PDA

View Full Version : What rights should homosexuals have?


mur'phon
12-02-2007, 06:52 AM
Title says it all, I'm just curious of what you think.
Personally, I see no reason to give them any less rights than heterosexuals, but since I know a lot of people disagres, I would like to know why.

Marius Fett
12-02-2007, 07:49 AM
I'm no homo-hater bur I just don't think they should be allowed to adopt.
It would be damaging to the kids.
They would get bullied for having gay parents and would probably get called gay themselves...

Jason Skywalker
12-02-2007, 08:53 AM
Homosexual people should have the same rights as a human being. Just because they took a different sexual orientation, doesn't mean they're any different than us.

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 09:03 AM
I just don't think they should be allowed to adopt.
It would be damaging to the kids.
They would get bullied for having gay parents and would probably get called gay themselves...

Most kids in need of adoption is never adopted. Do you think it is better for them to live in an orphanage where the conditions are not excactly great, than to live with two same sex parrents who love them?

Alkonium
12-02-2007, 09:48 AM
I'm no homo-hater bur I just don't think they should be allowed to adopt.
It would be damaging to the kids.
They would get bullied for having gay parents and would probably get called gay themselves...
So you think that because people are homophobic, homosexuals should be denied rights? That simply perpetuates homophobia.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 10:59 AM
I mean no offense in what i'm about to say.
Homosexuals don't really know what's good for them. they may think they are happy marrying someoenof the same gender and such, but they really aren't. it's a chemical imbalance. they deserve the same rights as us, but they need to be cured whether they like it or not. they WILL be happier once they are cured. adoption if they are married can be damaging to the child. the child could be laughed at and made fun of becasue his/hers parents are gay/lesbian/bi. it's not natural. homosexualaility is nto meant to be. if it becoems too common, it could damage the population growth rate of the world, becasue as everyone knows, two guys can't make a baby and neither can two girls. but then there's science designed to let them do that... doesn't that seem a little um... wrong?
Everyoen else is entitled to their own opinions. i hope i have not offended anyone, as i was only stating my opinion on this delecate subject.

Eiganjo
12-02-2007, 11:31 AM
Let homosexuals be homosexual, there is not much anyone can do to get them to be normal - that's just the way they are. Marriage and Adoption is something diffrent though. I think the reason why they shouldn't adopt children is pretty clear.
And marriage has always been something between a man and a woman. Just because nowadays people start to turn homosexual is no reason to change that. Marriage is the sign of a family in making - homosexuals do not create families.

mur'phon
12-02-2007, 11:57 AM
Homosexuals don't really know what's good for them.

But you do? Evidence please.

they may think they are happy marrying someoenof the same gender and such, but they really aren't.

Then how about the couples who say they are happy? Are they lying or delusional? Please say why they aren't happy

it's a chemical imbalance

I'm not sure what you are geting at, care to elaborate?

they deserve the same rights as us

Cheers:)

but they need to be cured whether they like it or not

I don't believe homosexuals can be changed, but even if they could, why?
They if don't harm anyone by being what they are, why should they be forcefully changed?

they WILL be happier once they are cured

I would question how you know they are going to be happier, but first I want to see some undisputable proof of homosexuals being "cured"

adoption if they are married can be damaging to the child. the child could be laughed at and made fun of becasue his/hers parents are gay/lesbian/bi.

I have yet to see anything sugesting it will be worse for a child to have homosexual parrents, though I'm not denying it is possible. As for the teasing/bullying, I'm with Alkonium, the existence of homophobia dosen't justify discrimination. But even if homosexuals are worse parrents and the child will be teased/bullyed, think of the alternative. If, however you have something that shows orphanages as better at raising children than two loving same sex parrents, I'll change my positon.

it's not natural. homosexualaility is nto meant to be

Why? Countless animals are gay, and bonobos seem to benefit from being bisexual.

if it becoems too common, it could damage the population growth rate of the world, becasue as everyone knows, two guys can't make a baby and neither can two girls.

With a world population of more than 6000 000 000 people and still increasing, I don't think homosexuality is a threat.

but then there's science designed to let them do that... doesn't that seem a little um... wrong?

So far, no need for it, and no, I don't think it's wrong if it gets done.

Everyoen else is entitled to their own opinions. i hope i have not offended anyone, as i was only stating my opinion on this delecate subject.

Every oppinion count, no need to worry about offending anyone.

edit: Eiganjo: Do you really think homosexuallity hasn't existed before? It being a crime might have made people hide it. And regarding marriage, by legalizing same sex marriage you only make it legal for chuches to marry homosexuals, you aren't forcing anyone

mimartin
12-02-2007, 12:12 PM
What business is anyone sexual orientation to anyone else unless you are interested in them? Humans have rights, heterosexuals and homosexuals are both humans right? In the U.S., our most famous document that expresses our core beliefs starts with ďAll men are created equal.Ē The Declaration of Independence does not state all men are created equal unless they are hot for the man next door.

As to marriage and adoption it should be judged just they same as anyone else. There are allot of heterosexuals that should not be allowed to adopt and I am sure the same can be said for homosexuals too. Should it be a factor? Yes, but the same factor as wanting to place a child with an African American family, Hispanic familyÖ if the child is of that race. It should not be the deciding factor.

Marriage is the one I have been against for the most part, but even that is asinine. I always thought cost to companies providing benefits to dependent same sex partners would bankrupt the companies. This is not true because while male/male couples would be more expensive (as male are higher for insurance), female/female couples would save the companies money. I also believe most of these arguments are BS, in that we hear how increasing the minimum wage will bankrupt the country and McDonalds every time they do it, but I have yet to see that happen. I say leave the question of marriage where it belongs in the hands of the individual states.

It would be damaging to the kids.
They would get bullied for having gay parents and would probably get called gay themselves...So we should not allow fat people to adopt, ugly people to adopt, stupid people to adopt, nerds to adoptÖ? Kids are bullied for many reasons and we should teach our children not to bully instead of punishing the victims.

