Political Crossfire Forums

[Jay2014]

SavannahMan wrote: Gee since there seems to be quite a latitude in this thread for offering personal opinion and experience I will offer mine.

The homosexuals that I have come into contact with and know can barely manage their own lives - they seem to have constant drama and stress in their lives. Mental disorder and relationship disorder seem to be the rule for many if not most of the homosexuals I have come into contact with and the empirical evidence supports those observations.

Luckily we havent been able to gather a lot of statistics on homosexual adoption because people have had the good sense to not allow homosexuals to adopt. We have seen plenty of research on homosexual relationships though - these show a much higher incidence of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide...the list goes on and on.

Bottom line? There isn't a whole lot of happiness in the "gay" lifestyle....sticking kids into a situation like that is simply irresponsible - another hallmark of the homosexual lifestyle.

so its better for the state to raise them?

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: The homosexuals that I have come into contact with and know can barely manage their own lives - they seem to have constant drama and stress in their lives. Mental disorder and relationship disorder seem to be the rule for many if not most of the homosexuals I have come into contact with and the empirical evidence supports those observations.
My personal experience doesn't bear yours out. Exactly what 'empirical evidence' are you citing?

Quote: Luckily we havent been able to gather a lot of statistics on homosexual adoption because people have had the good sense to not allow homosexuals to adopt.
I dispute that not allowing homosexuals to adopt is equivalent to having 'good sense'.

Quote: We have seen plenty of research on homosexual relationships though - these show a much higher incidence of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide...the list goes on and on.
Unless you provide us with a link to the studies so that we can evaluate them to rule out bias and/or the employment of questionable methodology, I have to assume you're just blowing smoke up our collective ass. So far the studies I've seen supporting your assertions mostly come from very obviously biased sources like the one discredited as the focus of this thread, or are someone's else's distortion, misrepresentation and/or faulty extrapolation of data from research they didn't perform themselves.

Quote: Bottom line? There isn't a whole lot of happiness in the "gay" lifestyle....
...in your considerably biased opinion, that is to say.

Quote: sticking kids into a situation like that is simply irresponsible - another hallmark of the homosexual lifestyle.
Another denigration of an entire demographic without an offer of proof. That IS trolling. You've pretty much exhausted any leeway I'm willing to give you at this point.

[SavannahMan]

Homosexual and Happy?

That link provides plenty of studies done by places like the CDC and John Hopkins. It addresses not only the "happiness" factor, but also the "irresponsibility" I spoke of.

Want more?

Psychological problems / Homosexuals

And more to the point of adoption...

Homosexual adoption puts children at risk
By Gary Glenn
CNSNews.com Commentary
February 25, 2002

The eight-member committee that concocted the American Academy of Pediatrics' endorsement of homosexual adoptions is lucky they can't be sued for political malpractice. When it comes to protecting children's health, their politically correct quackery clearly violates the admonition of the Hippocratic Oath: "First do no harm."

The scientific fact is that children's health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the adults - as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior -- experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease, substance abuse, and premature death by up to 20 years.

"The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write activists with the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network.

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders" - including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse.
The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."

The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."

Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men...nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."

Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical hazards of multiple sex partners?

A Detroit homosexual newsmagazine columnist last month wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships...A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers."

The Center for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."

How will being adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior affect the behavior of children themselves?

Associated Press reported last June that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents...are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves...(and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations."

A major Australian newspaper reported Feb. 4th regarding a British sociologist's review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality."

Which means children adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior face not only second hand exposure to the risks of such behavior by their "parents," but are more likely to suffer first hand by engaging in the same high-risk behavior themselves.

Young people who model the homosexual behavior of their adopted "parents" face other risks.

The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors...engag(ing) in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population."

"GLB orientation was associated with increased...use of cocaine (and other illegal) drugs. GLB youth were more likely to report using tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine before 13 years of age. Among sexual risk behaviors, sexual intercourse before 13 years of age, sexual intercourse with four or more partners...and sexual contact against one's will all were associated with GLB orientation."

