Same-Sex Adoption = Child Abuse

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The fact that there are homosexuals that exist in nature means that homosexuality is perfectly natural.[/quote]

siamese twins exist in nature does that make it natural? Schizophrenia exists in nature does that make it natural?
Cancer exists in nature does that make it natural?
frogs with 3 legs exist in nature does that make it natural?
Mental retardation exists in nature does that make it natural?

Should I go on or is this enough for you to realize you don’t know what you are talking about?

202

[quote]John S. wrote:
siamese twins exist in nature does that make it natural? Schizophrenia exists in nature does that make it natural?
Cancer exists in nature does that make it natural?
frogs with 3 legs exist in nature does that make it natural?
Mental retardation exists in nature does that make it natural?
[/quote]

Natural, yes. Common, no.

203

[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
siamese twins exist in nature does that make it natural? Schizophrenia exists in nature does that make it natural?
Cancer exists in nature does that make it natural?
frogs with 3 legs exist in nature does that make it natural?
Mental retardation exists in nature does that make it natural?

Natural, yes. Common, no.[/quote]

No those are all unnatural but thanks for playing.

204

[quote]John S. wrote:
No those are all unnatural but thanks for playing.[/quote]

Are we playing semantics now? It’s unnatural if you’re referring to what is common. It’s natural if you’re referring to what is produced by nature.

205

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not asking for every single study, but I would think you’d read some in order to know the science so well.

I’ve never claimed to “know the science so well”. To the contrary, I’ve said that I don’t consider myself an expert ini this field, and defer to the major medical and mental health organizations, who actually are the experts.

Read that to see why you aren’t logically coherent.

Per your reference:

The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.

I’ve specifically said that I don’t consider the medical and mental health organizations to be infallible. However, given their expertise and commitment to public health, it is reasonable to accept their conclusions as compelling. This is further reinforced by the unanimity of these conclusions across each and every major medical and mental health organization.[/quote]

Then don’t speak of a scientific majority while quoting policies written by committees.

If you’d used your same action plan in the 70s you would have concluded homosexuality was factually a defect.

By your own admission now, you only require evidence when the opinion doesn’t support your own side.

206

Even more so when the same authorities have proven wrong on a closely related issue in the past.

207

How can anything that exists in nature not be considered natural?

Debating the “naturalness” of any phenomenon is purely rhetorical. There isn’t any meaning in it whatsoever since everything that exists is natural.

As to answer the question of conjoined twins being considered “natural”: well yes, it is a “perfectly natural” result of something going wrong somewhere, at some point in time during the pregnancy of a women.

And by the way, while we’re on the subject: we cannot separate the laboratory from nature either. Everything that happens in there is happening in nature too.

208

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Then don’t speak of a scientific majority while quoting policies written by committees.

If you’d used your same action plan in the 70s you would have concluded homosexuality was factually a defect.

By your own admission now, you only require evidence when the opinion doesn’t support your own side.[/quote]

These aren’t just “policies written by committees”, they represent the official positions of the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. on homosexuality issues, based on 40 years of research.

The American Psychological Association incorrectly classified homosexuality as a disorder 30 years ago, based on very limited research that had been conducted at that time. In the last three decades, substantial research has made it clear that the original categorization was incorrect and the APA has revised its stance accordingly.

Not only the APA, but every other major medical and mental health organization, has drawn similar conclusions on homosexuality. I don’t know what more evidence you want, unless you seriously plan to accuse every one of these organizations of being so dishonest, irresponsible, and biased that their conclusions are worthless.

209

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Even more so when the same authorities have proven wrong on a closely related issue in the past.[/quote]

Science sometimes gets things wrong. Are you going to argue that we should toss the toasters out of our houses because scientists didn’t understand how electricity works?

As science progresses, sometimes mistakes are made and subsequently corrected. The point is that science does progress, and it has the objectivity and integrity to make those corrections when called for by the data.

210

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Even more so when the same authorities have proven wrong on a closely related issue in the past.

Science sometimes gets things wrong. Are you going to argue that we should toss the toasters out of our houses because scientists didn’t understand how electricity works?

