******* procreation story I have ever seen.

So you're just like us normal people. Except you need three people involved to procreate and a lot of doctor visits and stuff. You can't have a child of you and your partner on your own, ever. You need at least three people involved and a team of doctors in order to make this happen.

So much like a man and woman.

It was done exactly like thousands of straight couples procreate every day due to decreased fecundity. Roughly 10% of US women have decreased fecundity and require some sort of assistance in conceiving.

Oh, and sperm banks aren't just for the lesbians...if they were, they'd go out of business.

 

[Seawytch]

It doesn't matter what your motivations are, your information is wrong. Children are most advantaged when they have two parents...gender is immaterial. THAT is what the studies show, that two parents are best for children, not straight parents.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Parents

World’s largest study on gay parents finds the kids are more than all right

Does the gender of parents really matter?

Sociologists have demonstrated over and over again that the optimal nurturing environment for young children is in a home where they are raised in a two-parent family headed by a man and a woman .....Fundamental to this is the conviction is that there are just two genders — male and female — and not five, as homosexual activists want us to believe.

Opposite sex parenting gives children examples of both masculinity and femininity in action, and the complementary interaction of these qualities enables them to grow up with a healthy and balanced view of life and relationships.


Sociologist Mark Regnerus was a witness for the state of Michigan,...The author of a controversial 2012 study, Regnerus found that children who grew up in a house where a parent eventually had a same-sex relationship had more difficulties ....

Regnerus was the leader of a study that screened thousands of people, ages 18 to 39, and found roughly 250 who said they grew up in a house where a mom or dad eventually had a same-sex relationship.

He found they were more likely to have problems — welfare dependence, less education, marijuana use — than young adults from stable families led by heterosexuals.

The study was financed by the New Jersey-based Witherspoon Institute, which says its mission is to help the public understand the "moral foundations" of democratic societies.

-----------

Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children

Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent, and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval – marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays.

The Shamelessness of Professor Mark Regnerus

Regnerus’ research doesn’t show what he says it does. Not remotely. No research ever has. Yet Regnerus, unchastened by a chorus of professional criticism correctly pointing out the obvious flaws in his work—including a formal reprimand in an audit assigned by the journal that published his piece—continues to make these groundless claims, knowing full well they are baseless.[...]

Much has been written on Regnerus’ discredited study, so I’ll just summarize the single most obvious reason it’s bunk. Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.​

 

[Pop23]

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

The participant could all be gay. When he masturbated in the cup, intending to donate to a female, he participated as a male fertilizing a female.

That is far closer to Hetero than homosexual. Had it been homosexual, there would be, by definition, no children.

As for the "breeder" designation. Proud I am part of that club, as are my offspring and theirs.

By the way, take the debate out of this for a moment. I hope you and your kids are all healthy and happy.

What occurred was procreation, not coupling. You don't need heterosexual coupling for procreation.

Procreation is impossible without combining the sperm (male) with the egg (female)

Heterosexuality is between Male/Female

It is far closer to Hetero than homosexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

The participant could all be gay. When he masturbated in the cup, intending to donate to a female, he participated as a male fertilizing a female.

That is far closer to Hetero than homosexual. Had it been homosexual, there would be, by definition, no children.

As for the "breeder" designation. Proud I am part of that club, as are my offspring and theirs.

By the way, take the debate out of this for a moment. I hope you and your kids are all healthy and happy.

What occurred was procreation, not coupling. You don't need heterosexual coupling for procreation.

Procreation is impossible without combining the sperm (male) with the egg (female)

Heterosexuality is between Male/Female

It is far closer to Hetero than homosexuality.

You need to understand procreation more. It's not "heterosexual", it's simply procreation. Did you know that some animals can procreate a-sexually?

 

[GreenBean]

Sociologists have demonstrated over and over again that the optimal nurturing environment for young children is in a home where they are raised in a two-parent family headed by a man and a woman .....Fundamental to this is the conviction is that there are just two genders — male and female — and not five, as homosexual activists want us to believe.

