Texas bans gay foster parents

[IcemanCometh]

I bet you're all very proud (http://beta.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050420/ts_alt_afp/usjusticegays_050420173703)

[The Ressurrected One]

I bet you're all very proud (http://beta.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050420/ts_alt_afp/usjusticegays_050420173703)
Satisfied would be more like it.

[MannyIsGod]

Is there any evidence to support that gay parents provide unsuitable conditions for children?

[Clandestino]

kids growing up in gay households is not suitable...

[samikeyp]

yes because heterosexual people provide a safe, stable environment 100% of the time. :rolleyes

[MannyIsGod]

kids growing up in gay households is not suitable...
based on?

[The Ressurrected One]

Is there any evidence to support that gay parents provide unsuitable conditions for children?
I'm just opposed and, just like the gays-in-the-military issue, I don't feel children are upon whom we should be conducting social experimentation. When possible, children should be raised in traditional two-parent, heterosexual homes. Let's improve our orphanages and group family homes to pick up the slack.

C'mon, you can't tell me Rosie O'Donnel's home is a suitable environment for raising children.

Until the nature or nuture/genetics or environment questions are answered, I don't think we have the luxury of making the foster care system a petri dish.

But, that's just me.

[samikeyp]

Personally, I don't believe that a person's sexual preference prevents them from providing for a child and providing a safe enviroment where the child is taken care of. I imagine there are varying definitions of providing for a child, but as long as that child has clothing, medical care, shelter, nutrition and is in a place where they are safe from harm as much as possible, I would bet that is a start.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm just opposed and, just like the gays-in-the-military issue, I don't feel children are upon whom we should be conducting social experimentation. When possible, children should be raised in traditional two-parent, heterosexual homes. Let's improve our orphanages and group family homes to pick up the slack.

C'mon, you can't tell me Rosie O'Donnel's home is a suitable environment for raising children.

Until the nature or nuture/genetics or environment questions are answered, I don't think we have the luxury of making the foster care system a petri dish.

But, that's just me.
Uh, if you want to start naming celebrities who probably provide bad homes for children, I would bet money the hetero's outnumber the homo's.

While this is far from scientific, I'm very close friends with a few people that came out of homes with same sex parents. One of them is one of my best friends, and she hasn't suffered in the least.

This is ridiculous law with it's roots in religion, fear, and bigotry. There is no proof that homosexual parents are any less capable of providing a suitable environment for children. I would venture to say that there are current hetero foster parents who are horrible at what they do, yet are allowed to continue doing it.

This law paints homosexuality as a bad thing. And while that may be the personal opinion of many people, I don't think there's anything to it scientificly.

[samikeyp]

Maybe we need a law banning celebs from breeding! :)

[The Ressurrected One]

You know Manny, you may be right.

However, as long as there is militant gay activism - I'm opposed to anything they want to do, period.

I too, have friends that are the product of same sex households and, they are fine as well. However, their "parents" aren't then ones you see on the news demanding preferential treatment simply because they're gay.

I'm opposed to people that join organizations such as ACT UP having any influence over children and, if you give in on this point, it mutes the real problem of giving tacit approval for militant activists (Rosie O'Donnel) to warp little minds.

I, too, think it's bad legislation. I think legislation should be passed that directly addresses the suitability of the adopting/foster parents...regardless of sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, however, if you want to deny a person the privilege of foster/adoptive parenthood based on behaviors related to militant gay activism and how that might not be good for the child, it is immediately translated into gay-bashing, homophobic, discrimination and the denied person becomes a cause celeb whose personal unsuitability is lost in the iconic status the rest of the gay community thrusts upon them.

So, I'm in favor of denying adoption and foster parenting to all homosexuals. They can't naturally reproduce children anyway so, it isn't unnatural for them not to be parents, is it? Let's figure out a way to weed out the crazies without them being able to turn it into an issue over their sexuality (heterosexuals are denied all the time) and, then, I might be in favor of gay adoption. Until then, forget it.

[desflood]

Trophy children

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


On Feb. 2, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that it was endorsing homosexual adoption. The response from the pro-family community was woefully inadequate. It consisted of bellyaching about the flawed or biased nature of available studies, hand wringing about the lack of empirical evidence or the simple assertion that children of two-parent, married heterosexual couples do best.

The report made by the AAP's Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health says that there is "no existing data to support the widely held belief that there are negative outcomes" for children raised by homosexual parents. Furthermore, the committee asserts, "No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up with one or more gay parents."

While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.

The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Institute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.

The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.

It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent.

The study with the second largest number of children of homosexuals is the only one that has compared children of coupled married heterosexual parents and coupled cohabiting heterosexual parents to coupled paired homosexual parents.

Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos, an associate professor of sociology in Australia, ran an investigation to compare the school performance of 58 children who were being raised by homosexual couples to 58 closely matched children being raised by married couples and 58 children being raised by cohabiting partners.

The children's school teachers were ask to rate their scholastic achievements, participation in varies group activities as well as their socialization skills. The teachers also reported on parental involvement through their observations as well as by interviewing the children.
The children of homosexual couples scored dramatically lower than the average of the children of the other two groups in verbal skills, vocabulary, composition and basic mathematical skills. The children of the homosexual couples performed better in social studies but only slightly. Also, there was an important difference in the social development. The children of homosexual parents were less likely to be involved with sports or other group activities. They were considered by their teachers to be introverts and loners, and were uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from that of their co-habiting homosexual parent.
Far from being ideal parents, the homosexual couples were less likely to visit the children's schools, volunteer or help the children with their homework.

Sarantakos was published in 1996 in the obscure journal, Children Australia. He gave no indication that he was aware of the "best interest of the child" argument being used to promote gay adoptions. He made no reference to any of the published studies regarding homosexual parents that could best be described as "junk science," nor has his report been cited in any of the contentious literature about homosexual parenting.

Pro-family groups can be forgiven for not citing Sarantakos. It is not available in any of the conventional databases or indexes. (A synopsis is available through Family Research Institute.) However, Cameron and Cameron should be a primary weapon in the quiver of those who defend children and work to keep them from being used as trophies for the mainstreaming of homosexuality and the advancement of gay rights.


Jane Chastain is a WorldNetDaily columnist and radio talk-show host.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26549

[Clandestino]

kids have enough shit to deal with in school much less having to worry that they can't bring their friends over bc they are gay or lesbian...

i dated a girl who had a sister who was lesbian.. the 12 year girl would never have friends over bc her mother was a lesbian... kids shouldn't have to deal with this type of shit...

[MannyIsGod]

Des, that's an interesting read. I'm going to do some more reading on those studies.

[MannyIsGod]

You know Manny, you may be right.

However, as long as there is militant gay activism - I'm opposed to anything they want to do, period.

I too, have friends that are the product of same sex households and, they are fine as well. However, their "parents" aren't then ones you see on the news demanding preferential treatment simply because they're gay.

I'm opposed to people that join organizations such as ACT UP having any influence over children and, if you give in on this point, it mutes the real problem of giving tacit approval for militant activists (Rosie O'Donnel) to warp little minds.

I, too, think it's bad legislation. I think legislation should be passed that directly addresses the suitability of the adopting/foster parents...regardless of sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, however, if you want to deny a person the privilege of foster/adoptive parenthood based on behaviors related to militant gay activism and how that might not be good for the child, it is immediately translated into gay-bashing, homophobic, discrimination and the denied person becomes a cause celeb whose personal unsuitability is lost in the iconic status the rest of the gay community thrusts upon them.

So, I'm in favor of denying adoption and foster parenting to all homosexuals. They can't naturally reproduce children anyway so, it isn't unnatural for them not to be parents, is it? Let's figure out a way to weed out the crazies without them being able to turn it into an issue over their sexuality (heterosexuals are denied all the time) and, then, I might be in favor of gay adoption. Until then, forget it.
I know what your saying, and I agree with much of it (especialy that much gay activism is actualy counterproductive to homosexual equality), but I'm not sure this is the right way to handle that.