SilentScope001
12-02-2007, 01:13 PM
What about the 'moderates'? The atheistic objection to gay marriage (it upsets culture, there is no real reason to have it, etc.)? Things aren't really that black and white (for both sides).

I personally think there are better issues to worry about rather than homosexuals. But if pressed, I would state that I think homosexuality is immoral and will not be homosexual myself. However, if other people think homosexuality is moral, they should do it. Simple.

I'd prefer banning marriage for everyone however, as marriage is a religious rite, and the State should not care about it.

So you think that because people are homophobic, homosexuals should be denied rights?

Why not? Homophobic votes are just as valid as non-homophobic votes. If you are going to disenfrashcie a voting bloc just because you disagree with them, that could very well lead to an end to democracy, as people could just declare votes that disagree with them as 'non-valid'.

Courts could end up deciding the rules, not the people. Which is fine, if that is what you intend. And I like the courts just as much as I like the people. Just be warned that if the courts end up running the state, then who appoints the judges will end up controlling the future of our nation, and may very well reverse those trends of previous judges.

John Galt
12-02-2007, 01:16 PM
I think that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. That being said, I don't think marraige itself falls within the sphere of government regulation; it's a purely religious affair. I think all marraiges should be "civil unions" in the eyes of the law, and marraige should be left to the inividual and his/her religion. Furthermore, I think civil unions should be available to any group of people who want to merge their assets, whether it's a married couple, an entire extended family, or even a commune. All these should only be entered into voluntarily, of course, and should be able to be voluntarily left.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 01:59 PM
What rights should homosexuals have?
Uh... Human?

They would get bullied for having gay parents and would probably get called gay themselves...
Nearly all kids get bullied, and every kid calls another kid gay. They're small and stupid, what do you expect?

Jason Skywalker
12-02-2007, 02:10 PM
^ That is true, but in that case, it's more like a simple insult that doesn't mean anything and not actually calling that person gay.

@Arcesious: Lesbians CAN have children. They just need to go to the sperm bank.

Ray Jones
12-02-2007, 02:59 PM
Gee, what a world where people aren't strong enough to take a simple "gay *******" and throw it to the trash. :rolleyes:

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 03:19 PM
I'm no homo-hater bur I just don't think they should be allowed to adopt.
It would be damaging to the kids.
They would get bullied for having gay parents and would probably get called gay themselves...

I had glasses, I got bulled. I was white, I got bullied. I was smaller, I got bullied. I was male, I got bullied. I was nerdy, I got bullied. I was smart, I got bullied. Sometimes, I just got bullied 'cause the bullies were bored. You wanna protect kids from that FIRST? Or do you only care about proitecting kids when their parents are different?

That's what's so stupid about that argument, people who say that stuff only care about homosexual parents. Kids get bullied for everything under the sun, fix that first then you can talk about homosexual parents. The problem is bullies not parents.

I mean no offense in what i'm about to say.
Homosexuals don't really know what's good for them. they may think they are happy marrying someoenof the same gender and such, but they really aren't. it's a chemical imbalance. they deserve the same rights as us, but they need to be cured whether they like it or not. they WILL be happier once they are cured. adoption if they are married can be damaging to the child. the child could be laughed at and made fun of becasue his/hers parents are gay/lesbian/bi. it's not natural. homosexualaility is nto meant to be. if it becoems too common, it could damage the population growth rate of the world, becasue as everyone knows, two guys can't make a baby and neither can two girls. but then there's science designed to let them do that... doesn't that seem a little um... wrong?
Everyoen else is entitled to their own opinions. i hope i have not offended anyone, as i was only stating my opinion on this delecate subject.

Welcome to the world of bigotry. Who are you to judge what's good for people? You're breaking you're own religious rules by playing god and saying that they need to be "fixed" against their own will. God made them, who are YOU to question Him? Who gave YOU the right to question God's plan?

Gargoyle King
12-02-2007, 03:22 PM
Just as much rights as a Hetero. Period.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 03:34 PM
I said i meant no offense Web Rider.
I guess you are right though. they're people too and they should have the same rights as us. Still... It's just creepy. I was wathcing tV the other day, flippign channels, when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen, and after watchign for half a minute to make sure it wasn't soem comedy or soemthing and they were really gay, i changed the channel, hoping i'd forget what i'd just seen. is is really a good thing for them to be like that? i just seems go agiasnt nature...

Salzella
12-02-2007, 03:35 PM
I think exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. I can understand some of the arguments against, for example, adoption, but i don't think any of them carry enough weight to basically discriminate against someone for something that is, in the end, in one's nature, and it's hardly a disease or anything debilitating...

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 03:36 PM
I guess you are right though. they're people too and they should have the same rights as us. Still... It's just creepy. I was wathcing tV the other day, flippign channels, when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen, and after watchign for half a minute to make sure it wasn't soem comedy or soemthing and they were really gay, i changed the channel, hoping i'd forget what i'd just seen. is is really a good thing for them to be like that? i just seems go agiasnt nature...

Right, because that's representative of all gay men, everywhere.

Salzella
12-02-2007, 03:37 PM
Sorry to double post but... edit: wait, nevermind, RogueNine saved me :xp:
I said i meant no offense Web Rider.
How about, instead of saying 'no offence,' you actually make an effotr to avoid causing in the first place eh? 'Homosexuals don't know what's good for them'? 'Most horrific think i've ever seen'? Good grief...

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 03:40 PM
How else can i exppress my opinion of how wrogn homosexuality seems? you're tellign me to stop stating my opinion that i am entitled to state in a thread that was meant to debate this topic. i'm hardly suprised offense has already been taken by people when debatign such a delecate topic
but anyways. sorry if i've been a little too blunt

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 03:44 PM
I said i meant no offense Web Rider.
I guess you are right though. they're people too and they should have the same rights as us. Still... It's just creepy. I was wathcing tV the other day, flippign channels, when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen, and after watchign for half a minute to make sure it wasn't soem comedy or soemthing and they were really gay, i changed the channel, hoping i'd forget what i'd just seen. is is really a good thing for them to be like that? i just seems go agiasnt nature...

they were hardly the representation of all gay men. But without having known what it was you saw, I can't really comment further.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 03:53 PM
you're tellign me to stop stating my opinion that i am entitled to state in a thread that was meant to debate this topic.
To my knowledge, no one has told you to stop stating your opinion. Web Rider and mur'phon have asked you to clarify your stance, though. It would be good to address their queries.