Opposite sex parenting gives children examples of both masculinity and femininity in action, and the complementary interaction of these qualities enables them to grow up with a healthy and balanced view of life and relationships.


Sociologist Mark Regnerus was a witness for the state of Michigan,...The author of a controversial 2012 study, Regnerus found that children who grew up in a house where a parent eventually had a same-sex relationship had more difficulties ....

Regnerus was the leader of a study that screened thousands of people, ages 18 to 39, and found roughly 250 who said they grew up in a house where a mom or dad eventually had a same-sex relationship.

He found they were more likely to have problems — welfare dependence, less education, marijuana use — than young adults from stable families led by heterosexuals.

The study was financed by the New Jersey-based Witherspoon Institute, which says its mission is to help the public understand the "moral foundations" of democratic societies.

-----------

Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children

Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent, and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval – marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays.

The Shamelessness of Professor Mark Regnerus

Regnerus’ research doesn’t show what he says it does. Not remotely. No research ever has. Yet Regnerus, unchastened by a chorus of professional criticism correctly pointing out the obvious flaws in his work—including a formal reprimand in an audit assigned by the journal that published his piece—continues to make these groundless claims, knowing full well they are baseless.[...]

Much has been written on Regnerus’ discredited study, so I’ll just summarize the single most obvious reason it’s bunk. Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.​

Dr. Regnerus utilizes Scientific Objectivity in his research, he doesn't initiate a project and say "Hey I'm gonna prove the homosexulas are good" He initiates a project with the intent of discovering and revealing the Truth - there can only be one Scientific Truth. IF it happens to be politically incorrect - then so be it

Another Researcher, an a staunch advocate of Gay Rights DR. Nicholas Cummings was one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness back in the 70s. In fact, he wrote the proposal to remove it from the DSM. [Homosexuality] He stated the following

“By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle [Scientific Objectivity] was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.” [APA=American Psychological Association]

Cummings is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science,... Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases.

Dr. Regnerus and Dr. Cummings have that principle in common . Dr. Cummings in recent years has become highly critical of the Gay Rights monement in cherry picking "BAD SCIENCE" such as the half baked article you just quoted - which is nothing more than a propaganda rag - saturated with sour grapes because the Regnerus work did not suit their agenda - despite the fact that it was Scientifically Objective .


PS : A good example of Scientifc Objectivity from some our past squabbles on this forum regard whether Gay Men are born that way or whether it is an acquired trait. I argued that there is no such thing as a "Gay Gene" and queerness was an acquired trait, another poster , it may have been you- but I doubt it as it's way over Your head - pointed out a study relative to enzymes found in the brains of a relatively large percentage of Gay men , not present in heterosexual men as predominantly- at which point I was forced to concede that it may be possible that some Gay Men may actually be born that way - which did not help my argument well - it fact it diffused it - BUT - it was Scientifically Object and I was able to get around my personal bias and accept the facts. Why can't you GROW UP and do the same - is your personal bias, your apparently low IQ or some other factor ?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Shamelessness of Professor Mark Regnerus

Regnerus’ research doesn’t show what he says it does. Not remotely. No research ever has. Yet Regnerus, unchastened by a chorus of professional criticism correctly pointing out the obvious flaws in his work—including a formal reprimand in an audit assigned by the journal that published his piece—continues to make these groundless claims, knowing full well they are baseless.[...]

Much has been written on Regnerus’ discredited study, so I’ll just summarize the single most obvious reason it’s bunk. Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.​

Dr. Regnerus utilizes Scientific Objectivity in his research, he doesn't initiate a project and say "Hey I'm gonna prove the homosexulas are good" He initiates a project with the intent of discovering and revealing the Truth - there can only be one Scientific Truth. IF it happens to be politically incorrect - then so be it

Another Researcher, an a staunch advocate of Gay Rights DR. Nicholas Cummings was one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness back in the 70s. In fact, he wrote the proposal to remove it from the DSM. [Homosexuality] He stated the following

“By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle [Scientific Objectivity] was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.” [APA=American Psychological Association]

Cummings is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science,... Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases.