[Spurminator]

It's not a clear-cut subject by any means. Generally, I believe kids are better off in heterosexual homes, but it's not always the case. Are kids better off being raised by a single parent than a homosexual couple? Are kids better off being raised by an orphanage than a homosexual couple? And at what point should the kids themselves be able to choose?

[desflood]

I'd love to just be able to say, "Yes, gay parents can raise children just as well as non-gay parents!", but based on the research I've read I can't, at least not yet.

[samikeyp]

Des...what is it that you have found that brings you to that conclusion? (not trying to be a jerk...really curious)

[The Ressurrected One]

I know what your saying, and I agree with much of it (especialy that much gay activism is actualy counterproductive to homosexual equality), but I'm not sure this is the right way to handle that.
I'm not either but, I say err on the side of the children. Let non-activist gays get the rest of their community in order -- and then, we'll talk.

[Medvedenko]

So you're against activists...rather than Gays or Hetero's....what is it.....
I say 2 parents is better than one...regardless of sexual preferance...now I have friends who have excelled in a single parent environment and some that haven't. I also have gay friends who were raised by over bearing parents who were very religious. I also have gay friends who's parents were both english teachers....actually out of the 4 boys in the family, 2 are gay the other married and straight...What does this all mean...nothing...there is proof in all situations to proof anyones point. I can prove a million examples of abuse, neglect and intolerance in straight parenting...once gays have more freedom to adopt children..I'm sure they stoop to this level of parenting as well as us straights. Remember, we are all human.

[Jekka]

You know Manny, you may be right.

However, as long as there is militant gay activism - I'm opposed to anything they want to do, period.

I too, have friends that are the product of same sex households and, they are fine as well. However, their "parents" aren't then ones you see on the news demanding preferential treatment simply because they're gay.

I'm opposed to people that join organizations such as ACT UP having any influence over children and, if you give in on this point, it mutes the real problem of giving tacit approval for militant activists (Rosie O'Donnel) to warp little minds.

I, too, think it's bad legislation. I think legislation should be passed that directly addresses the suitability of the adopting/foster parents...regardless of sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, however, if you want to deny a person the privilege of foster/adoptive parenthood based on behaviors related to militant gay activism and how that might not be good for the child, it is immediately translated into gay-bashing, homophobic, discrimination and the denied person becomes a cause celeb whose personal unsuitability is lost in the iconic status the rest of the gay community thrusts upon them.

So, I'm in favor of denying adoption and foster parenting to all homosexuals. They can't naturally reproduce children anyway so, it isn't unnatural for them not to be parents, is it? Let's figure out a way to weed out the crazies without them being able to turn it into an issue over their sexuality (heterosexuals are denied all the time) and, then, I might be in favor of gay adoption. Until then, forget it.

Every group has its "militant" activists. Just because blacks had the Black Panther party and whites have the KKK doesn't mean that they are excluded from raising children. Sexuality is as much a part of a person's identity as race, and we don't (or at least we pretend not to) discriminate foster and adoptive parents based on race - foster and adoptive parents should be chosen based on personal merit and ability to provide care for a child. As an adoptive child, I can tell you from the stories my parents have told me that becoming an adoptive parent at least is a rigorous screening process with random visits and personal essay writing. The problem is not with adoptive parenting I don't think, it's with foster parenting - from the foster kids I've talked to it seems like the state will give kids to anyone, and that's what's wrong. Everyone needs to be screened better before fostering kids, and that doesn't need to be sexually based.

And most people aren't demanding "preferential" treatment because they are gay - they want equal treatment. There's a difference. Gay rights were not included in the agenda for the most part when the Civil Rights battles were going on, homosexuals are still fighting for acceptance because they are the last of the major minority groups to get it.

[The Ressurrected One]

Every group has its "militant" activists. Just because blacks had the Black Panther party and whites have the KKK doesn't mean that they are excluded from raising children. Sexuality is as much a part of a person's identity as race, and we don't (or at least we pretend not to) discriminate foster and adoptive parents based on race - foster and adoptive parents should be chosen based on personal merit and ability to provide care for a child. As an adoptive child, I can tell you from the stories my parents have told me that becoming an adoptive parent at least is a rigorous screening process with random visits and personal essay writing. The problem is not with adoptive parenting I don't think, it's with foster parenting - from the foster kids I've talked to it seems like the state will give kids to anyone, and that's what's wrong. Everyone needs to be screened better before fostering kids, and that doesn't need to be sexually based.

And most people aren't demanding "preferential" treatment because they are gay - they want equal treatment. There's a difference. Gay rights were not included in the agenda for the most part when the Civil Rights battles were going on, homosexuals are still fighting for acceptance because they are the last of the major minority groups to get it.
So, you're saying a Grand Wizard would be able to adopt today?

[MannyIsGod]

No, but an anglo sure would.

(the KKK being an anglo extremist group)

[Jekka]

So, you're saying a Grand Wizard would be able to adopt today?

How many people advertise Grand Wizard status today? If you don't say anything and the background checks don't say anything, then what would stop the state from giving them a child if they didn't flagrantly use racial slurs in front of child services?

[The Ressurrected One]

No, but an anglo sure would.

(the KKK being an anglo extremist group)
So? All anglos aren't Grand Wizards. But, all homosexuals are gay.

[The Ressurrected One]

How many people advertise Grand Wizard status today? If you don't say anything and the background checks don't say anything, then what would stop the state from giving them a child if they didn't flagrantly use racial slurs in front of child services?
The same thing that wouldn't keep a homosexual from adopting if they hid their homosexuality.

[MannyIsGod]

So? All anglos aren't Grand Wizards. But, all homosexuals are gay.Sure, but you said you were against it because the extremist activism. And not all homosexuals are extremist activists.

[Jekka]

The same thing that wouldn't keep a homosexual from adopting if they hid their homosexuality.

That's my point - there needs to be a better screening process to weed out bad parents - all aspects of a person's life need to be taken into account, be that a violent and inappropriate Grand Wizard or a violent and inappropriate homosexual. The thing is, though, that especially with a member of the KKK, those people are living in an organization based on hate, and they teach hate. Most homosexual parents, even ones in your supposed "violent" groups don't teach hatred - they are trying to overcome it. Which then, is healthier for a child?

[Medvedenko]

The bottom line is....I'm paraphrasing..but this rings true....
You need a license to drive and be a certain age to drink, rent porn, go to the bar etc....but you don't need any certain tangible or intangble basis to have and raise kids....that's the problem.

[The Ressurrected One]

The bottom line is....I'm paraphrasing..but this rings true....
You need a license to drive and be a certain age to drink, rent porn, go to the bar etc....but you don't need any certain tangible or intangble basis to have and raise kids....that's the problem.
To have kids you need sperm and ova, something homosexuals have yet to accomplish. Maybe you should rephrase...

[The Ressurrected One]

That's my point - there needs to be a better screening process to weed out bad parents - all aspects of a person's life need to be taken into account, be that a violent and inappropriate Grand Wizard or a violent and inappropriate homosexual. The thing is, though, that especially with a member of the KKK, those people are living in an organization based on hate, and they teach hate. Most homosexual parents, even ones in your supposed "violent" groups don't teach hatred - they are trying to overcome it. Which then, is healthier for a child?
God's weeding, by requiring the fertilization of an egg with sperm, is a good start.

[desflood]

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe some people were not meant to conceive.

[desflood]

As a side note, I read an interview with Rosie once, in which she admitted that her being gay probably made life more difficult for her children, but that she wouldn't change anyway. So, her priorities are obviously drawn.