As science progresses, sometimes mistakes are made and subsequently corrected. The point is that science does progress, and it has the objectivity and integrity to make those corrections when called for by the data.[/quote]

I never said though anything out. I never argued the issue.

no you don’t throw a teacher out, but if she lied to you about what was written in a book once, you read the book for yourself ontop of hearing her opinion next time.

211

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Then don’t speak of a scientific majority while quoting policies written by committees.

If you’d used your same action plan in the 70s you would have concluded homosexuality was factually a defect.

By your own admission now, you only require evidence when the opinion doesn’t support your own side.

These aren’t just “policies written by committees”, they represent the official positions of the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. on homosexuality issues, based on 40 years of research.

[/quote]
Yes, they represent the official public policy position of a highly publicly scrutinized organization on a highly divisive political subject in an atmosphere including highly powerful lobbies.

I’m sure they claimed to have the research to back up homosexuality as a defect back then too. Though you claim they were swayed by bias and politics. “substantial research?” What the hell man? You haven’t seen any of it. You are taking the word of the organizations that were wrong in the past. Well, they jumped to conclusions before, but now they say substantial research…

[quote]

Not only the APA, but every other major medical and mental health organization, has drawn similar conclusions on homosexuality. I don’t know what more evidence you want, unless you seriously plan to accuse every one of these organizations of being so dishonest, irresponsible, and biased that their conclusions are worthless.[/quote]

No, I don’t think you get it. I want evidence. You haven’t provided any. ANY. Not 1 shred. You have provided public policy stances of committees, proven wrong on similar issues in the past, on “evidence” that I have yet to see.

I think you and I have different standards for what constitutes evidence. You seem to lower your standards when opinions are on your side, to pretty unscientific standards.

I’d wager big money you wouldn’t accept expert opinions that said something different without demanding their evidence.

Your bias is showing.

212

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How can anything that exists in nature not be considered natural?

Debating the “naturalness” of any phenomenon is purely rhetorical. There isn’t any meaning in it whatsoever since everything that exists is natural.

As to answer the question of conjoined twins being considered “natural”: well yes, it is a “perfectly natural” result of something going wrong somewhere, at some point in time during the pregnancy of a women.

And by the way, while we’re on the subject: we cannot separate the laboratory from nature either. Everything that happens in there is happening in nature too.[/quote]

You’re really goin nowhere with that, other than away from the point that is being discussed. You can twist things around all day just as most liberals do. I guess its good that you can “think outside the box” but people need to see reality and stop making excuses and reasonings for fucked up things that take place in this world. And yes, I consider a homosexual couple adopting children fucked up.

213

[quote]John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The fact that there are homosexuals that exist in nature means that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

siamese twins exist in nature does that make it natural? Schizophrenia exists in nature does that make it natural?
Cancer exists in nature does that make it natural?
frogs with 3 legs exist in nature does that make it natural?
Mental retardation exists in nature does that make it natural?

Should I go on or is this enough for you to realize you don’t know what you are talking about?[/quote]

Funny, I thought unnatural was created outside nature.

Should I go n or is this enough for you to realize you don’t know what you are talking about?

214

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Apparently, the spartans weren’t your average “run of the mill male”

The fact that you have to go back thousands of years to come up with an example really says it all. Also, there were more bisexual spartans than homosexual Spartans. But, that is not relevant in 2009 anyway is it?

I know of no heterosexual man of today that has any interest in having sex with another man. In fact, it would be impossible because of lack of arousal. But, you had no problem having sex for (how many years? 20?) with a woman.

I would say that’s odd for a homosexual man (to have sex with a woman regularly) I would have said that but I won’t now, as during my previous debate with you I found that over 85% of all “homosexual” men have regular sex with women as well.

Which begs the question, what is homosexuality really, but a preference.

Despite your fears of children being “influenced in the wrong direction”, statistically children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be gay themselves than are children raised by straight parents.

You have absolutely no right to say that. There has not been any sort of long term studies done with any sort of sizeable group. How could there be for heaven sakes this is a more recent phenomenon.