Ray Jones
12-02-2007, 03:58 PM
when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seenStays to wish you that this will be the most "horrific" picture in your head for a long time.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 04:01 PM
it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen
... You mean to tell me in a world where people have their limbs cut off, people get raped repeatedly, sodomized brutally with foreign objects, and large amounts of mass murder all because they hold certain ideals others don't share, that this is the most horrific thing you've ever seen? :eyeraise:

Watch someone get disemboweled or shot in the face with a shotgun, infront of you, and tell me that some guy kissing/****ing another guy or some girl rubbing on another girl is a huge moral issue.

I think some people need to grow up a little and take a look at the bigger picture. This ain't gradeschool, no one's "icky" because of who they like. (cept pedo's, but that's a different issue entirely)

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 04:02 PM
sorry for being so blunt i guess. i've been proven wrong and i admit defeat. i've got a bad headache anyways so i'm goign to take a break for awhile.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 04:05 PM
How about, instead of saying 'no offence,' you actually make an effotr to avoid causing in the first place eh? 'Homosexuals don't know what's good for them'? 'Most horrific think i've ever seen'? Good grief...
So.. he's not allowed to speak his mind because someone might get offended?
In that case, maybe the gays should be kept under the social carpet, after all they might offend someone.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 04:10 PM
I don't believe people should really go out of their way not to cause offense. if it's not necessary to cause offense while making a point, sure, do it. But if your opinion is offensive and you know it, you shouldn't have to hold your tongue.

And Arcesious you didn't offend me, I was just taking the same perspective you did, a religious one. You're own religious rules say not to judge people and that people have the free will to choose their own life and God will bring down the judgement and such, not you. Which is why I was curious as to why you felt it was your place to "fix" something God made, after you so heartily defended "God's plan" in another thread.

Serpentine Cougar
12-02-2007, 04:11 PM
While I don't like how prevalent homosexuality has become, I don't think it's right to be mean. To anyone. For any reason.

I don't like homosexuality, but makin' laws and banging gays over the head isn't the way to get them to change. Prohibition, anyone? We ought to love everyone, no matter who they are. But that doesn't mean we have to like what they are, and it doesn't mean we can't try, in a loving manner, to get them to change.

Ray Jones
12-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Who could get you to change your preferences, and *how*? Electric shocks?

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 04:45 PM
Who could get you to change your preferences, and *how*? Electric shocks?
Maybe it'd be a reward system, like obedience school for a dog.

"Now everytime you have an erotic reaction to the opposite sex, we won't shock you."

It could work...

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 04:57 PM
actually all they need is some special medicen to fix the chemical imbalance in their heads that makes them like people of the same gender. that and maybe a little phycotherapy...

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 04:58 PM
Who could get you to change your preferences, and *how*? Electric shocks?
Rayston, it's a good thing we live so far apart, otherwise you'd be getting shocked every five seconds. ;3~~

actually all they need is some special medicen to fix the chemical imbalance in their heads that makes them like people of the same gender. that and maybe a little phycotherapy...
What, pray tell, is this miracle drug? And why haven't more people heard of it? And where is your proof that it is a 'chemical imbalance' that makes them gay?

Rev7
12-02-2007, 05:03 PM
Welcome to the world of bigotry. Who are you to judge what's good for people? You're breaking you're own religious rules by playing god and saying that they need to be "fixed" against their own will. God made them, who are YOU to question Him? Who gave YOU the right to question God's plan?
Every Christian that I know has questioned God because they are not sure how things are going to play out in their lives. Abraham in the Bible questioned God about finding the Promise Land and what not. I question God sometimes. And he always shows me what I need to after I ask.

Man was made for woman, women were made for men, not men made for men, or women made for women. In my opinion there are no ifs, ands, or buts.

I personally think that homosexuality is 100% immoral and wrong. We, as humans, are not made to desire the oppisite sex.

Information source: THE BIBLE

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 05:07 PM
Rogue Nine. the drugs to fix the chemical do exist, i don't know aht they're called but they exist if you look around a bit. medical studies prove homosexuality is a chemical imbalance.

i agree entirely with Rev7.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 05:08 PM
Man was made for woman, women were made for men, not men made for men, or women made for women. In my opinion there are no ifs, ands, or buts.

I personally think that homosexuality is 100% immoral and wrong. We, as humans, are not made to desire the oppisite sex.

Information source: THE BIBLE

your source also states that God created each and every human. Therefore, trying to "fix" homosexuals, is counter to God's will, who purposely made them gay.

Rogue Nine. the drugs to fix the chemical do exist, i don't know aht they're called but they exist if you look around a bit. medical studies prove homosexuality is a chemical imbalance.

i agree entirely with Rev7.

proof plz.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 05:11 PM
No, God didn't make them gay. This amy soudn liek superstition to you, but it is Satan's work. ever read the book of Job? you'll see what i mean by saying 'It's satan's work'

Edit: in response to Web Rider: Google it. you'll fidn tons of medical stuff sayign it's a chemical imbalance that can be treated with certain drugs.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 05:13 PM
No, God didn't make them gay. This amy soudn liek superstition to you, but it is Satan's work. ever read the book of Job? you'll see what i mean by saying 'It's satan's work'

but god made satan.

mimartin
12-02-2007, 05:14 PM
I personally think that homosexuality is 100% immoral and wrong. We, as humans, are not made to desire the oppisite sex.

Information source: THE BIBLE You are entitled to your opinion, but according to the same Bible it is not for us to judge.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 05:17 PM
Rogue Nine. the drugs to fix the chemical do exist, i don't know aht they're called but they exist if you look around a bit. medical studies prove homosexuality is a chemical imbalance.