[desflood]

Maybe I shouldn't say change. Maybe, stop practicing, instead.

[Jekka]

God's weeding, by requiring the fertilization of an egg with sperm, is a good start.

That's some shitty weeding then, because a lot of people that have had children by natural means shouldn't have.

And don't bring God into this, this is not a religious argument, it's about parenting. Unless you think that people can't be good parents if they aren't Judeo-Christian.

[Jekka]

As a side note, I read an interview with Rosie once, in which she admitted that her being gay probably made life more difficult for her children, but that she wouldn't change anyway. So, her priorities are obviously drawn.

My mother being a Methodist minister and having completely conflicting ideals from my own made my life more difficult, but she's not expected to stop practicing.

[desflood]

If you don't mind my prying a bit, how did the different religious ideals make life harder? I'm sincerely curious.

[Spurminator]

Maybe the government should just regulate procreation. Parents should be required to take an intelligence test before having children, prove they are morally and financially secure, and maintain upstanding parenthood while raising the child... or have their children taken from them and placed in a children's home. We must think of the children at all costs, and the only way to do this is to eliminate all risk of shitty parenting.

Unless it involves an unprepared parent having an abortion. Because that's murder, and should be punished as such.

[spurster]

More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent.
I call BS on this one. Of all the cases that have brought child protection into the news, can you name one that involved gays?

[Spurminator]

If I understand correctly, those numbers only apply to disputes that involved a homosexual parent vs. a heterosexual parent.

But like most WorldNetDaily articles and columns, it's conveniently vague.

[scott]

Maybe the government should just regulate procreation. Parents should be required to take an intelligence test before having children, prove they are morally and financially secure, and maintain upstanding parenthood while raising the child... or have their children taken from them and placed in a children's home. We must think of the children at all costs, and the only way to do this is to eliminate all risk of shitty parenting.

Unless it involves an unprepared parent having an abortion. Because that's murder, and should be punished as such.

Spurm has got it!!!!

Bring on the Blood Purity Clause!!! Even money say Bush, Frist, and Delay already have a draft worked up.

[scott]

God's weeding, by requiring the fertilization of an egg with sperm, is a good start.

I'd hope we would hold God accountable for a better batting average than .500

[desflood]

Friday - June 1, 2001

Homosexuals more likely to molest kids, study reports
May 30, 2001
By Ken Walker

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--A social researcher who has studied sexual behavior for 24 years believes the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has sound reasons for maintaining its prohibition against gay scoutmasters.

A homosexual cannot automatically be considered a child molester, said Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in suburban Louisville, Ky.

But with 17-24 percent of boys being abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls, there is cause for concern, she said.

Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said.

"You're looking at a much higher rate of abuse," said Reisman, a former university research professor who recently completed a study titled, "Crafting Gay Children." "The Department of Justice just released data and the rate of abuse are off the charts."

BSA's policy has been the subject of constant attacks from gay activists, who have convinced a number of school boards to oust the Scouts from board property.

In a story that aired Apr. 1 on CBS, "60 Minutes" also questioned its validity. After California congressman Dana Rohrabacher called the prohibition common sense, reporter Lesley Stahl remarked that common sense turns out to be a myth.

According to the FBI and several clinical studies published in reputable journals, gay men aren't more likely to sexually abuse boys, she said.

"In fact, the largest database of child molesters in the country shows that those who molest boys are over three times more likely to be heterosexual in their adult relationships than homosexual," she said.

But Reisman points to figures from a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

It showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult.

Questioned about Reisman's claims, CBS stuck by its story.

[mookie2001]

i think gay people should be able to raise foster kids
i dont think you have people breaking the door down to become foster parents of kids whose parents were heterosexual anyway, if a family household that includes homosexuals can provide a better home, then it seems like a good idea
and who gives a shit if they kids get scoffed, theyd get scoffed for being in foster home anyway, kids are assholes
theyd get scoffed for not having brand-name shoes, or for a parent being really fat or really hairy, or having thick glasses
thats the dumbest arguement ive ever heard

[scott]

Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said.

It showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult.



Extremely faulty logic.

[Spurminator]

Homosexuals are also more likely to be prisoners, as evidenced by the amount of ass raping in jail cells.

[desflood]

Extremely faulty logic.
Talk to the Department of Commerce about that. I don't writes 'em, I just reads 'em.

[ChumpDumper]

The hell is the Department of Commerce doing conducting a study of child molestation?

[desflood]

:lol I was wondering that myself!

[scott]

Talk to the Department of Commerce about that. I don't writes 'em, I just reads 'em.

I have serious doubts as to whether the Dept of Commerce did a study on the sexual preference of child molestors.

I'm willing to bet money that the depart of commerce reported the following stats:

# of Teenage Girls Raped: 8 million
# of Teenage Boys Raped: 6-8 million

# of Homosexual Men: 1-2 million

The flaws in the logic:

1) The number of homosexual men is most likely well understated
2) The assumption that all teenage boys raped were done so by homosexual men. Of the young boy molestation I've heard of, a majority are committed by a middle class, married white male. Are these men counted as homosexuals in the 6-8 million supposedly raped by gay men? I'm thinking no.

Just looking at the numbers should trigger some common sense... 3-5 boys molested per gay male? You've got a be a moron to buy that... especially since not all gay men are child molestors. Let's say that 20% are (extremely high number), that means that each is guilty of of 15-20 instances of molestation.

[Jekka]

If you don't mind my prying a bit, how did the different religious ideals make life harder? I'm sincerely curious.

Part of the problem was a difference in religious differences, but most of it was her adherence to her own principles while not allowing me to simultaneously have my own. She completely invalidated everything I ever felt because she didn't approve - and it's not like I'm Pagan or anything. I just think that there is a great deal of corruption in the church and its members and that organized religion freaks me out a bit - it honestly depressed me how I could recite the Lord's Prayer while writing a note to someone next to me saying something completely different at the same time - that kind of automation worries me because it allows clergy members push their own agendas. I didn't think that Christianity was the only way to salvation, and for that I am STILL chastized. But really, the part that had the most detrimental effect was the fact that our lines of communication were so closed because she didn't want to listen because I was "wrong".

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Foster children need love. Does it really matter if the love comes from someone who is gay? I'm sure there a many conservative religious right people who've abused their kids.

[cherylsteele]

so people who are physically unable to conceive shouldn't be allowed to adopt?

I was just ready to say this......my sister in-law is has narrow tubes and the have tried to artifically insemination but have been unsuccessful after
7-8 tries.....so if they decided to adopt they could not adopt according to the logic of Resurrected? He is saying that since they are not to his liking they should not adopt....no real logic.

So what about those who are divorced and want to adopt.....is that a suitable environment?

Single parents are suitable adopters? So you would allow a child one role model, but a child with same-sex guardians who are upstanding citizens and would actually be good role models are told no? What would you consider a good role model? Don't bring religion in on this.....just because the bible says something doesn't mean it is right......what about aetheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc...that are legal citizens.....what if they are upstanding citizens....would you allow them to adopt.....they are no christians, but are they any lesser people?....No!!!

Don't forget there is supposed to be separation of church and state

This issue hits me close to home....I know quite a bit more than many might relize.

It have heard that people don't want the government touse their taxes to "encourage this bad behavior".....so a gay person's taxes have subsidize the government and not see anything in return.

I would also like to know what gay militant he is talking about?
I hear all about these Neo-Nazis who are supposed to rise up and oppress everyone who is not pure Anglo. You want to stereotype gays as being militant, one could say whites are Neo-Nazi extremeists. You have a right to you opinion....but that statement is just wrong and uncalled for and is one of the bigger problems in this country. Someone throws out a vicious statement like that and people run blindly with it.

[The Ressurrected One]

so people who are physically unable to conceive shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
Not what I said.

