Gay Agenda?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]makkun wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
[…]I’ll spell out what it “says” just for you. It says that I’m well aware you’re well known for holding just about every liberal belief that exists. In addition to that I was not responding to you but another poster who also seems to be well aware of your many posts which always seem to end up siding with the far left.

And your perceived (and for the record: incorrect) analysis of my views means that they are less valid because they aren’t congruent with yours? Thats quite a statement, especially as I haven’t seen you address any topical issues. And it’s kinda funny, given the The Mage meant it as a joke, and you didn’t. :wink:

That you consider my few words a personal attack is just silly, but then liberals are quite thin skinned…hate speech and other such nonsense.

There…are we clear now, or do we need several more posts to rectify the matter?

Wow, you’re really revealing a lot about your attitude towards people who don’t share your views. Yes, I was a bit offended, given that you took the opportunity to address my personality rather than my argument. And just did it again. Alright, I admit it, I was baiting you. But you were such an easy mark…

Your call.

Cool, I like the growl in your writing. Makes me feel intimidated. Lol.

Makkun[/quote]

Ja, er ist irgendwie sü�?, nicht?

182

[quote]forlife wrote:

That’s not how science works. The conclusions drawn through the scientific method are almost always conditional, based on the probability of them being correct. It’s not a black and white, all or nothing world. You can draw a conclusion with 99.999% certainty, but very rarely can you say that a particular conclusion is 100% correct. [/quote]

And now we see why where intellectual dishonesty is a concern.

In another thread, myself and others demonstrated this very argument based on the data available that certain correlations showed a worrying probability of the negative effects of alternative marriage.

Your response? Science cares nothing for correlations, and anything short of hard-proof causation is meaningless. You said:

[i]I don’t want it both ways. I’m happy to ignore the correlations entirely, because I know they say nothing about causation.

You continue to tout the positive correlations, without balancing it against the negative correlations that also exist. Honesty requires both. Science requires neither.[/i]

Now, science is much more nuanced, and we should be paying attention to the “gray” in between. But then, in the other thread, science was “black and white”, uninterested in extrapolating probabilities on incomplete information and correlations.

Short answer: you aren’t objective. You move your definition of “science” around solely on what you think helps your agenda.

In another thread, you said exactly the opposite - data showing correlations that suggested probabilities you didn’t like were “not science” and you attempted to dismiss them out of hand.

Now, you are fine with less than 100% certainty.

It’s a problem, Forlife - you continue to want science to be your ally in making your case, but you aren’t interested in the dispassionate approach science requires. It is hurting your cause.

183

[quote]orion wrote:
makkun wrote:
[…] Ja, er ist irgendwie sü�?, nicht?[/quote]

Scho, gell? Aber sagen tun wir das nicht. :wink:
(Yes, it’s somehow sweet - but we won’t tell).

Lol.
Makkun

184

[quote]makkun wrote:
orion wrote:
makkun wrote:
[…] Ja, er ist irgendwie sü�?, nicht?

Scho, gell? Aber sagen tun wir das nicht. :wink:
(Yes, it’s somehow sweet - but we won’t tell).

Lol.
Makkun[/quote]

Of course.

We never tell.

185

[quote]Proportion of homosexual men who owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order: An estimate based on two national probability samples
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...ogdbfrom=pubmed
[/quote]

Ok. That gets you 28.6% of the homosexuals.

[quote[New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...ogdbfrom=pubmed p[/quote]

Ok. No mention of how many male homo an bisexuals this accounts for, but a resolution of the Darwinian paradox:

Onto the Spitzer article:

[quote]Quick note on that one: Spitzer’s probands where selected via a variety of ex-gay organisations and - NARTH. Talk about self-selection. Here’s a commentary on the study:
http://www.religioustolerance… [/quote]

Fine. If orientation cannot be changed (yet), the self-destructive behavior associated with it (promiscuity, disease transmission, suicidality,…) certainly can. If the ex-gay movement accomplishes this for those who choose to participate, more the better. Could you provide some studies exploring the possible psychological causes (or lack thereof) of homosexuality? How about environmental?

186

thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

leviticus 18:22

abomination = a vile, shamefull or detestable action.

in gods opinion

187

[quote]orion wrote:
Ja, er ist irgendwie sü�?, nicht?

[/quote]

jawohl!

188

[quote]StephenD wrote:
thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

leviticus 18:22

abomination = a vile, shamefull or detestable action.

in gods opinion[/quote]

Gods opinion?