Dr. Regnerus and Dr. Cummings have that principle in common . Dr. Cummings in recent years has become highly critical of the Gay Rights monement in cherry picking "BAD SCIENCE" such as the half baked article you just quoted - which is nothing more than a propaganda rag - saturated with sour grapes because the Regnerus work did not suit their agenda - despite the fact that it was Scientifically Objective .

I think you are kind of broadbrushing with the word "truth", but I can believe that a serious scientist wants to initiate a study without any hidden bias or agenda. I don't know if that is or is not the case here in the study you provided. The study would be stronger were there to be a number of sister studies, conducted over a longer time frame, to either confirm the original results, or refute them.

I am always very wary of just one study, just as I am always wary of just one poll, for the same reasons.

 

[GreenBean]

Dr. Regnerus utilizes Scientific Objectivity in his research, he doesn't initiate a project and say "Hey I'm gonna prove the homosexulas are good" He initiates a project with the intent of discovering and revealing the Truth - there can only be one Scientific Truth. IF it happens to be politically incorrect - then so be it

Another Researcher, an a staunch advocate of Gay Rights DR. Nicholas Cummings was one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness back in the 70s. In fact, he wrote the proposal to remove it from the DSM. [Homosexuality] He stated the following



Cummings is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science,... Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases.

Dr. Regnerus and Dr. Cummings have that principle in common . Dr. Cummings in recent years has become highly critical of the Gay Rights monement in cherry picking "BAD SCIENCE" such as the half baked article you just quoted - which is nothing more than a propaganda rag - saturated with sour grapes because the Regnerus work did not suit their agenda - despite the fact that it was Scientifically Objective .

I think you are kind of broadbrushing with the word "truth", but I can believe that a serious scientist wants to initiate a study without any hidden bias or agenda. I don't know if that is or is not the case here in the study you provided. The study would be stronger were there to be a number of sister studies, conducted over a longer time frame, to either confirm the original results, or refute them.

I am always very wary of just one study, just as I am always wary of just one poll, for the same reasons.

The Evelyn Hooker Study is a good example of "Bad Science" as proulgated by Gay Activists.

Relatively unknown outside the Gay Agenda, Evelyn Hookers Tainted Studies have contributed to the advancement of their political goals. Her studies put her in a class with Alfred Kinsey and his long since ridiculed and debunked studies which some like to cite as the ignition point of the sexual revolution.

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society [A Gay-SocioFacist Organization] and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.

Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study. In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists, but proven out by later and more reliable studies. So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.

Scientific method describes a method for conducting an objective investigation.

An experiment or Study must be reproducible, which is important in science! If you have trouble duplicating results from one experiment to another then there is a flaw in your results. Dr. Hookers study failed to remain within the parameters which are dictated by "Good Science" she did however remain within the parameters of "Good Propaganda' and served her sponsor well. The following studies are ones which remained within the parameters of Good Science. .....

Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed

Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms


Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals

THere are a number of reliable studies some of which are cited above that debunks much of the Bad Science that the Gay Agenda proposes

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think you are kind of broadbrushing with the word "truth", but I can believe that a serious scientist wants to initiate a study without any hidden bias or agenda. I don't know if that is or is not the case here in the study you provided. The study would be stronger were there to be a number of sister studies, conducted over a longer time frame, to either confirm the original results, or refute them.

I am always very wary of just one study, just as I am always wary of just one poll, for the same reasons.

The Evelyn Hooker Study is a good example of "Bad Science" as proulgated by Gay Activists.

Relatively unknown outside the Gay Agenda, Evelyn Hookers Tainted Studies have contributed to the advancement of their political goals. Her studies put her in a class with Alfred Kinsey and his long since ridiculed and debunked studies which some like to cite as the ignition point of the sexual revolution.