The sheer weight of evidence makes the issue clear: Should children be handed over as trophies to the homosexual "rights" movement - adopting them into households where they'll face dramatically higher risk of exposure to domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease and premature death? An environment which increases the chances they'll engage in high risk homosexual behavior themselves?

Not on your life. And certainly not theirs.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: Homosexual and Happy?
From the Family Research Council - an obviously biased group. Quoting from their site:

"Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society." In short, screw anyone who subscribes to a different belief system.

One need only look at who they hold in esteem on their page about the history of the organization; people such as James Dobson, Gary Bauer, etc. - both well known as right-wing activists with political agendas.

Quote: That link provides plenty of studies done by places like the CDC and John Hopkins. It addresses not only the "happiness" factor, but also the "irresponsibility" I spoke of.
No, what they provide is their biased analysis of the studies done by other organizations.

Quote: Want more?

Psychological problems / Homosexuals
From a place called LifeSite. Here's a quote from their web site, which speaks for itself regarding their bias:

Who Produces LifeSite?
The site is affiliated with Interim Publishing and is also closely associated with Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), both organizations being headquartered in Toronto, Canada. LifeSite networks regularly with leaders and other organizations around the world.

Interim Publishing, founded in 1983, produces The Interim, Canada's national life and family newspaper and other publications related to life and family issues.

Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, has been one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a couple of other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.

Pro-life activists, in other words - who have apparently jumped on the anti-gay bandwagon as well.

Quote: And more to the point of adoption...

Homosexual adoption puts children at risk
By Gary Glenn

Gary Glenn is president of the American Family Association's Michigan branch. Have a look at their home page - it's all about anti-gay stuff - not about real family issues. Gary Glenn is a man with an extreme and obvious bias.

For groups like the AFA, FRC, FRI, etc. 'family' is code for 'anti-gay', the false premise being that gay people can't form family units.

AFA Michigan

Quote: CNSNews.com Commentary
February 25, 2002

The eight-member committee that concocted the American Academy of Pediatrics' endorsement of homosexual adoptions is lucky they can't be sued for political malpractice.
Yep, the very language used in the opening sentence makes it pretty clear at the outset that this is going to be an incredibly biased piece of work.

Quote: When it comes to protecting children's health, their politically correct quackery clearly violates the admonition of the Hippocratic Oath: "First do no harm."

The scientific fact is that children's health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the adults - as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior -- experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease, substance abuse, and premature death by up to 20 years.
These things are not a direct consequence of homosexual behavior, so we immediately have an illogical, false premise.

Quote: "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write activists with the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network.
Nothing to tell us on what they based such an observation, so we can't evaluate whether or not it's true.

Quote: The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders" - including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse.
It does not, however, state that this is a direct result of being homosexual. What we basically have here is an attempt to blame gay people for developing disorders that mostly result from the stress of living in a society that mistreats them in ways that are sometimes overt, but more often very subtle. It's a classic misplacement of blame - one that furthers the perception of being persecuted among gay people.

Quote: The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."

The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."
They appear to fall under that category of small think tanks masquerading as authority. As such, I'm inclined to automatically treat anything they 'report' on the matter as suspect.

Quote: Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men...nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."
What did they base that observation upon? The study of a gay population in one Canadian urban center with assumptions made about the percentage of the population that gay people comprised.

It is nonsensical to extrapolate such a study to say that it applies to all gay men.

Quote: Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical hazards of multiple sex partners?
No, of course not. But you're question contains the implied and false assertion that this is the lifestyle practiced by all gay adults.

Quote: A Detroit homosexual newsmagazine columnist last month wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships...A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers."
The biased opinion of one gay columnist who has apparently decided that his bad experience is representative of all gay people is hardly something we should give credence to.

Quote: The Center for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."
I question whether that's what the CDC actually says - note carefully where the quote marks fall here. I will agree that men who have sex with large numbers of anonymous partners and don't take adequate precautions certainly can have the result cited. Not all gay or even most gay men engage in such behavior.

Quote: How will being adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior affect the behavior of children themselves?

Associated Press reported last June that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents...are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves...(and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations."
"probably more likely" doesn't mean proved to be more likely. Notice we're talking here about behavior, not actual sexual orientation. Being raised by gay parents won't make a child gay - but it might make them feel less constrained from engaging in homosexual behavior if they do happen to already be gay.