Why should I have to go and look up sources that prove your viewpoint? If you're going to argue against homosexuality based on scientific evidence, the onus is upon you to produce sources consistent with your beliefs.

Here is the American Psychological Association's official stance on homosexuality (and sexuality in general): link (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#whatcauses)

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 05:18 PM
Mimartin: You are twisting the words of the bible Mimartin. the bible wasn't intended to express it's poitn that way in this subject.

Web Rider: In my Christinity thread, i have thouroughly explained why God made satan.

Rogue Nine: That source only proved what i said after i read it...

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 05:20 PM
It's not my place to tell them what they can and can't do. I don't approve of it, but it's not my right to tell them what they can and can't do. Pursuit of Happiness and all that. I don't like it, but that's America.

On the other side of the fish, I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. For a few reasons. One: Homosexuals seem to be more predisposed to pedophilia than heterosexuals. Not really a big rock for me to make my stand on, admittedly. But it's something.

Two: Homosexuals don't provide a normal growth environment by any standard. Aside from the fairly minor issues of them getting teased for having gay parents, there's the far more serious issues of the lack of any serious presence of one of the sexes. I don't feel that a singular presence of one sex provides an ideal or even acceptable environment for development into a normal human being. Sexism isn't an unlikely outcome, not to mention a seriously screwed up outlook. Think about it. Mothers tend to be the more nurturing ones, fathers the disciplinarians. It's not hard to see how that could go badly.

Arcesious, homosexuality is rooted a lot deeper than just a chemical imbalance. There's a choice in there. They aren't homosexuals because they have a chemical imbalance, we're talking crossed wires in the brain. Actually, it probably goes a lot deeper than that, but the point is chugging down chemicals isn't going to change your sexuality.

Also, could you please use spell check?

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 05:21 PM
Web Rider: In my Christinity thread, i have thouroughly explained why God made satan.

that's not the point. God created EVERYTHING, according to you, and whatever he didn't directly make, he setup the foundation for it to come into existance. Such as the governing laws of the universe, according to you.

Therefore, whatever Satan does, is a direct result of what God did. Without God, there would be no Satan, without Satan, no Homosexuality. Therefore, the creation of homosexuality is God's doing. And since God has a plan for everything, homosexuals are part of that plan. And therefore are under His jurisdiction, not yours.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 05:23 PM
Rogue Nine. the drugs to fix the chemical do exist, i don't know aht they're called but they exist if you look around a bit. medical studies prove homosexuality is a chemical imbalance.

I've taken lots of drugs, but never any that change how I react sexually. Nor in any medical book have I found such a drug that will cause this. There is no "cure" for being gay other than finding a special somebody that gets your trousers all riled up, and they happen to be the opposite sex.

Sometimes it happens, but pills making a guy stop wanting to slap meat with another guy, or a girl stop rubbing ends with another girl, doesn't happen.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 05:24 PM
Web Rider, Humans have free will. 'nuff said.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 05:25 PM
Web rider: Obviously there are reasons God created satan beyond what i currently understood. but i see your point. still.... this thread is starting to get rediculous.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 05:26 PM
Arcesious, I'm going to keep saying it until you stop mangling my language. SPELL CHECK.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 05:27 PM
On the other side of the fish, I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. For a few reasons. One: Homosexuals seem to be more predisposed to pedophilia than heterosexuals. Not really a big rock for me to make my stand on, admittedly. But it's something.
proof?

Two: Homosexuals don't provide a normal growth environment by any standard. Aside from the fairly minor issues of them getting teased for having gay parents, there's the far more serious issues of the lack of any serious presence of one of the sexes. I don't feel that a singular presence of one sex provides an ideal or even acceptable environment for development into a normal human being. Sexism isn't an unlikely outcome, not to mention a seriously screwed up outlook. Think about it. Mothers tend to be the more nurturing ones, fathers the disciplinarians. It's not hard to see how that could go badly.
most gay partnerships have a more feminine and masculine member. In addition, not all male-female relationships have the masculine rule-maker as the father and the kind-caregiver as the mother. many modern working families do a bit of both, and some are completly flipped. Are those wrong too?

Arcesious, homosexuality is rooted a lot deeper than just a chemical imbalance. There's a choice in there. They aren't homosexuals because they have a chemical imbalance, we're talking crossed wires in the brain. Actually, it probably goes a lot deeper than that, but the point is chugging down chemicals isn't going to change your sexuality.

Also, could you please use spell check?

I think he meant a natural chemical imbalance, like depression or bi-polar.

Web rider: Obviously there are reasons god created satan beyond wha ti currently understand. still.... this thread is ridiculous.

ohhh, I get it, when people don't agree with you and challenge your ideas and preconceived notions, it's "ridiculous". Glad to see you're just as open minded as you claimed.

Web Rider, Humans have free will. 'nuff said.
If homosexuality is a choice, then yes, this applies.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 05:28 PM
Mimartin: You are twisting the words of the bible Mimartin. the bible wasn't intended to express it's poitn that way in this subject.
And who made you final arbiter of how the Bible is to be interpreted?

Rogue Nine: That source only proved what i said after i read it...
Really?

Rogue Nine. the drugs to fix the chemical do exist, i don't know aht they're called but they exist if you look around a bit. medical studies prove homosexuality is a chemical imbalance.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 05:28 PM
I need to get firefox then...

rogue nine- i never said there's a definite cure for it, but there are drugs that help. did you see part were it says it's a hormonal imbalance? hormones are chemicals. jeesh...

The bible says itself how it is to be interpreted. obviously people who don't believe it often interpret it wrong.

web rider: i edited my post that made you think i wasn't open minded. i've said like a gazillion tiems already all over kavars things such as "I see your point". I think that's being open minded.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 05:34 PM
proof?


most gay partnerships have a more feminine and masculine member. In addition, not all male-female relationships have the masculine rule-maker as the father and the kind-caregiver as the mother. many modern working families do a bit of both, and some are completly flipped. Are those wrong too?



