Same-Sex Adoption = Child Abuse

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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?

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.[/quote]

Don’t you all realize that we need someone to tell us what is and is not natural? How can we go about our daily lives if we don’t have wise men explaining god’s will to us?

222

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have provided public policy stances of committees, proven wrong on similar issues in the past, on “evidence” that I have yet to see.
[/quote]

Let’s be clear here.

Critics point out that political groundswell was a catalyst for the reclassification of homosexuality as a disorder by the APA.

  1. Political groundswell has been a catalyst in the past for advancing civil rights on other issues, like racial and gender equality. The groundswell per se is not a negative, and in fact can have positive results.

  2. Science is not at the mercy of politics, but can be motivated by such politics to scrutinize current conclusions, and determine whether or not those conclusions are based on sound experimental design. Where the design is lacking, science has the responsibility to gather additional data under acceptable design standards, and determine whether or not its original conclusions are in fact valid.

  3. The APA got one issue about homosexuality wrong, i.e., the classification of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. That doesn’t mean every other mental health and medical organization similarly got it wrong. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Surgeon General, etc. have no history of “getting it wrong” and should not be lumped together with the APA.

  4. Science is always subject to scrutiny, which is its greatest strength. However, that doesn’t mean a random guy on a message board has the expertise to evaluate four decades of research on homosexuality and draw accurate conclusions based on that research. I certainly wouldn’t presume to do so. In that regard, as in other cases where our expertise is limited (like on medical issues), we depend on people who do have the expertise and professional responsibility to draw accurate conclusions on our behalf. That doesn’t guarantee they will be 100% accurate all of the time, but the probability that they are accurate is far higher than the probability that the random guy will be accurate.

223

[quote]Makavali wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Since when was anything that black and white? Like I keep telling you, read up on the gay uncle theory.

What exactly do you think that theory says?

It’s a poor argument to support homosexuals as equals.

I think it says they have a valid position in society.[/quote]

Wouldn’t the most direct interpretation, in line with the theory, be assisting the ‘breeders’ in raising the younguns?

224

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You have provided public policy stances of committees, proven wrong on similar issues in the past, on “evidence” that I have yet to see.

Let’s be clear here.

Critics point out that political groundswell was a catalyst for the reclassification of homosexuality as a disorder by the APA.

  1. Political groundswell has been a catalyst in the past for advancing civil rights on other issues, like racial and gender equality. The groundswell per se is not a negative, and in fact can have positive results.

  2. Science is not at the mercy of politics, but can be motivated by such politics to scrutinize current conclusions, and determine whether or not those conclusions are based on sound experimental design. Where the design is lacking, science has the responsibility to gather additional data under acceptable design standards, and determine whether or not its original conclusions are in fact valid.

  3. The APA got one issue about homosexuality wrong, i.e., the classification of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. That doesn’t mean every other mental health and medical organization similarly got it wrong. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Surgeon General, etc. have no history of “getting it wrong” and should not be lumped together with the APA.

  4. Science is always subject to scrutiny, which is its greatest strength. However, that doesn’t mean a random guy on a message board has the expertise to evaluate four decades of research on homosexuality and draw accurate conclusions based on that research. I certainly wouldn’t presume to do so. In that regard, as in other cases where our expertise is limited (like on medical issues), we depend on people who do have the expertise and professional responsibility to draw accurate conclusions on our behalf. That doesn’t guarantee they will be 100% accurate all of the time, but the probability that they are accurate is far higher than the probability that the random guy will be accurate.[/quote]

lol
As long as they’re on your side, right?

  1. Positive political/social results and scientific results are 2 different things and many times don’t get along.

  2. ?science? this religion of which you speak, is a theoretical concept and does not actually exist. It is also preformed by scientists who are people and subject to bias, not that you’ve actually shown any of the scientist?s results, data or conclusions. Much more so public policy of committees of publicly scrutinized agencies on hot topic issues.

  3. It shows the fallibility of the public systems you are putting above questioning. Not to mention I?m sure these agencies have been wrong on things in the past, so ?no history of ?getting it wrong?? is not at all true.

Frontal lobotomies where the miracle cure of ?the experts? at one time in the medical field. Ouch, wrong on that one… Used to be those and inducing seizures were wildly practiced and accepted.

Or how about we look at political hot points in history to see if they got things wrong. I wonder if there were scientific experts who claimed science showed blacks or females were inferior?

Heck even today, do you think these organizations would be objective on reporting scientific evidence that one race had more propensity to intelligence than another? Would their public policy reflect that? Hell no! It would be PC suicide. (this has happened recently)

  1. Once again, because you haven?t provided any evidence for us to discuss, you attack me and argue out of respect for authority. Which makes no sense because I haven?t argued against any of their points, as I really can’t, because WE CAN?T SEE THE EVIDENCE.