Homosexual couples are not, by biological design, capable of reproduction and, therefore, are unable to become parents naturally. If nature had wanted them to be parents, we'd all be capable of asexual reproduction.

I wasn't even speaking of heterosexual couples unable to reproduce because of some physical aberration, illness, or defect. Allowing such people to adopt is helping to correct an accident of nature that caused the person to be unable to reproduce.

[Jekka]

So are you saying that heterosexual couples incapable of reproducing is an okay "accident" of nature, but people loving someone of the same gender is not?

[Useruser666]

I heard that the show "My Two Dads" couldn't be broadcast inside Texas or pass through any cable lines that cross Texas soil.

[Gatita]

This is all BS. I feel as a woman, that same sex parents should be able to adopt. Having gone through enough crap as a child myself, I would have rather been raised by two homosexuals, who were stable, then the crazy nut cases who called themselves my parents! I think child would be happy to have a loving, stable home regardless of it being a homosexual household. Having had friends who grew up in foster homes, with a heterosexual couple, they turned out as screwed up as the next person. We can't judge people based on their sexual preference. I do believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt or have a foster child. The screening process for ALL should be better tuned.

[The Ressurrected One]

So are you saying that heterosexual couples incapable of reproducing is an okay "accident" of nature, but people loving someone of the same gender is not?
That's right. I believe it's a choice.

[cherylsteele]

That's right. I believe it's a choice.

What type of proof do you have that it is a choice? So you would prefer a hetero couple who happen to be poor role models because of their "choices" are better than a gay couple who happen to be upstanding citizens to adopt a child?

Don't bring religion into it....there is supposed to be a separation of church and state....so a ruling should not be based on religion.

There have been many studies to show otherwise about it being a choice.

[desflood]

I think maybe it's a biological thing, but there is a choice whether or not to practice.

[Jekka]

That's right. I believe it's a choice.

Some people, like chicana and feminist activist Gloria Anzaldua for instance, have made that choice, but the vast majority of homosexuals do not choose to be that way. Why else would scientific studies point to there being a gene as a cause for homosexual tendencies? Why else would so many people live in the closet - or stay there as long as they did? It's not exactly fun coming out knowing that there are judgmental people like you in the world who think that a fundamental part of their persona is wrong.

Anzaldua had a personal agenda in mind when choosing to become a lesbian, it was to rebel, and part of her philosophical theories on Chicana and Judeo-Christian culture - but most people don't have this kind of agenda. If there is in fact a gene that causes this kind of tendency, would you have them not practice then, just because it makes you uncomfortable and doesn't fit in with your ideas of what is appropriate? What goes on in people's bedrooms is their business, not yours, and if a homosexual couple can provide a better home for a child than another heterosexual one, then what's the harm in it?

[cherylsteele]

Not what I said.

Homosexual couples are not, by biological design, capable of reproduction and, therefore, are unable to become parents naturally. If nature had wanted them to be parents, we'd all be capable of asexual reproduction.

I wasn't even speaking of heterosexual couples unable to reproduce because of some physical aberration, illness, or defect. Allowing such people to adopt is helping to correct an accident of nature that caused the person to be unable to reproduce.

Not what you said...no....but sure as hell implied it several times over.

You keep bringing up natural conception and basing a large part of you POV on it.

What if a man can be pregnant? So if it can be done scientifically why can't a gay couple adopt?

Here is a website:
http://www.malepregnancy.com/

[cherylsteele]

I think maybe it's a biological thing, but there is a choice whether or not to practice.

Put yourself in their shoes and then say that.....the suicide rat amoungst gay men is rather high...one reason being is because of narrow minded thinking like this....where they can't accept someone for being themselves. I bet you know some gay people.....do you tell them you feel this way?

[The Ressurrected One]

Not what you said...no....but sure as hell implied it several times over.
No, I didn't and, if that's what you understood, my response should have clarified. I'm not opposed to heterosexual couples, based strictly on their sexual orientation, adopting...period.

You keep bringing up natural conception and basing a large part of you POV on it.
You're point?

What if a man can be pregnant? So if it can be done scientifically why can't a gay couple adopt?
Okay, when men start naturally conceiving and carrying children, we'll talk.

Here is a website:
http://www.malepregnancy.com/
Yeah, they can genetically engineer a human to grow leaves but, do you want someone who would allow science to do that to their body adopting children? The fact that a man would want to be scientifically altered in order to bear children, to me, speaks of a deeper psychological problem that -- in a normal world -- would preclude them from consideration as an adoptive parent. Nevermind the child he may or may not be able to carry to birth.

And, seeing as how scientific experimentation rarely succeeds on the first try, how many male-conceived fetuses will be sacrificed and at what months gestation before they get it right? Another moral dilemma.

[The Ressurrected One]

Put yourself in their shoes and then say that.....the suicide rat amoungst gay men is rather high...one reason being is because of narrow minded thinking like this....where they can't accept someone for being themselves. I bet you know some gay people.....do you tell them you feel this way?
No, the significant reason is that they -- like all who choose suicide -- are in psychological crisis that needs treatment...not understanding and acquiesence.

Oh, and the gay people I know [read that "with whom I associate"] think this way too. They believe the lifestyle choice they've made, by virtue of the impossibility of conception, necessarily precludes them from parenting. In fact, that was one of the allures of a gay lifestyle.

[desflood]

Put yourself in their shoes and then say that.....the suicide rat amoungst gay men is rather high...one reason being is because of narrow minded thinking like this....where they can't accept someone for being themselves. I bet you know some gay people.....do you tell them you feel this way?
So, what you're saying is that they cannot choose whether or not to have sex?

[cherylsteele]

They believe the lifestyle choice they've made, by virtue of the impossibility of conception, necessarily precludes them from parenting. .

Only genetically....but as foster parents there is a difference.....you bringing up that conception thing again.....if a hetero couple are unable to have kids when naturally of artifical ensemination can't have kids since they can't concieve?

Plus it is narrow viewpoints like yours that create the anxiety in the gay community.....if people were more open minded about social issues such as this there would be fewer social problems in the world.....I personally know of many happy well-adjusted gays that would make wonderful guardians.

So if you had to choose between an upstanding a gay couple or a hetero couple that is questionable at best you would keep the child without a family whatsoever? Even though there may not be any skeltons in the closet..other than being gay....yep let's keep the child in state care...that is a great idea :rolleyes you can pay for the taxes to keep the child don't ask me to help when there are solid citizens willing and yerning to adopt and take responsibility.

Plus....I guess it never occured to you that maybe growing up with gay parents would make the child more open minded about social issues and actually benefit him/her?

[cherylsteele]

So, what you're saying is that they cannot choose whether or not to have sex?

Has it ever accured to you that sex isn't the only thing about a relationship between people?

As long as they show the child that they are happy and show they care deeply for the other...then what is the harm.

Actually it no one else's business if they have sex.......would you ask a hetero couple that question if they wanted to adopt?

Do you think a gay couple would have sex in front of the child just because they are gay? You seem to imply this.

[The Ressurrected One]

Has it ever accured to you that sex isn't the only thing about a relationship between people?

As long as they show the child that they are happy and show they care deeply for the other...then what is the harm.

Actually it no one else's business if they have sex.......would you ask a hetero couple that question if they wanted to adopt?

Do you think a gay couple would have sex in front of the child just because they are gay? You seem to imply this.
It's obvious your view on homosexuality largely informs your posts. Several times you've gleened positions from mine and others' posts that just aren't there.

Just to be clear. It is my position that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior that is, mostly, a chosen behavior. Yes, there are some that truly believe that homosexuality is a genetic manifestation - - that whole nonsense about the "gay" gene - - but, aside from assumptions such as you seem to make about the "inferences" in others' posts, there is no scientific evidence of such.