I see your arguments are no better (perhaps worse) than they were a couple of years ago when we did this.

[/quote]

Zeb, you are aware that there are studies that show that men who rate highest for homophobic tendencies on surveys show the highest levels of arousal on being shown gay porn. I could dig out the references if I could be bothered to go through the hassle of google searching anything related to gay sex and having to explain to my wife why.

Interestingly the same studies showed that women get horny at pretty much anything including videos of monkey sex (the dirty whores.)

215

[quote]John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The fact that there are homosexuals that exist in nature means that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

siamese twins exist in nature does that make it natural? Schizophrenia exists in nature does that make it natural?
Cancer exists in nature does that make it natural?
frogs with 3 legs exist in nature does that make it natural?
Mental retardation exists in nature does that make it natural?

Should I go on or is this enough for you to realize you don’t know what you are talking about?[/quote]

erm, all of those things are natural. They may not be desireable from our particular perspective however they are all totally natural.

216

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Zeb, you are aware that there are studies that show that men who rate highest for homophobic tendencies on surveys show the highest levels of arousal on being shown gay porn.

[/quote]

Usually when you don’t like something that means that you, well, don’t like it. It goes for broccoli, boating, bike riding certain styles of music, etc. However since the gay movement gained some traction if you are not in favor of homosexual, marriage adoption etc. that means that you are actually a closet homosexual yourself, or at least have very strong tendencies, yea okay. I guess all these years I’ve been avoiding broccoli I actually lusted for it deep down. That’s funny I could have sworn that it made me gag.

Only the homosexual movement could think of something so diabolical. And I think it has worked for the most part. Between calling people “homophobic” and now claiming that those who are not in favor of homosexuality in reality want to be homosexual (hey studies never lie) has done it’s job in silencing many who would have normally spoken out against it.

Fortunately, I understand the tactics involved and will continue to speak out, on this forum and in my “real life” as well.

After all studies never lie. Remember those studies back in the 80’s (if you’re old enough) which claimed that eating every sort of fat would make you fat?

Among other things when I look at a study I like to look at who created the study, how many people took part and what their primary motivation was.

217

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If you recall the debate (within the debate) was about the question of why homosexual men (over 85% of them) seem to be able to become aroused with both males AND females.

Why is it that men were able to become aroused with other men through the societal norm of pederasty?[/quote]

I’ve never denied that there were homosexuals living long ago. The fact is there are somewhere between 1% and 3% who claim the title of “homosexual” or “bisexual”. No new news here forlife, none at all. However, as the Greek information indicates, just as today, it was never a well accepted practice.

Correct, and [b]you and I also know that you cannot explain why most men who call themselves “homosexal” are able to have sex with women and do so on a regular basis, especially when their first choice is not available.

It’s a preference my friend, nothing more.[/b]

[quote]At this point I’d like to see a long term study where a large group of gay parents, and off spring (oxymoron) where studied. A peer reviewed paper would do the trick.

You can google individual studies as well as I can. I’m not going there, because I don’t believe in armchair science and cherry picking.[/quote]

You made the claim you produce the evidence. It is my contention that there are no quality studies that exist. At this point you’ve lost much credibility when you cannot produce even one quality study.I suggest that you stop posting things which are totally inaccurate.

Every time I post the story of the APA being hijacked by the homosexual contingent of their organization (facts, figures, names, dates etc.) you ignore it.

You have not changed much my friend. Still pushing the homosexual agenda, still tossing around “facts” that are just not true, and still dodging the actual truth.

218

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Zeb, you are aware that there are studies that show that men who rate highest for homophobic tendencies on surveys show the highest levels of arousal on being shown gay porn.

Usually when you don’t like something that means that you, well, don’t like it. It goes for broccoli, boating, bike riding certain styles of music, etc. However since the gay movement gained some traction if you are not in favor of homosexual, marriage adoption etc. that means that you are actually a closet homosexual yourself, or at least have very strong tendencies, yea okay. I guess all these years I’ve been avoiding broccoli I actually lusted for it deep down. That’s funny I could have sworn that it made me gag.