This just in, the catholic church (experts in religion) discovered ?substantial evidence? god exists. Now accept that without asking what the evidence is. And if you question it, I?ll attack your credibility verses someone that studies god for a living.

The validity of a syllogism is independent of the qualities of the source putting it forward.

You are, at this point, reduced to arguing percentage chances of them being right vs. wrong. INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION AT HAND. Before I expose a child to possible dangers, I?d like to see the actual percentages, not what a committee designates (significant risk). The percentage chance of them being wrong isn?t the point as long as it?s relatively possible, and it risks the well being of a child, that?s all I need to know. You don?t even know your own argument because you can?t see the basis of the expert opinions. We come here to discuss the actual evidence and actual self thought (which can be supported by experts). If you don?t have either of those then shut up. If I want the APA committee?s thoughts, I?ll read the site.

225

You’re as free as I am to look up the journal references provided along with the policy statements of these organizations. Have fun with your armchair science.

It’s not up to you to decide whether or not gay parents present a significant risk to children. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a little more informed on the issue than you are. Feel free to express your personal opinion, but it won’t buy you any tea in China.

226

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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”.[/quote]

However, you’re still ignoring the fact that pederasty was broadly practiced as a cultural custom driven by class considerations, not as an expression of sexual orientation.

Wiki on pederasty:

Read the above bolded sentence again, and tell me that it is impossible for people, gay or straight, to act contrary to their sexual orientation.

[quote]Forlife: 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.

Zeb: Correct…[/quote]

Since you acknowledge this, why in the world would you try to push gay men into relationships where sex is secondary at best, and where there is no real love, emotional intimacy, or romance?

227

[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re as free as I am to look up the journal references provided along with the policy statements of these organizations. Have fun with your armchair science.

It’s not up to you to decide whether or not gay parents present a significant risk to children. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a little more informed on the issue than you are. Feel free to express your personal opinion, but it won’t buy you any tea in China.[/quote]

Now you are accusing me of armchair science because I ask to see the actual studies? Wow… This from the guy that comes up with all these pseudo science theories about god and morals…

Anything that supports your opinion = Science fact (asking for to see the evidence makes you and armchair scientist)

Anything that leans slightly against your preconceived notions = Na uh, poopie head, science is god and it proves otherwise with evidence I’ve never seen.

Once again, look at your posts defending your view. Count the amount of facts/data/science/evidence that you use as support. If you had a million dollars for every shred of evidence, you’d still be broke.

This is 100% the definition of the logical fallacy: argument from respect for authority. You cannot make a just argument from authority in place of the evidence.

228

I’m suggesting armchair science because you don’t appear to have the expertise or resources to comprehensively review 40 years of research on homosexuality, and draw valid conclusions based on that research (nor do I, for that matter).

At best, you can cherry pick a few studies and incorrectly extrapolate from them in order to “prove” how the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, etc. all got it wrong.

As I’ve said repeatedly, feel free to look up the references provided along with the official policy statements of these organizations. All of them provide a long list of references, which you can investigate to your heart’s content.

Arguing from authority is a logical fallacy when you insist the authority is infallible, which I have specifically and deliberately not done. I’ve never claimed the major medical and mental health organizations are perfect. Obviously, they can and do make mistakes. However, after conducting and reviewing 40 years of research, they are in a much better position to draw valid conclusions regarding homosexuality than you or I ever will be.

229

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m suggesting armchair science because you don’t appear to have the expertise or resources to comprehensively review 40 years of research on homosexuality, and draw valid conclusions based on that research (nor do I, for that matter).

At best, you can cherry pick a few studies and incorrectly extrapolate from them in order to “prove” how the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, etc. all got it wrong.

As I’ve said repeatedly, feel free to look up the references provided along with the official policy statements of these organizations. All of them provide a long list of references, which you can investigate to your heart’s content.

Arguing from authority is a logical fallacy when you insist the authority is infallible, which I have specifically and deliberately not done. I’ve never claimed the major medical and mental health organizations are perfect. Obviously, they can and do make mistakes. However, after conducting and reviewing 40 years of research, they are in a much better position to draw valid conclusions regarding homosexuality than you or I ever will be.[/quote]

So any person outside of a field that asks to see evidence of a public policy conclusion is an armchair scientist. From now on I will remind you of that if you do anything but quote expert opinion on a subject. If you use a stat of some sort, you are overstepping your bound and lack the authority to use and make conclusions from them.

Including the next time you start making up statistics about the likelihood of events (including things such as, but not limited to, the existence of god or the probability organizational public policy is right or wrong). That?s right you aren?t an expert in the field of public policy, so you would have no right to make the call about the likely hood of one being right or wrong even if you had the actual numbers and weren?t making up the statistic off the top of your head.