The reason I say "mostly" chosen, is because those who believe it is not a choice have, in my opinion, been conditioned by people, such as yourself, to believe they have no control over their own sexuality...that doesn't make it a natural state of sexuality.

In fact, homosexuality is counter to human behavior and most theories on species survival. If homosexuality were normal, then species would become extinct and this is completely anathema to nearly every theory on evolution and the perpetuation of species.

So, my belief that homosexuals should not be parents is rooted in my belief that homosexuals have psychological issues of a nature and degree that children should not be exposed. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have sex in front of children.

As for people who, by accidents of nature, are unable to conceive but - if not for the aberration of nature - would be able to conceive; that is the exact opposite of my argument against homosexual parenting.

[Spurminator]

In fact, homosexuality is counter to human behavior and most theories on species survival. If homosexuality were normal, then species would become extinct and this is completely anathema to nearly every theory on evolution and the perpetuation of species.

If we're talking about evolution/survival of species, I submit this question:

Could homosexuality be Nature's way of controlling overpopulation?

I would be interested to see if any studies have been done to test homosexual tendencies among animals born into crowded environments/habitats.

[The Ressurrected One]

If we're talking about evolution/survival of species, I submit this question:

Could homosexuality be Nature's way of controlling overpopulation?
Possibly.

I would be interested to see if any studies have been done to test homosexual tendencies among animals born into crowded environments/habitats.
Only if it includes a finding on the incidence of homosexual animals fostering heterosexual offspring.

[desflood]

Has it ever accured to you that sex isn't the only thing about a relationship between people?

As long as they show the child that they are happy and show they care deeply for the other...then what is the harm.

Actually it no one else's business if they have sex.......would you ask a hetero couple that question if they wanted to adopt?

Do you think a gay couple would have sex in front of the child just because they are gay? You seem to imply this.
I met a lot of gay people in the military (ha ha). You know what they all told me? Homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same. We all want to live the same kind of life, do the same things.. the only difference is sexual preference. If I go by what they told me (heaven forbid I should have listened or something), then that is the only issue dividing us. Therefore, if heterosexuals can abstain from sex (don't tell me none of them do), so can homosexuals.

Let's be honest (although I know people hate doing that sometimes). Homosexual men do commit acts of child molestation more often than straight men. There's no way you can sugar-coat or PC that up to make it not true. Go ahead and tell me anything you want about how the numbers do not support that - then consider the fact than the percentage of homosexuals in this country is that much lower than heterosexuals, and you'll see the difference.

[desflood]

It's obvious your view on homosexuality largely informs your posts. Several times you've gleened positions from mine and others' posts that just aren't there.

Just to be clear. It is my position that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior that is, mostly, a chosen behavior. Yes, there are some that truly believe that homosexuality is a genetic manifestation - - that whole nonsense about the "gay" gene - - but, aside from assumptions such as you seem to make about the "inferences" in others' posts, there is no scientific evidence of such.

The reason I say "mostly" chosen, is because those who believe it is not a choice have, in my opinion, been conditioned by people, such as yourself, to believe they have no control over their own sexuality...that doesn't make it a natural state of sexuality.

In fact, homosexuality is counter to human behavior and most theories on species survival. If homosexuality were normal, then species would become extinct and this is completely anathema to nearly every theory on evolution and the perpetuation of species.

So, my belief that homosexuals should not be parents is rooted in my belief that homosexuals have psychological issues of a nature and degree that children should not be exposed. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have sex in front of children.
As for people who, by accidents of nature, are unable to conceive but - if not for the aberration of nature - would be able to conceive; that is the exact opposite of my argument against homosexual parenting.
Don't bother arguing for the children. Nobody seems to believe they should be protected and kept innocent anymore.

[Spurminator]

Have you bothered to ask the children what they think?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Kind of on the same subject...

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/04/26MARRIAGE.html

House approves gay-marriage ban
Proposed constitutional amendment still needs Senate, voter approval.
By Michelle M. Martinez
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
> Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Efforts to add a ban on gay marriage to the state constitution advanced Monday when the Texas House of Representatives approved the measure with a necessary two-thirds vote.

Critics were particularly concerned about an amendment to the resolution that they say would ban gay and straight couples from civil unions.

In Texas, same-sex marriages are forbidden, and civil unions are not recognized.

The 101 members who voted in favor of the resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, would let Texas voters decide whether the constitution should be amended to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"The Texas Legislature continues to push policies that hurt real Texas families by denying children of placement in loving homes and by closing the door on loving, committed couples from the ability to care for one another and their family," said Heath Riddles, communications director for the Lesbian-Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

Riddles was referring to a House amendment that was tacked on to a Child Protective Services reform bill last week. That amendment, by Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, would ban gays and lesbians from being foster parents.

The bill voted on Monday must be approved one more time before it can clear the House and go to the Senate, where it will need approval from two-thirds of the senators to pass. It then would need to be approved by voters.

In 2003, lawmakers made marriage between two people of the same sex and civil unions void in Texas. That measure included a provision that the state would not recognize such unions. When the Legislature passed the bill, also known as the Defense of Marriage Act, state law already prohibited issuing marriage licenses to people of the same sex.

The bill approved Monday would take the issue a step further by amending the constitution — if voters approve. If the Senate agrees, the measure would be put on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Chisum said the move to put the language in the constitution would help should a legal challenge to the marriage act arise.

"I think it's something that's going around in the different areas, and we can prevent all of that by putting this into the constitution, by placing that question in front of the people of the state," Chisum said.

Fifteen states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and voters in three others have yet to decide.

Some lawmakers questioned Chisum's motive for wanting to amend the constitution and accused him of playing politics.

"I want the body to clearly understand here that we are not doing anymore with this amendment than what exists now in the state of Texas," Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, said before abstaining from the vote. "We are making a political statement just for the point of making the statement."

Lawmakers were particularly concerned about the amendment that says the state or a political subdivision of the state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. The proposal would ban civil unions in the state, but there was some confusion as to the effects it would have on common-law marriages. Chisum assured lawmakers it would not affect such marriages.

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Free Market Foundation, agreed. He said the amendment was meant to prevent a situation such as the one in California, where the legislature passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman and then created domestic partnerships — not considered marriages — for same-sex couples.

"The other side has been very ingenious in trying to do end runs around the people's wishes," said Shackelford, whose Plano organization pushes for less government, lower taxes and "solid family values."

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, said the measure limits the rights of all unmarried Texans and is a diversion from the real issues facing families.

"It will do nothing to lower property taxes, fully fund our public schools, provide health insurance for children of the working poor and protect abused and neglected kids," she said in a prepared statement. "Shameful votes like this one . . . are designed simply to play politics at the expense of a vulnerable minority in our state."

[email protected]; 445-3633

[Useruser666]

Is this like the line from Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a a way."

[Sportcamper]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-04/17298291.jpg

[desflood]

:lol

[cherylsteele]

People keep bringing up the conception part in order to adopt...they use it as part of thei argument....

Just because you someone can conceive a child doen't make them a good parent.

Ressurected calls calls it abnormal......what is normal? Is it abnormal because you say it is? I have discussed every point you have made.....you then say you never make a certain point.
You did say this:

Homosexual couples are not, by biological design, capable of reproduction and, therefore, are unable to become parents naturally. If nature had wanted them to be parents, we'd all be capable of asexual reproduction.

Then you deny you implied you were using it for you postion.

[The Ressurrected One]

People keep bringing up the conception part in order to adopt...they use it as part of thei argument....
People with damaged or diseased reproductive organs can't conceive, yet, I'm not opposed to a heterosexual, in such a position, adopting a child. So, it isn't just that homosexuals can't conceive. It's why they can't conceive that is the element of my argument...because it's would be abnormal.