I think he meant a natural chemical imbalance, like depression or bi-polar.



ohhh, I get it, when people don't agree with you and challenge your ideas and preconceived notions, it's "ridiculous". Glad to see you're just as open minded as you claimed.


If homosexuality is a choice, then yes, this applies.
Take a look at the scores. Most pedophiles tend to be men, after boys. Is that a sufficient clue?

Admittedly. But no matter how Butch the woman is, she's not a man. No matter how effeminate he is, he's not a woman.

I got what he meant.

If Homosexuality isn't a choice, why are so many homosexuals opposed to attempts to cure it? Just curious.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 05:35 PM
Ah, so you're talking about this:

There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
It does not call it a hormonal 'imbalance'. It says hormones merely play a part in the shaping process. And how convenient of you to leave off the sentence after that...

In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

As for the drugs you are advertising that will 'cure' or 'help' gay people become straight, I refer you to what I've quoted above on that topic.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 05:36 PM
Homosexuals seem to be more predisposed to pedophilia than heterosexuals. Not really a big rock for me to make my stand on, admittedly. But it's something.

Actually most are Heterosexual. It's a psychological issue, dealing with twisted cycles perpetuating disturbing behavior. Yeah, some are gay, but then again so are some murderers. But like that, most are heterosexual.

Homosexuals don't provide a normal growth environment by any standard.

More normal than an orphanage. Most kids are kicked out into the world at 18 with no skills to use in the real world, making it difficult for them to obtain jobs leading to homelessness and thus a higher likelihood of violent crime in order to even eat.

Think about it. Mothers tend to be the more nurturing ones, fathers the disciplinarians. It's not hard to see how that could go badly.

It is for me. Generally, in all relationships, one partner assumes one role, the other assumes the... other role.

we're talking crossed wires in the brain.
This isn't like a car, crossed wires and suddenly your ignition is acting funny. Can you tell me, scientifically speaking, what it is that makes you want to screw with the opposite sex? Until you can, don't try to tell people you know what causes a gay person to be gay.

"Love" and/or "Lust" are natural things that cannot be simply explained with fuzzy kind words. Nor are they to be explained by some all powerful sky-daddy playing Barbie with our lives.

Rev7
12-02-2007, 05:38 PM
Therefore, whatever Satan does, is a direct result of what God did. Without God, there would be no Satan, without Satan, no Homosexuality. Therefore, the creation of homosexuality is God's doing. And since God has a plan for everything, homosexuals are part of that plan. And therefore are under His jurisdiction, not yours.
Well, if there was no God, we wouldn't be here, now would we?
And who made you final arbiter of how the Bible is to be interpreted?
Arcesious is not the 'final arbiter of how the Bible is to be interpreted'. He (sorry if I am wrong about your gender) is interpreting the Bible...how should I say this...in his own understanding. I do the same thing whenever I read the Bible. I also ask others around me on how they interpret what the Bible says.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 05:40 PM
If Homosexuality isn't a choice, why are so many homosexuals opposed to attempts to cure it? Just curious.
How about we force feed you some cure to make you want to jump in the sheets with the same sex. After all, if it's not a choice, why can't we cure you of your heterosexuality?

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 05:43 PM
Take a look at the scores. Most pedophiles tend to be men, after boys. Is that a sufficient clue?
many of these men lead long and "normal" heterosexual lives. Is that not enough proof they are straight?
No, of course it's not. These people are just whacked. They're not gay, they're not straight.

Admittedly. But no matter how Butch the woman is, she's not a man. No matter how effeminate he is, he's not a woman.
gender roles are exactly that. ROLES. They can be played by anyone. The kind of junk they have downstairs does not change this.

If Homosexuality isn't a choice, why are so many homosexuals opposed to attempts to cure it? Just curious.
If heterosexuality isn't a choice, why is nobody complaining?
Probably because they're happy that way. If black skin isn't a choice, why aren't blacks lining up to get the skin changed? If being jewish isn't a choice(they claim it isn't), why did they not line up for murder when Hitler said they needed to die?

It was because they were happy that way. And since they did not impose themselves upon others in any unwanted way(existing does not count), they felt they had a right to exist, and do things the way they did. Just like homosexuals.

Well, if there was no God, we wouldn't be here, now would we?

IF we assume god exists, you are correct. However, if that is true, it also means god created every last one of us. And, if homosexuality is a hormonal imbance or a genetic thing as Arcesious claims, then it is God's doing. And thus, it is STILL NOT our place to "fix" something God made. He obviously intended them to be like that for a reason, what that reason is, I don't claim to know(nor do I care).

mimartin
12-02-2007, 05:44 PM
Mimartin: You are twisting the words of the bible Mimartin. the bible wasn't intended to express it's poitn that way in this subject. I twisted nothing I got the quote directly out of the Bible. The Bible says that God has the right to judge us, but we do not share in that right unless we want our sin to be judged just as harshly. I sin, we all sin, I just do not want to be judged as harshly as I would judge someone else faults, so I am not arrogant enough to believe I have the right to judge anyone.

I fail to see how I am twisting anything when I quote directly from the Bible.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 05:47 PM
I highly doubt God ever intedned the verse to be used to say that you can't judge homosexuality. Verses in the bible do not contradict each other. The bible says one man and one women is the only right way for it to work, nd any other way is wrong.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 05:48 PM
Ooookay, Sitherino. My point was that it's more complex than just a simple imbalance of chemicals in the brain.

Anyway, nobody makes a cure for heterosexuality or even tries to because it's impossible, and it'd also result in a total genetic suicide of the human race. Not exactly a good outcome. On the other hand, homosexuality is pretty much pointless.

I'll remember that you can rape little boys and still remain straight. That makes sense in some kind of parralel dimension.

The junk you have downstairs makes a surprising amount of difference, actually. Ever heard of the phrase "Thinking with his penis"? Or maybe "It's her time of the month"?

Uh...you can't change yourself from being a Jew, for one thing. It's a nationality. Sort of like being Asian. And Blacks don't get changed (Well, besides Michael Jackson) because they have no reason to do so. See, being black doesn't require you to commit genetic suicide.