I?m going to remind you from now on while on this board when you do and don?t have the authority to make assertions, you armchair scientist you? Hope you enjoy constant reminding.

It is not my job to present the facts and science. I didn?t bring it up and post supposed conclusions from it. You did. It is your job to support your argument. If you can?t do that that?s your fault. I was going to read the science because I was curious, not because in asking for you to support your case it suddenly becomes my duty.

It is not a requirement of the fallacy that you assert infallibility of the authority, only that you use only it?s authoritative position as your argument rather than evidence and further that you submit that opposing views are wrong do to lack of authority rather than evidence. Do I need to go back and quote for you all the posts you do this in?

I’m done with the thread, I normally have fun in the back and forth with you but you have essentially reverted to a rubber vs. glue argument and I feel like I’m dealing with a child.

231

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Makavali wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Since when was anything that black and white? Like I keep telling you, read up on the gay uncle theory.

What exactly do you think that theory says?

It’s a poor argument to support homosexuals as equals.

I think it says they have a valid position in society.

Wouldn’t the most direct interpretation, in line with the theory, be assisting the ‘breeders’ in raising the younguns?[/quote]

Or raising children that are, for lack of a better word, unwanted.

233

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali,

Could you post that one more time? This time do it with feeling. [/quote]

I’ve wondered why he does that. I think one personality hits ‘submit’, then one of his other personalities pops out and hits ‘submit’, then on and on. The last personality to emerge realizes what the others have done and stops hitting submit — thankfully or we’d have an infinite list of posts.

234

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Or raising children that are, for lack of a better word, unwanted.[/quote]

Im going to try and not be offended here but im failing.

Is it your insinuation that any child abandoned by its parent is of no use to society ???

Or am i missing some part of that sentence.

If it is go fuck yourself.

If it isn’t i apologise.

235

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
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”.

However, you’re still ignoring the fact that pederasty was broadly practiced as a cultural custom driven by class considerations, not as an expression of sexual orientation.
[/quote]

Hang on everyone as the forlife vehicle steers out of trouble and far away from the topic at hand. This is indeed funny.

Um, yes forlife some liked to have anal intercourse with children. And, they could not have had that intercourse had they not been (ready?) AROUSED!

Does that tell you something?

Quite a topic. Sick, disgusting, but probably par for the thread.

Society looked down on this practice go do your homework I’m tired of educating you. But then again everyone feels that way after 8 or 10 exchanges with you.

It is impossible for men to have sex when they are not (ready again?) AROUSED!

Now how many straight males can become aroused with another man? Oh yea, NONE.

How many homosexual men can become aroused with a woman? Just about 85%.

Facts just don’t add up when they’re not on your side huh?

[quote]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.

Zeb: Correct…

Since you acknowledge this, why in the world would you try to push gay men into relationships where sex is secondary at best, and where there is no real love, emotional intimacy, or romance?[/quote]

First of all society does not exist in order to give gay guys, or anyone else, a warm fuzzy feeling.

Secondly, because most “gay men” are not in fact truly homosexual. Most (over 85%) have had and continue to have sex with women.

They prefer men. It’s merely a preference. But, if they want children I suggest that they simply impregnate a female as you have done TWICE and have a child.

End of adoption discussion.

(Not really keep posting I have a long weekend with not much to do, thanks)

236

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Or raising children that are, for lack of a better word, unwanted.

Im going to try and not be offended here but im failing.

Is it your insinuation that any child abandoned by its parent is of no use to society ???

Or am i missing some part of that sentence.

If it is go fuck yourself.

If it isn’t i apologise.[/quote]

Obviously you did miss the point. I was pointing out that nature has provided for a way to raise children who have been abandoned by their parents.

237

see zeb the problem is, as we have already discussed, that a proportion of ostensibly straight men do in fact become sexually aroused when they see gay porn.

So this leaves us with two options. Either, those guys are gay, or, sexuality is more complex than the confines that modern definitions try to squeeze it into.

238

see zeb the problem is, as we have already discussed, that a proportion of ostensibly straight men do in fact become sexually aroused when they see gay porn.

So this leaves us with two options. Either, those guys are gay, or, sexuality is more complex than the confines that modern definitions try to squeeze it into.

239

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Now how many straight males can become aroused with another man? Oh yea, NONE.
[/quote]

Then explain how most Greek men were able to practice pederasty, per the quote provided.

240

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
see zeb the problem is, as we have already discussed, that a proportion of ostensibly straight men do in fact become sexually aroused when they see gay porn.

So this leaves us with two options. Either, those guys are gay, or, sexuality is more complex than the confines that modern definitions try to squeeze it into.[/quote]

So, you are saying that it is a choice then?