Just because you someone can conceive a child doen't make them a good parent.
That's proven every day. But, that doesn't mean we should countenance the parenting by persons that were never naturally intended to be parents.

Ressurected calls calls it abnormal......what is normal?
Normal is a consequence of expected cause and effect. It is normal for heterosexuals to have sexual intercourse and conceive and birth and parent. I is not normal for homosexuals to have sexual intercourse and not conceive and not birth and still expect to parent.

Normal is behavior that perpetuates the species. Abnormal is behavior that would result in extinction.

Is it abnormal because you say it is?
No, I'm merely stating an opinion based on my own reason reached after studying the topic.

I have discussed every point you have made.....you then say you never make a certain point.
And, I've responded. Without going back, you've implied I'm anti-gay, which I'm not. You've implied that I'm opposed to gays not parenting because they can't conceive. I merely stated a biological fact.

My opposition to gay adoption isn't because they can't conceive, it's because they choose a lifestlye that, to me (and many others), is counter to natural law and normalcy, and then expect everyone to be okay with their desire to parent. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

They've chosen a lifestyle that doesn't normally or naturally result in parenthood -- therefore, parenting for a homosexual is abnormal.

Then you deny you implied you were using it for you postion.
As I've explained, again in this post, that wasn't my implication or my position -- but, that your position won't allow you to see my point, is interesting.

[Gatita]

Sounds to me like some backward way of thinking. This gives me a headache. :bang

[jav]

There are sociobiologists who believe homosexuality is part of the evolutionary process. Homosexual aunts and uncles are likely to look out more for their blood relatives, thus helping the child survive and pass on genes. Also, is bisexuality considered an abnormal behavior ?? Bisexuals can produce offspring.

[The Ressurrected One]

There are sociobiologists who believe homosexuality is part of the evolutionary process.
There are sociobiologists that think pedophilia is natural too...your point?
Homosexual aunts and uncles are likely to look out more for their blood relatives, thus helping the child survive and pass on genes.
Now who's stereotyping?

Also, is bisexuality considered an abnormal behavior ?? Bisexuals can produce offspring.
I believe it's an abnormal behavior choice...yes.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't think a child's love depends on whether or not their parent is gay.

[The Ressurrected One]

I don't think a child's love depends on whether or not their parent is gay.
No, but their future might...

[Sportcamper]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050425/i/r1910166598.jpg
I just wish Anita Bryant would mind her own darn business...

[jav]

Its not stereotyping, its called inclusive fitness
def-The expansion of the concept of the fitness of a genotype to include benefits accrued to relatives of an individual since relatives share parts of their genomes. Hence an apparently altruistic act toward a relative may in fact enhance the fitness of the individual performing the act.

[Medvedenko]

We're still discussing this....
So if you can conceive than you can be a better parent than someone who can't conceive....well men can't have babies....gay or straight....but a gay one is a poorer parent.....yeah makes sense to me....so what if 2 straight guys got together as roomates and one of them had adopted a foster child...would they be wrong....if they wanted to raise the child...Oh and you don't "chose to be gay as a lifestyle" you're born with it.

[Shelly]

Maybe we should ask Alvarez for his opinion on the matter...

[The Ressurrected One]

Oh and you don't "chose to be gay as a lifestyle" you're born with it.
Proof?

[Useruser666]

You're not gay, the guy you're having sex with is. :lol

[The Ressurrected One]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/080105625X.01._AA400_SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

Read this and then let's talk.

[Useruser666]

Satin - over?

[The Ressurrected One]

You guys are real wits when you run out of reason...

[Jekka]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/080105625X.01._AA400_SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

Read this and then let's talk.

So you're basing all of your argument on personal opinion and one book?

[mookie2001]

ressurrected one, even if you do choose to be gay
then what does that prove?

[The Ressurrected One]

ressurrected one, even if you do choose to be gay
then what does that prove?
That you would choose a behavior counter to perpetuation of the species is abnormal.

[The Ressurrected One]

So you're basing all of your argument on personal opinion and one book?
Nope. It's just one of the best ones...

What are you basing your argument on?

[mookie2001]

That you would choose a behavior counter to perpetuation of the species is abnormal.

?????


thats the biggest load of shit ive ever heard, ever jacked off?, ever had relations with a condom?, or with a girl on the pill? or done ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF that doesnt envolve impregnating a fertile female

[Cant_Be_Faded]

That you would choose a behavior counter to perpetuation of the species is abnormal.

?????


thats the biggest load of shit ive ever heard, ever jacked off?, ever had relations with a condom?, or with a girl on the pill? or done ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF that doesnt envolve impregnating a fertile female



lol
maybe he meant to say if the first set of Homo species decided to all be gay then there would be no sapiens

[The Ressurrected One]

That you would choose a behavior counter to perpetuation of the species is abnormal.

?????


thats the biggest load of shit ive ever heard, ever jacked off?, ever had relations with a condom?, or with a girl on the pill? or done ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF that doesnt envolve impregnating a fertile female
You're right, I could have put that better.

That you would choose a lifestyle that is counter to the perpetuation of the species is abnormal.

[The Ressurrected One]

the catholic clergy?
Yep, I believe vows of celibacy are abnormal. In fact, I think they can be blamed for much of the abnormal behavior coming from the Catholic Church such as pedophilia and homosexuality.

Every species has an innate drive to perpetuate. When you thwart that fundamental purpose you end up with weird stuff.

[The Ressurrected One]

jesus?
In my religion, Jesus is God and therefore not driven to perpetuate his species since he's omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal...without beginning or end and singular in nature.

What about your religion?

[The Ressurrected One]

jesus is fully human and fully divine
Your point?

I didn't say Jesus couldn't have had sexual intercourse and impregnated a woman. But, I'm thinking his agenda here on Earth was somewhat different than perpetuation of the species He created...

Are you really drawing a parallel between Jesus Christ and homosexuals?

[The Ressurrected One]

You know, on second thought, I concede the point.

As far as lifestyle choices go, Jesus Christ's was abnormal for human beings.

However, seeing as how he was fully human and fully God, you would have to produce another case of someone being fully human and fully God before we could judge the normalcy of His particular lifestyle choice.

I'm thinking the singularity and unique nature of His being will preclude you from finding another example against which you can compare...

[Spurminator]

That you would choose a lifestyle that is counter to the perpetuation of the species is abnormal.

Perhaps the perpetuation of the species requires that not everyone procreate, due to risks of overpopulation. I'm not so sure it's counter to perpetuation at all. It could be a component of it.

[The Ressurrected One]

Perhaps the perpetuation of the species requires that not everyone procreate, due to risks of overpopulation. I'm not so sure it's counter to perpetuation at all. It could be a component of it.
That's a theory. Maybe you should explore it. However, all that I've read says that species are hardwired to procreate so they may perpetuate the species.

[The Ressurrected One]

how about any person ever, gay, straight or otherwise, who ever chose not to have children
abnormal.

[Spurminator]

They're all theories, and it's already been explored. Maybe you're choosing what you read based on the conclusions.

Here's viewpoint counter to what you've read:

The New Scientist - "The In Crowd" (http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-130.htm)

[The Ressurrected One]

"and 'fully human' means that you can compare humans..."
Actually...no. That's not true any more than saying the Wright Flyer can be compared to a Space Shuttle. They both fly, but their purposes for flying are completely different and defy comparison.

"...to jesus that's the point of saying that he was 'fully human'...
I disagree and, further, I believe a majority of the world's Christians would as well. The point of Jesus Christ becoming fully human would take several courses in multiple theological ideologies but, I can assure you, comparitive purposes wasn't high on the list. Even though I will grant you that he did lead a life of love and compassion that is to be admired and modeled.

"...so people couldn't say that jesus was an exceptional case..."
But, Jesus Christ was an exceptional case.