Just because the Bible says something is wrong doesn't give us the right to declare them wicked and evil. Remember, we're all born of the same stock.




Corinthian, do not edit my warning out of your post again. Furthermore, do not put back what I edited out of your post. This is your second warning.

Again, I will reiterate, do not be condescending in tone. It does not help discussion.

~9

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 05:53 PM
I highly doubt God ever intedned the verse to be used to say that you can't judge homosexuality. Verses in the bible do not contradict each other. The bible says one man and one women is the only right way for it to work, nd any other way is wrong.
Actually, Leviticus, Paul, and Romans say that. At least one of which is not in the Bible, but the Old Testament.

You said: Verses in the bible do not contradict each other.
The Bible says:
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

mimartin
12-02-2007, 05:55 PM
I highly doubt God ever intedned the verse to be used to say that you can't judge homosexuality. Verses in the bible do not contradict each other. The bible says one man and one women is the only right way for it to work, nd any other way is wrong.
And so that says God sees it as a sin. Show me the verse that says we have the right to condemn another for their sins. I always thought God had that right not us. I thought he/she was the judge and not mortal man.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 05:55 PM
I highly doubt God ever intedned the verse to be used to say that you can't judge homosexuality.
I'm pretty sure Jesus meant to include all sorts of judging when he said that. He didn't say, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged... oh, except for those gays. Judge them all you want.'

Verses in the bible do not contradict each other.
A lot of what Jesus said in the New Testament throws out a lot of Old Testament practices.

The bible says one man and one women is the only right way for it to work, nd any other way is wrong.
The Bible also says we should offer burnt sacrifices, kill our wives if they are disobedient and have slaves. Why aren't we following those practices anymore?

Rev7
12-02-2007, 05:56 PM
And thus, it is STILL NOT our place to "fix" something God made. He obviously intended them to be like that for a reason, what that reason is, I don't claim to know(nor do I care).
So are you saying doctors to 'fix' a brain anurism (forgive the spelling), or a broken bone, or give you stiches after a accident on your bike, or presribe a specific medicine to help you sleep at night? God made US, so I intend that you are saying that we cannot 'fix' each other, or animals. Interesting theory you have there...

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 06:00 PM
So are you saying doctors to 'fix' a brain anurism (forgive the spelling), or a broken bone, or give you stiches after a accident on your bike, or presribe a specific medicine to help you sleep at night? God made US, so I intend that you are saying that we cannot 'fix' each other, or animals. Interesting theory you have there...
'Fixing' in this case refers to trying to change someone's lifestyle/sexuality/person. Helping your fellow man out in times of misfortune don't really fall under that. See: The parable of the Good Samaritan.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 06:00 PM
Web Rider, what does that prove? There's no contradiction there. Ever hear of, you know, the Trinity? Three Persons in One? Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Geez.

Also, the whole 'fixing' thing in apostrophes makes me wonder what we're talking about here.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 06:03 PM
So are you saying doctors to 'fix' a brain anurism (forgive the spelling), or a broken bone, or give you stiches after a accident on your bike, or presribe a specific medicine to help you sleep at night? God made US, so I intend that you are saying that we cannot 'fix' each other, or animals. Interesting theory you have there...

But the part you missed is that all of those people sought treatment for their ills. There's a difference between saying: "I don't like my broken leg, I want it fixed." and "I don't like you being homosexual, you need to be fixed."

in a very literal sense, yes, if you are extremely strict on your reading of the bible, you'd be one of those "Christian Scientists" who doesn't believe in surgery or medication to heal.

But we've got free will, so we can still do whatever we choose. I think God's pretty cool with the idea of helping people if they WANT it.

Web Rider, what does that prove? There's no contradiction there. Ever hear of, you know, the Trinity? Three Persons in One? Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Geez.

Also, the whole 'fixing' thing in apostrophes makes me wonder what we're talking about here.

the first quote says that Jesus and God are the same.(A=B)

The second says that Jesus is less than God. Or more directly, God is greater than Jesus. (A<B)

A=B and A<B are not the same equation.

Rev7
12-02-2007, 06:07 PM
I think that we are talking about the medical aspect of 'fixing' a person...

'Fixing' in this case refers to trying to change someone's lifestyle/sexuality/person. Helping your fellow man out in times of misfortune don't really fall under that
Are you not changing a persons lifestlye, or that person? If you give someone stiches for a bike accident, would not the rider of the bike be a lot more careful, or wear a helmet when he/she rides the bike? I think that the examples that I have stated go along with the topic perfectly. Especially now that you have said, "'Fixing' in this case refers to trying to change someone's lifestyle/sexuality/person." :)

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 06:07 PM
No, no, no. It says they are One. It does not say they are the same. Subtle difference. Besides, ever hear the whole THREE IN ONE that I JUST talked about that you conveniently ignored?

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 06:08 PM
I'll remember that you can rape little boys and still remain straight. That makes sense in some kind of parralel dimension.
Rape is generally a power thing, not a sexual thing.

Are you not changing a persons lifestlye, or that person? If you give someone stiches for a bike accident, would not the rider of the bike be a lot more careful, or wear a helmet when he/she rides the bike?
Yeah, they're more careful because they don't want to injure themselves again. This is called learning.

There is no lifestyle change, except maybe they won't be as moronic in the future.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 06:12 PM
Yeah, that's why pedophiles exist. To gain great power over six year olds.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 06:13 PM
No, no, no. It says they are One. It does not say they are the same. Subtle difference. Besides, ever hear the whole THREE IN ONE that I JUST talked about that you conveniently ignored?

This was one of the primary divisions between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches. I doubt we're going to agree here. They never did...and there was that whole burning of Constantinople...

How can 3 be one without being the same? Now, if they said they were parts of a whole, sure, that makes sense, but they said they ARE one.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 06:14 PM
Are you not changing a persons lifestlye, or that person? If you give someone stiches for a bike accident, would not the rider of the bike be a lot more careful, or wear a helmet when he/she rides the bike? I think that the examples that I have stated go along with the topic perfectly. Especially now that you have said, "'Fixing' in this case refers to trying to change someone's lifestyle/sexuality/person." :)
So let me ask you, what would Jesus do in that instance? Would he say, 'Oh, sorry, can't help you, that would be changing your lifestyle."? Or would he get down and help the fallen person?