Quote: A major Australian newspaper
Which one? Quote: reported Feb. 4th of what year? Quote: regarding a British sociologist's Who? Quote: review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: And what papers were those? How were they compiled originally and by who? Quote: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. What study? Who did the research? What was their methodology? Quote: The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe Again, we don't know who did the investigation, how they did it, or even who published it. Quote: claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality." 'claims', not 'has proved'.

Quote: Which means children adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior face not only second hand exposure to the risks of such behavior by their "parents," but are more likely to suffer first hand by engaging in the same high-risk behavior themselves.
No, it means you have a lot of questionable and biased information adding up to a whole lot of nothing.

Quote: Young people who model the homosexual behavior of their adopted "parents" face other risks.

The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors...engag(ing) in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population."

"GLB orientation was associated with increased...use of cocaine (and other illegal) drugs. GLB youth were more likely to report using tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine before 13 years of age. Among sexual risk behaviors, sexual intercourse before 13 years of age, sexual intercourse with four or more partners...and sexual contact against one's will all were associated with GLB orientation."
All symptoms of the psychological effect of marginalization and isolation on gay youth by society. It is a mistake to say that homosexuality is to blame here - it is the way people who are homosexual are treated that pushes some of them toward bad decisions and bad behavior.

Quote: The sheer weight of evidence makes the issue clear: Should children be handed over as trophies to the homosexual "rights" movement - adopting them into households where they'll face dramatically higher risk of exposure to domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease and premature death? An environment which increases the chances they'll engage in high risk homosexual behavior themselves?

Not on your life. And certainly not theirs.
Wrong conclusions formulated through the application of a pre-conceived bias upon research that is either questionable or gravely minsterpreted.

I see nothing here that is the least bit persuasive.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: The idea that one single parent, who has to juggle work and the child, and is more oftenthe not poor and therefore must work alot, can provide for a child at the same level as two parents can is absolutely insane.
Not insane, just not the norm. Is it your contention that we should not allow children to be raised in single parent households?

No. I'm not saying gay adoption should be outlawed wither. I'm saying is that they are not as well off as children raised by two parents and to say they are is devoid of reason.

Quote: Quote: As for two parents of oppisite gendersbeing superior to two parents of the same gender -- my point is that the child is better offwith a mom and a dad; from teasing children at school to the possible "weirdness"
Again, not the fault of the same-sex couple but that of the more than likely heterosexual couple that fails to teach their children tolerance.

Why must one ever have to tolerate something they see as evil and sinful? I do not see it as such but you must tolerate their views as well.

Quote: Quote: that could screw a kid up for lack of a mother and in place have a feminine male.
And now you're stereotyping.

It's more than likely true though.

Quote: Quote: Moreoever,I would stipulate that married two parent familes are better than unmarried, and homosexuals are not married in most places.
Well, we're trying - but you just won't let us!

Not me, I have nothing to dowith it. Infact I hae argued many times that my position is you should be able to go do whateer you want but the state still has the power to stop you as I contend marriage is a state created insititution (in the idea of state not a specific one).

Quote: Quote: You saythey have life partners. Remember that AIDS scare a few months ago --a guy who had AIDS and it developed extremely quickly? Yeah they found patient zero, the guy whogave it to him, and theyfound that they had annonymous sex at some gay club, and that that guy had also given it to his so called "life partner" of 30 years or whatever. What the hell is that?
Link? Not that it matters, as there are screw-ups in both the heterosexual and the homosexual world.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050725-034435-3876r.htm

Quote: Quote: Homosexuals are notorious for their promiscuity
Another stereotype. Are lesbians promiscuous?

I wouldn't call a lesbian homosexual. Homosexuals are gay men, and lesbians are decidedly not gay. They are angry. And no, they are not promiscuis. But gay men are... which brings us tothe point about why Stoics were against it (they thought of homosexuality as being all about sex)

Quote: Quote: (indeed, as I've said before, what the ancient Stoic Romans had against homosexuality was that it was too carnal and about too much sex...
I frankly don't give much of a s**t what the Stoic Romans thought. Welcome to the 21st century.