"...so people couldn't say, well jesus never sinned, but that's impossible for me to do because jesus was god."
I'm sorry, I don't follow you.

[desflood]

They're all theories, and it's already been explored. Maybe you're choosing what you read based on the conclusions.

Here's viewpoint counter to what you've read:

The New Scientist - "The In Crowd" (http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-130.htm)
That's an interesting read... may I present a theory. Sexual behavior for pleasure (not just for the purpose of mating) is a trait of only the most intelligent species known (humans, primates, perhaps dolphins). Of course, the higher the level of intelligence, the more a species can "pick and choose" its behavior, knowing about cause and effect. Wouldn't that indicate that homosexual behavior is indeed a "choice" of the more intelligent species?

[The Ressurrected One]

They're all theories, and it's already been explored. Maybe you're choosing what you read based on the conclusions.

Here's viewpoint counter to what you've read:

The New Scientist - "The In Crowd" (http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-130.htm)
Interesting.

One, there is nothing to support that homosexuality is indeed genetic and, two, the article only tends to support the original notion I proposed that homosexuals have no business parenting...particularly since you seem to believe it may be a natural function to control the population.

[The Ressurrected One]

Apollinarius (b. about AD 310) taught that Jesus was not fully human because he did not have a human soul. He imagined Christ as God clothed in flesh and with many human attributes, but the guiding principal (ego) remained totally divine. Jesus being totally divine could not be tempted. Gregory of Nazianzen (Nyssa) opposed this belief.
Okay, you've officially reached the stage of "forum babbling." What on earth are you driving at?

[The Ressurrected One]

you said that you couldn't make comparisons to jesus, becuase he was fully divine and i said they you could make a comparison bc he was fully human
But, he wasn't ONLY fully human. Again, back to my Wright Flyer/Space Shuttle comparison. Both are fully aircraft -- however, one is much, much, much more.

Now. What I want to know, since we're on religion and homosexuality, is how Christian gays square the following two passages:


"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

[Goliadnative]

Yep, I believe vows of celibacy are abnormal. In fact, I think they can be blamed for much of the abnormal behavior coming from the Catholic Church such as pedophilia and homosexuality.

Every species has an innate drive to perpetuate. When you thwart that fundamental purpose you end up with weird stuff.


Jesus didn't seem to think so.

Matthew 19:11 -12

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (New International Version)

[The Ressurrected One]

that's a huge debate--here's some websites

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm
http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html
http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm

etc.etc.
So, give me the Cliff Notes on the debate...

Other than claiming the Scriptures are fabricated -- which, obviously has been forwarded and of which you won't be able to convince me if others haven't -- I can't see a possible argument that would have any Christian religion accepting homosexuality as a normal behavior.

[The Ressurrected One]

Jesus didn't seem to think so.

Matthew 19:11 -12

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (New International Version)
First of all, that passage doesn't proclaim those circumstances as normal just as conditions that should be accepted. It also doesn't speak to homosexuality or their fitness for parenting...which, by the way, is the genesis of this debate.

Personally, I accept homosexuality as a behavior that exists in society. I don't hate homosexuals. I don't think homosexual are less human than heterosexuals. I don't believe homosexuals are any worse than the rest of us in the sin department, either -- we all fall short. We all need salvation.

I simply don't believe a person who chooses that lifestyle should be parenting. It's my opininon and I don't see it changing unless the two scriptures below magically -- maybe I should say miraculously -- disappear from the Holy Bible.

[The Ressurrected One]

which i won't post because it's how you would interpret it

but i'll post it if you want me to
I went and read the website from which you drew your "analysis" and I can't say that I disagree with anything substantive that Mr. Johns says. As for the analysis to which you referred as "Liberal" and "Conservative," he more appropriately characterized it as "Considerations suggesting that God does
accept homosexual unions" and "Considerations suggesting that God does not accept homosexual unions," respectively.

The analyses are just that -- analyses by learned professionals (I presume)...and, they disagree. However, the most telling analysis is the final one in which Mr. Johns summarizes the debate, "In summary, the Bible says nothing explicitly positive about homosexuality, and what it does say is almost exclusively negative or critical." Okay, that's Mr. John's assessment.

How do your "Conservative" and "Liberal" analysts see it?

"Conservative" first:


"Since everything the Bible says explicitly about homosexuality is negative, we should 'play it safe' and go with what is explicit rather than take the 'gray areas' too seriously."

At least he sticks to the topic. Now, your "Liberal" analysis:

"The Bible does not often explicitly address slavery, either, or the propriety of women in leadership. We rightly condemn slavery today because we see that the biblical teachings about justice, love, and human dignity provide a trajectory consistent with the condemnation of slavery. In a similar way, the trajectories of biblical teaching suggest that we should accept gays and lesbians as equal partners in the church. 'Playing it safe' is what the conservative slave owners wanted to do.
A couple of things about this "analysis." If your point is well-founded, there is no need for diversion to other topics such as slavery and suffrage. In fact, the diversion isn't even well done...notice the use of the phrase "...does not often explicitly address..," which really means, the Bible does explicitly address slavery and suffrage.

I notice the analyst doesn't make the same claim about homosexuality. Further, I disagree with the analysis that "the trajectories" of the biblical message suggest we accept gays and lesbians as equal partners in the church [language to mean gay clergy and gay marriage]. You won't find any such suggestion in the Bible.

[mookie2001]

elpimpo is dropping some knowledge
i guess 8 years of private and university catholic education is good for something

[Jekka]

That's an interesting read... may I present a theory. Sexual behavior for pleasure (not just for the purpose of mating) is a trait of only the most intelligent species known (humans, primates, perhaps dolphins). Of course, the higher the level of intelligence, the more a species can "pick and choose" its behavior, knowing about cause and effect. Wouldn't that indicate that homosexual behavior is indeed a "choice" of the more intelligent species?

Des, and anyone else who might be interested, I have four articles from medical and science journals that support the idea that homosexuality is a biological condition, and not a "choice" - they're in PDF format, so I can email them to you if you want to PM me with an address.

[Useruser666]

Everything in life is a choice. Hetrosexual relationships and homosexual ones are all choices people make. No one is born with a woman attached to their dick. Who cares what other people do with their lives, it's not any of your concern.

[MannyIsGod]

The actual acts of engaging in any type of sexual activity are choices, but the inherent pointing in either direction is not. You don't choose to be attracted to what you are attracted to, you just are.

Either way, when I get back to Jess' I'll post the PDFs if I can, or you can PM her and she'll email them to you.

[Useruser666]

The actual acts of engaging in any type of sexual activity are choices, but the inherent pointing in either direction is not. You don't choose to be attracted to what you are attracted to, you just are.

Either way, when I get back to Jess' I'll post the PDFs if I can, or you can PM her and she'll email them to you.

I know. I just don't understand why people think it's their business to get involved with other people's lives.

If the state deems that a person or persons can adequately care for a child, then that person or persons should be allowed to adopt that child. This shouldn't be based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. It should totally be based on the abilities of the peopl to care for that child.

[desflood]

I don't know if it's biological or not! It's just a theory. But sure, I'll read them.

[MannyIsGod]

I know. I just don't understand why people think it's their business to get involved with other people's lives.

If the state deems that a person or persons can adequately care for a child, then that person or persons should be allowed to adopt that child. This shouldn't be based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. It should totally be based on the abilities of the peopl to care for that child.
I couldn't agree with you more Chris.

[bigzak25]

the idea that homosexuality is a biological condition, and not a "choice"


i believe some biological and some made from traumatic childhood abuse.


anyhow, would anyone here freak out if one of your parents told you they were gay....would you have freaked out if you walked in on daddy blowing the mailman? or do you think you would have been scarred for life....just asking.


i believe competency should reign at the end of the day, but no adopted kid is assured a non-dysfuntional family. do homosexuals present a higher risk for dysfucntional families. that is the question.