Again, I refer to the parable of the Good Samaritan. If Jesus didn't mean for us to help each other when one is in genuine distress, then he would not have preached so!


ADMIN NOTE: Okay guys, I know this is a very heated debate right now, so I think we should all step back and try to refocus on the topic and hand and not get side-tracked. From now on, please make your posts directly relate to the issue of homosexuality. Thank you.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 06:16 PM
How can God exist before time did? I mean, for the love of Imhotep, some things in the Bible are too complicated to understand with our puny minds. You're not big on this whole faith thing?

Jesus didn't shy away from trying to change people's lifestyles. "Let me make you fishers of men?" Every one of the twelve disciples had lives and jobs before they met Jesus, but at his beckoning they followed him.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 06:16 PM
Yeah, that's why pedophiles exist. To gain great power over six year olds.
Domination is a major drive for many peoples actions. Sexual orientation doesn't play too much into this.

A lot of people suffer from control issues, gay or straight.

Rev7
12-02-2007, 06:17 PM
There is no lifestyle change, except maybe they won't be as moronic in the future.
IMO, it is a lifestlye change. You even stated it yourself, "There is no lifestyle change, except maybe they won't be as moronic in the future." That is a lifestyle change in my book. Or maybe the person didn't wear a helmet, and after his accident he always wore a helmet when he rode on any type of bike.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 06:21 PM
IMO, it is a lifestlye change. You even stated it yourself, "There is no lifestyle change, except maybe they won't be as moronic in the future." That is a lifestyle change in my book. Or maybe the person didn't wear a helmet, and after his accident he always wore a helmet when he rode on any type of bike.
Okay. Did the doctor surgically implant a helmet in his head? No, ergo he did not "fix" the person by changing his lifestyle. He kept the guy from leaking out of his skull.

The "fix" was taken on personally by the individual. This is learning, not being fixed by modern science to not be a dumbass.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 06:22 PM
Anyway, nobody makes a cure for heterosexuality or even tries to because it's impossible, and it'd also result in a total genetic suicide of the human race. Not exactly a good outcome. On the other hand, homosexuality is pretty much pointless.
so, if it's poinltess, who cares? Since they can't reproduce, they'll die out. problem solved.

I'll remember that you can rape little boys and still remain straight. That makes sense in some kind of parralel dimension.
technically, it would make them bisexual. So you're frustrations are still misplaced.

The junk you have downstairs makes a surprising amount of difference, actually. Ever heard of the phrase "Thinking with his penis"? Or maybe "It's her time of the month"?
Euphemisms, expressions of linguistics saying A: he's a jerk 'cause he's not using his brain. and B: she's a jerk 'cause she's a she.
True, hormones affect the way we think, no argument there. Yes, men and women have different primary hormones, and therefore are affected differently by them. However, not all men and women have the same level of hormones, nor are all of them affected to the same level as each other.

Uh...you can't change yourself from being a Jew, for one thing. It's a nationality. Sort of like being Asian. And Blacks don't get changed (Well, besides Michael Jackson) because they have no reason to do so. See, being black doesn't require you to commit genetic suicide.
psstt....Jews aren't a race. They're a religion. Their genetic background is a mix of Egyptians, Arabics, and Greeks. According to medical studies, sexual prefernce is genetic, or at the very least, you seem to be born with it. Therefore, they have no need to change either.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 06:26 PM
That makes no sense. If sex preference was genetic, everyone would be heterosexuals, given that just about everyone is born from a pair of heterosexual adults. The homosexual population derives all it's population from heterosexual's offspring, so they'll never die out.

Those euphemisms actually have a truth to it. The period tends to make women rather irritable for various reasons that I don't entirely understand, given that I possess exteriors instead of interiors, and males have pretty powerful hormones, generally tied to sex and combat, which I actually have experienced.

Wrong. Jews are a race. They may be a mixture of other races, but they are still a race. Actually, they're kind of both. Followers of Judaism are often called Jews, and people from Israel are also often called Jews.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 06:33 PM
That makes no sense. If sex preference was genetic, everyone would be heterosexuals, given that just about everyone is born from a pair of heterosexual adults.

Genetic mutation, the glorious show of evolution. Many anomalies occur in nature that cannot be easily explained (if at all, hence studies), but they're all natural. It doesn't make anyone inferior, just unique. It's what causes some people to be tall, some people to be short. My parents are both well under 6', I however am, as of last measurement 6'5". How did this happen?

Those euphemisms actually have a truth to it. The period tends to make women rather irritable for various reasons that I don't entirely understand

Sure you do, it's a rapid change in hormone levels. It throws the body off, can cause irritability and change in emotion. Ever been pissed off? Ever been so happy you have no ability to properly apply it to words? It's not some amazing vaginal magic, it's hormones. You may not understand why, but that's why people advocate sexual education.

people from Israel are also often called Jews.
Yeah, because they're the jewish nation, and many are jews.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 06:33 PM
That makes no sense. If sex preference was genetic, everyone would be heterosexuals, given that just about everyone is born from a pair of heterosexual adults. The homosexual population derives all it's population from heterosexual's offspring, so they'll never die out.
Since genes can mutate, or be damaged during conception and pre-birth development, this is not true. Assuming, that, a baby was to develop in a void, unaffected by anything other than their genetics, then it is probable that they will develop similar to their parents. However, there is still the entirely natural chance for genes to mutate, or be effected by the child's genetic makeup, which is a combination of the parents. So, both those parents could have a half a dozen genes that say you're kid MIGHT be gay, by only when they match up with another specific gene do they become expressed.