Only the homosexual movement could think of something so diabolical. And I think it has worked for the most part. Between calling people “homophobic” and now claiming that those who are not in favor of homosexuality in reality want to be homosexual (hey studies never lie) has done it’s job in silencing many who would have normally spoken out against it.

Fortunately, I understand the tactics involved and will continue to speak out, on this forum and in my “real life” as well.

After all studies never lie. Remember those studies back in the 80’s (if you’re old enough) which claimed that eating every sort of fat would make you fat?

Among other things when I look at a study I like to look at who created the study, how many people took part and what their primary motivation was.

[/quote]

Zeb, my intentions were not to cast aspertions on your sexuality. And I am not saying that someone who is against homosexuality is secretly homosexual. I was just countering your claim that someone who was averse to the concept of homosexuality would not be able to perform a homosexual act. You stated something that was clearly incorrect.

If you want more details on the particular study then you should be able to find it by googling. Just don’t look at the pictures. (I think TC referred to it in one of his Atomic Dog pieces a few weeks back.)

219

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If you recall the debate (within the debate) was about the question of why homosexual men (over 85% of them) seem to be able to become aroused with both males AND females.

Why is it that men were able to become aroused with other men through the societal norm of pederasty?

I’ve never denied that there were homosexuals living long ago. The fact is there are somewhere between 1% and 3% who claim the title of “homosexual” or “bisexual”. No new news here forlife, none at all. However, as the Greek information indicates, just as today, it was never a well accepted practice.

I’m not going to limit the discussion to sexual acts, because you and I both know that romance, love, and emotional connection are as important to a long term healthy relationship as the sex itself.

Correct, and [b]you and I also know that you cannot explain why most men who call themselves “homosexal” are able to have sex with women and do so on a regular basis, especially when their first choice is not available.

It’s a preference my friend, nothing more.[/b]

At this point I’d like to see a long term study where a large group of gay parents, and off spring (oxymoron) where studied. A peer reviewed paper would do the trick.

You can google individual studies as well as I can. I’m not going there, because I don’t believe in armchair science and cherry picking.

You made the claim you produce the evidence. It is my contention that there are no quality studies that exist. At this point you’ve lost much credibility when you cannot produce even one quality study.I suggest that you stop posting things which are totally inaccurate.

you can’t dispute that these organizations have in fact drawn these conclusions.

Every time I post the story of the APA being hijacked by the homosexual contingent of their organization (facts, figures, names, dates etc.) you ignore it.

You have not changed much my friend. Still pushing the homosexual agenda, still tossing around “facts” that are just not true, and still dodging the actual truth.

[/quote]

Small point but how can the organisation be hijacked by 1-3% of its members? Surely their voice would be drowned out by the 97-99% of people who are straight were it not for some truth in what is being said.

220

[quote]Makavali wrote:
John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The fact that there are homosexuals that exist in nature means that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

siamese twins exist in nature does that make it natural? Schizophrenia exists in nature does that make it natural?
Cancer exists in nature does that make it natural?
frogs with 3 legs exist in nature does that make it natural?
Mental retardation exists in nature does that make it natural?

Should I go on or is this enough for you to realize you don’t know what you are talking about?

Funny, I thought unnatural was created outside nature.

Should I go n or is this enough for you to realize you don’t know what you are talking about?[/quote]

I’ve never understood the natural/unnatural argument for anything. We can’t create anything new, only rearrange things. Everything in toxic radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant exists naturally.

The closest I can see to ?unnatural? is all the unstable Uu?s at the end of the periodic table we made by sticking protons and neutrons where they wouldn?t normally go.

But even then, aren?t humans part of nature? Why is it that when a lower animal changes the environment in some way, it?s still natural, but not when we do it?

Blowfish, poison ivy (not deadly, but I have scars from it), venomous snakes, poisonous spiders, some frogs, all create highly deadly, incredibly powerful toxins. But I guess if you are on the wrong end of those it?s a ?natural? death.