That's right, forget what has come before... you also I presume don't care that Stoicism played a huge role in the formation of Chrisitian thought on this matter?

Quote: Quote: while true, many homosexuals can live without screwing around ontheir life partner, welltheir not married.
A lot of us would like to be. First you won't let us get married to each other, then blame us for not being married. How fair is that? Answer - not at all.

I'm not stopping you.

Quote: Quote: Not that that particularlly mattersbecause it isn't marriage that civilizes man it is woman that does so.
That's utter bulls**t. It isn't a woman that civilizes a man. A man can be plenty civilized without a woman - it merely takes the desire, commitment and maturity to being civilized. Gender has nothing to do with it. Settling down to form a family unit does.

Well.... I still think woman civilizes man. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

Quote: Quote: Anyway I still fail to see how a snap shot in time without following up on later ramifications in life will show anything of importance.
Do we not test children constantly in school to see how their learning has developed? Gee, I guess we can dispense with that since it's useless to measure any part of their development until they hit age 30.

You don't see the value simply because you don't want to - not because it doesn't exist.

They do measure all those things. Of course, its measured by their sucesses in life. You know, who is on unemployment and whatnot. They check all those things. They've been mesuring it all for thousands of years. We'vegot pretty good evidence that says that a traditionalfamily works better than any alternative. You'll need pretty monumental evidence to state otherwise -- and that means following the kids throughout their life not just whenthey are 13.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I'm saying is that they are not as well off as children raised by two parents and to say they are is devoid of reason.
What is devoid of reason is to say that two parents are automatically always better. Ask someone who grew up in an abusive situation - many will tell you they were much better off after their parents divorced and they ceased to have contact with the abusive parent.

Having two parents is an ideal, but that doesn't mean it's always going to be the best thing for a child.

Quote: Why must one ever have to tolerate something they see as evil and sinful?
So you would let them chase us around with pitchforks and torches then?

I personally view their intolerance as evil and sinful - why should I have to tolerate it, then? The answer follows further below.

Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Our ability to tolerate a diversity of belief and practice helps to keep order in this society - that is why they should have to tolerate something they view as evil and sinful - without that, we descend into chaos. It's also why I have to put up with their constant condemnation - not that I like it very much.

Your argument is nothing more than a petty distraction from the real issue - that intolerance is what makes it hard on kids raised by gay parents - not the parents' homosexual orientation itself. You want to excuse the abuse of others under the guise of having tolerance for intolerance. Just because I have to put up with their crap, that doesn't excuse it and it certainly isn't an argument for denying people adoption rights. I hate comparing this with racial issues because it leads to arguments about who has suffered the worse wrong (and people of color obviously win that 'contest') - but this is precisely the kind of argument that was, nay - still is - made against interracial marriage - that the chldren will be the one's to suffer so people of different races shouldn't marry and produce children. It was a bad argument against that practice and it's an equally bad argument against the one of adoption by same-gendered parents.

Quote: I do not see it as such but you must tolerate their views as well.
Only up to the point where it is not an infringement upon my rights as a human being. This crosses that line.

Quote: Quote: And now you're stereotyping.

It's more than likely true though.
Continuing to stereotype, and you have no proof of that. Shame on you.

Quote: Quote: Quote: You saythey have life partners. Remember that AIDS scare a few months ago --a guy who had AIDS and it developed extremely quickly? Yeah they found patient zero, the guy whogave it to him, and theyfound that they had annonymous sex at some gay club, and that that guy had also given it to his so called "life partner" of 30 years or whatever. What the hell is that?
Link? Not that it matters, as there are screw-ups in both the heterosexual and the homosexual world.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050725-034435-3876r.htm
I read the article at the link you presented and you appear to have gotten your facts very wrong. They were together 12 years, not 30 - and both had sex with the same infected man. It was not a case of some guy screwing around and bringing it home to his life partner - apparently they had an 'open' relationship. Sounds to me like a good argument for monogomy - not an argument against adoption.

I'm seriously disappointed - I expect much better from you.

Quote: I wouldn't call a lesbian homosexual.