[Useruser666]

i believe some biological and some made from traumatic childhood abuse.


anyhow, would anyone here freak out if one of your parents told you they were gay....would you have freaked out if you walked in on daddy blowing the mailman? or do you think you would have been scarred for life....just asking.


i believe competency should reign at the end of the day, but no adopted kid is assured a non-dysfuntional family. do homosexuals present a higher risk for dysfucntional families. that is the question.

I would freak if I caught dad with another woman, or mom with another man. I don't know if it would have scared me, but it would a major experience for me.

I don't think stereotypes should be put into play as much as a good hard look at each case on an individual basis. I'm pretty certain there is already set criteria for who can and can not adopt children.

[Clandestino]

I would freak if I caught dad with another woman, or mom with another man. I don't know if it would have scared me, but it would a major experience for me.

I don't think stereotypes should be put into play as much as a good hard look at each case on an individual basis. I'm pretty certain there is already set criteria for who can and can not adopt children.

yeah, but most people would certainly freak more if they caught their parents in homosexuals acts than hetersexual ones...

[Useruser666]

yeah, but most people would certainly freak more if they caught their parents in homosexuals acts than hetersexual ones...

I think that is probably do to several reasons.

1. The child probably didn't think their parent was a homosexual. Unless they were raised by a homosexual couple, it would be a surprise, especially since their parent had obviously had a hetrosexual relationship to produce them.

2. Homosexual stereotyping and the shame that is brought by it is seen as such a negative by society now. Kids are especially vunerable to taunting by other kids and know that since it's considered a "bad" thing to have homosexual parents, they of course don't want theirs to be homosexuals. They feel shamed and wronged by their parent for being engaged in something like that.

3. Cheating is wrong, but cheating in a homosxual way is even more wrong. That is probably the first thing the kid thinks. "How could you do that to me or mom, and how could you be doing it in that way!" The shame of the homosexuality magnifies the shame and anger over the act of cheating on the other parent. Two difficult situations to discuss with kids are compounding each other here.

[The Ressurrected One]

I knew I should have taken a left turn at Albuquerque!
http://zeus.polsl.gliwice.pl/~tapetyyy/cartoons/1024-768/bugs_bunny.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

yeah, but most people would certainly freak more if they caught their parents in homosexuals acts than hetersexual ones...
based on what?

[The Ressurrected One]

This thread has...
http://www.fortythree.com/Stencils/Public/Samples/bm_shark_jump-cut.jpg

[Useruser666]

This thread has...

Why?

[The Ressurrected One]

Why?
We've gone from talking about homosexuality and foster/adoptive parenting to homosexuality and religion to what would shock you more, your dad with another man or your dad with another woman.

That's why.

[Useruser666]

I'm guessing those things are pretty related to each other.

Homosexuality and foster/adoptive parents.

Homosexuality and religion.

Catching your father in a homosexual act with another man.

[Clandestino]

based on what?

nevermind manny... i guess you see homosexual acts all the time that it wouldn't bother you...

[The Ressurrected One]

I'm guessing those things are pretty related to each other.

Homosexuality and foster/adoptive parents.

Homosexuality and religion.

Catching your father in a homosexual act with another man.
Yeah, as related as:

Paper airplanes and bubble gum.

Terrorists and airplanes.

Use of the word airplanes in Haiku.

Sure, they're related topics.

[CommanderMcBragg]

When there are so many children looking for a home it is terrible that sexual orientation needs to become an issue.

Those who think that gay people should not be parents are...how does the current generation put it.....whack!

[MannyIsGod]

nevermind manny... i guess you see homosexual acts all the time that it wouldn't bother you...
You know, when you don't have anything to back up what you say, you can just say that.

[Clandestino]

You know, when you don't have anything to back up what you say, you can just say that.

what more is needed... homosexual acts(whether it be kissing or sex) is not normal on tv. hetersexual acts are shown all the day... most kids don't think too much of it. they may giggle, laugh or even say gross, but...but... i'm 100% M O S T would freak the fuck out if they saw two guys or two girls going at it while their mother watched soap operas. so, if they came home and saw their dad kissing the mailman or whatever dude.... it would not make for a healthy environment...

[CommanderMcBragg]

Scenes of murder, sex, violence, crime and other acts are on TV and other media outlets every day and doesn't make for a healthy environment but it is the way society is.

[mookie2001]

its sad that clan and TRO are so hardline in defending their positions, like they really care about the future of the human species dying because everyones gonna turn gay or something, the worlds population is on the most obscene J-curve you can imagine. people had the same arguements that are being raised today about gays that they did years ago whether to let blacks and whites marry or do a shitload of other things, in 2005 this society is obsessed with taking away and restricting rights, rather than expanding or granting them. their stance its simply because they dont like it, they think its gross or against god or whatever, i dont exactly like to think about two dudes having sex, but its none of my goshdarn concern, I'd hope the same could be said for them if i was scoffed for liking to have relations with red-headed chicks or tall black chicks with glasses. Gay people dont give a shit yall think and theyre gonna keep on being gay. not everyone has a literal interpretation of the bible, let alone cares what the bible says. i think the funniest part is how long the argument of whether or not people choose homsexuality lasted, as if when you find that answer, all the true supposed questions of gay-rights and their place in the eyes of jesus will somehow suddenly be answered. Like if gays become foster parents, their kids, who could be anywhere from a week to 17 yearsold will turn gay, because we all know no gay person has ever had hetero parents, back to the threads topic, was them becoming foster parents and again i dont think people are busting down the door to take care of abused, neglected, or abandoned kids in the first place, if a gay couple can provide a good home, then good for them.
im done with this thread too

[MannyIsGod]

what more is needed... homosexual acts(whether it be kissing or sex) is not normal on tv. hetersexual acts are shown all the day... most kids don't think too much of it. they may giggle, laugh or even say gross, but...but... i'm 100% M O S T would freak the fuck out if they saw two guys or two girls going at it while their mother watched soap operas. so, if they came home and saw their dad kissing the mailman or whatever dude.... it would not make for a healthy environment...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

And with that, I'm done.

[scott]

They need to build camps where we can dump the homos off by the truckload, so as to keep them from infecting the rest of our society with their gay germs.

[Useruser666]

Yeah, as related as:

Paper airplanes and bubble gum.

Terrorists and airplanes.

Use of the word airplanes in Haiku.

Sure, they're related topics.

In your sentences the main subject is not airplanes. In the different topics discussed regarding homosexuality, they all were topics that delt with a homosexuality and how it affected people in different situations. Your example is not the same.

[Clandestino]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

And with that, I'm done.

i didn't know you saw homosexual sex acts in public on a daily basis that has you desensitized to them.. i personally have never seen 2 gay guys going at it... women yes, but gay men no...

[The Ressurrected One]

In your sentences the main subject is not airplanes. In the different topics discussed regarding homosexuality, they all were topics that delt with a homosexuality and how it affected people in different situations. Your example is not the same.
Except that the specific topic of the thread was homosexuality and parenting...not homosexuality in general.

Jeeze! Now we've morphed into sentence diagrams and the meaning of "is." Even further away from the original topic. I hope you're happy!

http://www.adobe.com/education/digkids/images/contest/windy_day.jpg
You guys need Ritalin to stay on topic.

[Useruser666]

I think the topics discussed were very much a part of the thread's topic. They could wasily be discussed in threads that are entirely dedicated to them.

[The Ressurrected One]

I think the topics discussed were very much a part of the thread's topic. They could wasily be discussed in threads that are entirely dedicated to them.
Do you realize how contradictory that statement is?

Fine. But, I wanted to discuss gay adoption and gay foster parents; not whether I'd be more scarred by seeing my father with another man or another woman or whether or not homosexuals are adequately considered in religion.