189

correct.

imo i agree. i dont give a fuck about political correctness and how we have to accept these people because times have changed ‘its 2008’
bollocks

i know alot of people will read this and agree with me but not say anything, when the fuck did the guys on this forum turn in to littl bitches like mak.

you should stop worrying about the gays and concern yourself with the real lack of testosterone flowing through your body

190

[quote]StephenD wrote:
correct.

imo i agree. i dont give a fuck about political correctness and how we have to accept these people because times have changed ‘its 2008’
bollocks

i know alot of people will read this and agree with me but not say anything, when the fuck did the guys on this forum turn in to littl bitches like mak.

you should stop worrying about the gays and concern yourself with the real lack of testosterone flowing through your body[/quote]

I do not give a fuck about political correctness either which is why I do not care what people think that get their opinions from invisible beings in the sky.

Pretty much for the same reasons why my lawyer does not hear voices and my accountant has never seen the virgin Mary cry.

I like to be surrounded by sane people.

191

[quote]orion wrote:
…
Pretty much for the same reasons why my lawyer does not hear voices and my accountant has never seen the virgin Mary cry.

I like to be surrounded by sane people.

[/quote]

Where is the fun in that? For the record I made Mary cry but she wasn’t a virgin after that. Your lawyer was not in the room at the time.

195

This sums it up nicely.

196

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:

Gay couples do not, in the broad sense, have children. We, as society, want to promote the coupling of the biological parents of a given child. Nothing in the gay agenda promotes that non-negotiable rule, and as such, pursuing alternative arrangements is an exercise in folly.

This sums it up nicely.

[/quote]
But why couldn’t gay couples provide a home to children that are already born that lack a home? Isn’t raising children as important as the ability to reproduce them? What is the essence of parenthood that makes gay couples not suited to that task?

I can think of no better place for an unwanted baby to live than with a couple who will probably not take on any more children.

I though that TV program “My Two Dads” was supposed to get the populace prepared for this idea.

197

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:

Gay couples do not, in the broad sense, have children. We, as society, want to promote the coupling of the biological parents of a given child. Nothing in the gay agenda promotes that non-negotiable rule, and as such, pursuing alternative arrangements is an exercise in folly.

This sums it up nicely.

But why couldn’t gay couples provide a home to children that are already born that lack a home? Isn’t raising children as important as the ability to reproduce them? What is the essence of parenthood that makes gay couples not suited to that task?

I can think of no better place for an unwanted baby to live than with a couple who will probably not take on any more children.

I though that TV program “My Two Dads” was supposed to get the populace prepared for this idea.[/quote]

I bolded it for you.

198

[quote]rainjack wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:

So the goal is cultural acceptance. What’s wrong with that?

Did someone suggest that gays shouldn’t be able to push their agenda?

Nope. [b]But disagreeing with it is homophobia, or religous zealotry, or . [b]

[/quote]

QFT

199

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

But why couldn’t gay couples provide a home to children that are already born that lack a home? Isn’t raising children as important as the ability to reproduce them? What is the essence of parenthood that makes gay couples not suited to that task?

[/quote]

I’m not sure about you, but it would seem to me that some of the distinct issues regarding gay couples not being suited to the task of parenthood would be-

One of the most important things about having straight parent’s growing up is the whole two sides to the issue.
Hypothetically- For example, if you have a kid who is pissing you off at school. Your mother and father will give different advice, simply because one is a male and the other female (Each parent’s advice will obviously differ due to experience on a larger scale, but for the sake of argument this will be their advice in a nutshell)

Father - Beat the shit out of the kid, until he realizes that what he was doing was pissing you off.
Mother - Talk it out, play nice together, etc…

Also, if you have gay couple’s raising children- how are the children going to ask advice about dating and relationships if their “parents” relationship is going against what their biological instincts are telling them?

Feel free to tear this post apart, as always I will accept criticism to my thinking as long as it helps me see the flaws in said thinking.

200

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

But why couldn’t gay couples provide a home to children that are already born that lack a home? Isn’t raising children as important as the ability to reproduce them? What is the essence of parenthood that makes gay couples not suited to that task?

I’m not sure about you, but it would seem to me that some of the distinct issues regarding gay couples not being suited to the task of parenthood would be-

One of the most important things about having straight parent’s growing up is the whole two sides to the issue.
Hypothetically- For example, if you have a kid who is pissing you off at school. Your mother and father will give different advice, simply because one is a male and the other female (Each parent’s advice will obviously differ due to experience on a larger scale, but for the sake of argument this will be their advice in a nutshell)

Father - Beat the shit out of the kid, until he realizes that what he was doing was pissing you off.
Mother - Talk it out, play nice together, etc…

Also, if you have gay couple’s raising children- how are the children going to ask advice about dating and relationships if their “parents” relationship is going against what their biological instincts are telling them?

Feel free to tear this post apart, as always I will accept criticism to my thinking as long as it helps me see the flaws in said thinking.[/quote]

Yes, I understand the arguments for the traditional family. Is a traditional upbringing an necessary upbringing? Can children not develop to the their utmost potential in the care of a same-sex couple? If not, why not?