Homosexual: A person who is sexually attracted primarily to members of her or his own gender. Lesbians are homosexual - the term does not refer only to men. That they prefer the label of 'lesbian' is certainly their prerogative and something I'm willing to resepct. That doesn't mean I'm going to lie and say the term homosexual doesn't apply to them.

Quote: Homosexuals are gay men, and lesbians are decidedly not gay.
Again, it's a matter of what label a person prefers. I'd rather not be labeled at all.

Quote: ...lesbians are decidedly not gay. They are angry.
So am I - does that make me a lesbian, too?

Quote: And no, they are not promiscuis.
Not most of them. A few certainly are.

Quote: But gay men are...
Again with the stereotyping. Gay men who are committed to monogamous relationships and want to adopt are not generally promiscuous. I am beyond sick of people throwing the label of promiscuous out there as if it applied to every gay man. It doesn't - there are a whole lot of us who aren't.

Do we ask heterosexuals to prove they aren't promiscuous when they apply to adopt a child?

Quote: which brings us tothe point about why Stoics were against it (they thought of homosexuality as being all about sex)
And they were wrong - just as you are wrong.

Quote: That's right, forget what has come before... you also I presume don't care that Stoicism played a huge role in the formation of Chrisitian thought on this matter?
Not particularly. While that may be informative, it's not terribly relevant.

We shall have to agree to disagree on the rest.

[MrVicchio]

Are there happy intelligent gay couples that could provide a warm loving home to children... I am sure they are out there.

Would the homosexual lifestyle affectt these kids?

Are you willin to risk a childs future to prove your own theory right?

How would you like to be that kid?

[StrangerWitCandy]

MrVicchio wrote: Are there happy intelligent gay couples that could provide a warm loving home to children... I am sure they are out there.

Would the homosexual lifestyle affectt these kids?

Are you willin to risk a childs future to prove your own theory right?

How would you like to be that kid?

its already been done. plenty of gay couples have raised kids, hence the mere existence of studies like these. and credible studies show that kids raised with homosexual parents are basically the same as kids raised with heterosexual ones. and i'd certainly like to be that kid if it was a loving family, why wouldn't I? especially if the alternative is to live in foster homes and be brought up by the state

[F'losrix]

MrVicchio wrote: Are there happy intelligent gay couples that could provide a warm loving home to children... I am sure they are out there.

Would the homosexual lifestyle affectt these kids?
No, because there is no such thing as a 'homosexual lifestyle'.

Would the lifestyle of the parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, affect the kids? Certainly - which is why we don't let just anybody adopt.

Quote: Are you willin to risk a childs future to prove your own theory right?
It's not a theory, it's a fact. Gay people have, can and do raise children who become productive members of society.

Quote: How would you like to be that kid?
Rhetorical and unworthy of a response.

[MrVicchio]

I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but two men or women in a sexual relationship is a "lifestyle" sorry.

[F'losrix]

MrVicchio wrote: I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but two men or women in a sexual relationship is a "lifestyle" sorry.

No, it isn't.

Lifestyle: A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group

Two people living together in a same-sex relationship doesn't tell you anything about their attitudes or values, a part from the fact that they apparently value that relationship.

People throw out the word 'homosexual lifestyle' as code for a bunch of crap that isn't true about a lot of gay people - especially those living in committed, monogamous relationships. Then try to claim the term encompasses their living arrangements.

Gay people live lifestyles as varied as heterosexuals.

In other words, you're full of it.

[Demonic Spoon]

First link was from a biased source. Second source is easily disputed by logic and is, as skeptical mystic pointed out, biased

All the second link showed was that gay guys are more promiscuous. Duh. Guys are naturally more sexually active than females. Two guys=nothing stopping lots and lots of sex.

[Jay2014]

Demonic Spoon wrote: First link was from a biased source. Second source is easily disputed by logic and is, as skeptical mystic pointed out, biased

All the second link showed was that gay guys are more promiscuous. Duh. Guys are naturally more sexually active than females. Two guys=nothing stopping lots and lots of sex.

i actually posted on this before, and empirical research says your right. gay men are more promiscuous in general because they dont have the barrier that heterosexual men have:women. for the same reason, lesbians are less promiscuous than heterosexual woman.