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society [A Gay-SocioFacist Organization] and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.

Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study. In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists, but proven out by later and more reliable studies. So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.

Scientific method describes a method for conducting an objective investigation.

An experiment or Study must be reproducible, which is important in science! If you have trouble duplicating results from one experiment to another then there is a flaw in your results. Dr. Hookers study failed to remain within the parameters which are dictated by "Good Science" she did however remain within the parameters of "Good Propaganda' and served her sponsor well. The following studies are ones which remained within the parameters of Good Science. .....

Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed

Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms


Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals

Just for the fun of it, what's your real agenda against homosexuals? Why do they cause such concern for you? Faith? Fear? Hatred?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think you are kind of broadbrushing with the word "truth", but I can believe that a serious scientist wants to initiate a study without any hidden bias or agenda. I don't know if that is or is not the case here in the study you provided. The study would be stronger were there to be a number of sister studies, conducted over a longer time frame, to either confirm the original results, or refute them.

I am always very wary of just one study, just as I am always wary of just one poll, for the same reasons.

The Evelyn Hooker Study is a good example of "Bad Science" as proulgated by Gay Activists.

Relatively unknown outside the Gay Agenda, Evelyn Hookers Tainted Studies have contributed to the advancement of their political goals. Her studies put her in a class with Alfred Kinsey and his long since ridiculed and debunked studies which some like to cite as the ignition point of the sexual revolution.

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society [A Gay-SocioFacist Organization] and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.

Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study. In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists, but proven out by later and more reliable studies. So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.

Scientific method describes a method for conducting an objective investigation.

An experiment or Study must be reproducible, which is important in science! If you have trouble duplicating results from one experiment to another then there is a flaw in your results. Dr. Hookers study failed to remain within the parameters which are dictated by "Good Science" she did however remain within the parameters of "Good Propaganda' and served her sponsor well. The following studies are ones which remained within the parameters of Good Science. .....

Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed

Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms


Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals

Just to be clear, I am against ANY tainted study, but you saying it is so is no proof at all. I have never heard any independent source claim that the Kinsey study was biased or tainted, ever. Got some links? If you do, I will gladly look at them.

 

[bodecea]

So more related to homosexuality?

Please explain.

Let's see...no heterosexuals went into the making of our children, the children of my partner and I...100% all gay. We're gay, donor is gay.

Now, the surrogate children...there was a heterosexual involved in that, the egg donor was a straight woman, but the sperm donors were gay men and the oven (me) is a lesbian.

Tell us truthfully Pop...you want there to be two different marriage licenses for straights and gays, regardless of procreation. If you were being honest about your "concerns", you'd be advocating for a "breeder" or "non breeder" license.

That's the most convoluted ******* procreation story I have ever seen.

So you're just like us normal people. Except you need three people involved to procreate and a lot of doctor visits and stuff. You can't have a child of you and your partner on your own, ever. You need at least three people involved and a team of doctors in order to make this happen.

So much like a man and woman.

Where were you protesting the marriages of straight couples who use such ways to have children? Where were you DEMANDING two different marriage licenses for straight couples who have to use such artificial means to have children?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes it is. As a matter of fact, it's explicitly defined. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I don't see the word "privacy" there. Which is the claim being made about marriage that word marriage isn't in the constitution.

Secure in papers from search and seizure is the definition of privacy. To pretend it's not there because they did not use the word privacy, thus arguing its constitutional to take away your privacy by unreasonably searching and seizing your papers is ludicrous.

Nothing in the Constitution, and especially nothing in the fourteen amendment provides for a definition of protection of marriage. The only thing that even comes close is the right to life and liberty, which one could argue includes marriage. But more particularly, the 14th is not the right TO life and liberty, the 14th is the right of the state to TAKE your life and liberty with due process. IOW the 14th is more the authoritarian right of the majority to limit, through due process, the rights of the people. For example the right to limit gays from getting married through tyranny of the majority if they say they used due process.