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: First link was from a biased source. Second source is easily disputed by logic and is, as skeptical mystic pointed out, biased

All the second link showed was that gay guys are more promiscuous. Duh. Guys are naturally more sexually active than females. Two guys=nothing stopping lots and lots of sex.

I wouldn't say nothing. STDs alone ought to deter some guys. But clearly not enough.

The mistake that commonly gets made with this line of thinking is that people just assume that two guys can't be faithful to each other, based on the false premise that all men are promiscuous by nature. Certainly a great many of them are, but not all of us. I've been monogamous for nearing five years, and I've no intention of throwing away what I have with my partner for a few minutes of fun. Before we met, I went through about five years of celibacy.

So while I'll agree that the nature of male sexuality increases the potential for infidelity when the partners are 2 men, that doesn't mean it's destined to happen in 100% of those relationships - contrary to what the anti-gay crowd would like us all to believe.

[SavannahMan]

Hilarious -

Mystical won't provide any links to studies that support his claims - he puts that burden on everyone else. When others provide links he simply dismisses the links as "biased". Guess what Mystical? Everyone has a bias. You have a bias and so do I. Thus, claiming that the links are biased tells us nothing. I am sure you would consider FoxNews biased. I would consider the LA Times biased. So what?

The studies cited were from reliable scientific sources - if you dont like the conclusions reached in those studies then I am sorry but go find some studies that have results that you *like*. Of course the problem is those studies dont exist.

Statistically homosexuals live a very sad life - riddled by disease, depression, violence, mental illness, and suicide. Deny it all you like - you can't change the truth.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: Hilarious -

Mystical won't provide any links to studies that support his claims - he puts that burden on everyone else.
Nonsense, when I feel the need to support an assertion with links I have provided them. But I'm not doing someone else's homework for them.

Quote: When others provide links he simply dismisses the links as "biased".
When they're clearly so, yes I do.

Quote: Guess what Mystical? Everyone has a bias. You have a bias and so do I. Thus, claiming that the links are biased tells us nothing. I am sure you would consider FoxNews biased. I would consider the LA Times biased. So what?
I don't watch FoxNews so I'm not in a position to say whether or not they're biased. It may be that the L.A. Times has a bias. Is that bias clearly evident in the article I posted? You seem to think so, I disagree. As you said, so what?

Quote: The studies cited were from reliable scientific sources - if you dont like the conclusions reached in those studies then I am sorry but go find some studies that have results that you *like*. Of course the problem is those studies dont exist.
Again, not going to do your homework for you. If you want to provide something that proves the studies are reliable and not biased, go right ahead.

Quote: Statistically homosexuals live a very sad life - riddled by disease, depression, violence, mental illness, and suicide. Deny it all you like - you can't change the truth.
As usual, you resort to a blanket denigration of an entire demographic with nothing but your obviously biased sources to back you up.

[SavannahMan]

If you don't consider the CDC and John Hopkins to be reliable sources then I guess I don't know where to look to find something you would call reliable. Those are my sources - you don't have any sources. Game. Set. Match.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: If you don't consider the CDC and John Hopkins to be reliable sources then I guess I don't know where to look to find something you would call reliable. Those are my sources - you don't have any sources. Game. Set. Match.
I've already addressed this. Just because you use facts from an unbiased source doesn't mean that the premise you built with them is sound. If you pull things out of context or chop them up in such a way that they no longer resemble the truth those facts orginally represented then I have just cause to dismiss your assertion.

I'm putting you back on ignore - you clearly have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion.

[SavannahMan]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'm putting you back on ignore - you clearly have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion.

Yes - as I said - Game. Set. Match.

[F'losrix]

The American Psychological Association came to this conclusion:

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

This is the link they provide to their research sources:

Empirical Studies

The American Academy of Pediatrics says:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents (sources are listed at the bottom of that page)

The American Psychiatric Association had this to say:

Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality or gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems.

Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues (sources are referenced throughout the article)

These are three credible, respected organizations with large memberships. Will SavannahMan tell us they are biased? I'm quite sure he will. Who has more credibility - the professional organizations I have cited -or- someone with an obvious political agenda posting lots of blanket condemnations of gay people and relying on anti-gay think tanks to support his arguments?