Those euphemisms actually have a truth to it. The period tends to make women rather irritable for various reasons that I don't entirely understand, given that I possess exteriors instead of interiors, and males have pretty powerful hormones, generally tied to sex and combat, which I actually have experienced.
You've got cramps and blood coming from you're privates. I think that's enough to make anyone irritable, regardless of other reasons. Women have testosterone too you know, it's tied to, as you say, sex and combat. They simply have it in usually lower quantities than men. That is not to say some women aren't more aggressive than some men.

Corinthian
12-02-2007, 06:41 PM
Easy, Sitherino. Dormant genes. Your grandfathers may have been quite large, or further back in the generations.

I'm QUITE aware that the whole "Time of the month" Thing has a lot to do with hormones. I'm not an idiot, despite appearances. Forget it. I'm not going to argue with you about what I did and didn't know about the female uterus.

I'm sure that a man with the pretty face has less testosterone than the women who can grow full beards. Both are few and rather far between.

Thank you for further enlightening me to things I really don't want to know, Web Rider.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 06:43 PM
I'm sure that a man with the pretty face has less testosterone than the women who can grow full beards. Both are few and rather far between.

Thank you for further enlightening me to things I really don't want to know, Web Rider.

You're welcome.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 06:46 PM
Quote Rogue Nine:

Originally Posted by Arcesious
I highly doubt God ever intedned the verse to be used to say that you can't judge homosexuality.


I'm pretty sure Jesus meant to include all sorts of judging when he said that. He didn't say, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged... oh, except for those gays. Judge them all you want.'


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
Verses in the bible do not contradict each other.


A lot of what Jesus said in the New Testament throws out a lot of Old Testament practices.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
The bible says one man and one women is the only right way for it to work, nd any other way is wrong.


The Bible also says we should offer burnt sacrifices, kill our wives if they are disobedient and have slaves. Why aren't we following those practices anymore?

Answer: The bible does not contradict itself. you are misterpreting it. The old testament did say to have sacrifices, but after Jesus died on the cross, sacrifices were no longer nesseccary, and the judgement God decies is not to be questioned, because he is God. Yes, alot of the new testament throws out the odl testament; the traditions in th old testament, but it does not condradict. I didn't mean to say we can judge gays. i worded that post wrong wher ei said that and it came accross the wrong way. But of course, homosexuality is an act of immorality that is considered sin in the bible.
Hopefully somoen else answers what i have not answered because there are some things i can answer but i can't put them n the right words.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 06:52 PM
Yes, alot of the new testament throws out the odl testament; the traditions in th old testament, but it does not condradict.
Um, the Old Testament says one thing and the New Testament says another. I think that's a pretty good example of contradiction.

But of course, homosexuality is an act of immorality that is considered sin in the bible.
Right, but it is up to God to judge sin. Not you.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 06:58 PM
I never meant to say i'd judge them. but the bible says it's wrong, so God has already judged homosexuality, and since God's the judge and already said it's wrong, i can say it's wrong too becasue the judgement has already been passed. And you still don't seem to be able to see tha tin the bible's entire contrast, it doesn't contradict itself, but it instead supports itself.

Jae Onasi
12-02-2007, 06:59 PM
Those euphemisms actually have a truth to it. The period tends to make women rather irritable for various reasons that I don't entirely understand, given that I possess exteriors instead of interiors, and males have pretty powerful hormones, generally tied to sex and combat, which I actually have experienced.


Before the misinformation about periods (aka menstruation) gets totally out of hand, here is an article from WebMD called All About Menstruation (http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/all-about-menstruation). Read and learn, my children. :)

Women can experience irritability just prior to their menstrual cycle because of the changes in hormones. If it becomes problematic, women should speak to their doctors to make sure it's not something more serious than the garden variety PMS.

Testosterone levels vary widely among males, and neither testosterone nor estrogen levels are generally associated with homosexuality or heterosexuality. They are involved in the appropriate development and maintenance of the sex organs and fertility.

Women growing beards is called hirsutism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsutism) and may be a symptom of some specific health problems.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 07:02 PM
I never meant to say i'd judge them. but the bible says it's wrong, so God has already judged homosexuality, and since God's the judge and already said it's wrong, i can say it's wrong too becasue the judgement has already been passed.

God may have said homosexuality is wrong, however, He still hasn't said that Homosexuals are wrong. Remember the whole: Hate the sin, love the sinner?

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 07:05 PM
I never meant to say i'd judge them. but the bible says it's wrong, so God has already judged homosexuality, and since God's the judge and already said it's wrong, i can say it's wrong too becasue the judgement has already been passed. And you still don't seem to be able to see tha tin the bible's entire contrast, it doesn't contradict itself, but it instead supports itself.
That's fine if you want to be against homosexuality because of what the Bible tells you.

You still have not refuted the points I posted quoting the APA. You started your argument based on scientific factors and I think the APA defeats your position rather handily and with far more authority.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 07:10 PM
God does punish people. He not all unconditional love. his wrath is shown when it needs to be. The APA things only proves my point as i've said already. besides, we've moved on beyond the APA partially, and this discussion seems to be more one of morals now.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 07:13 PM
and this discussion seems to be more one of morals now.

what? where? no it isn't. And it's not gonna be, moral debates don't go anywhere.

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 07:15 PM
we've been debatign morals this entire debate. debatign people's right sand such is a debate of morals. moral debates never do go anyywhere that's why this thread is goign nowhere.

El Sitherino
12-02-2007, 07:15 PM
Morally, why do you oppose homosexuality? Not bringing in faith, what makes you so morally opposed to homosexuality?

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 07:19 PM
we've been debatign morals this entire debate. debatign people's right sand such is a debate of morals. moral debates never do go anyywhere that's why this thread is goign nowhere.

since you aknowledge that homosexuals are people, why do you think they deserve different rights than other people?

Arcesious
12-02-2007, 07:21 PM
Web Rider: i say they deserve the same rights as us now. all i'm saying now is homosexuality is wrong and is a sin according to my beliefs.

El sithero: it is not natural. and it just seems wrong. that is why i oppose it besides my beliefs

Rev7
12-02-2007, 07:21 PM
I don't think that this question was really pointed at me, but I will answer it anyways.

I am opposed to homosexuality because I know anatomy wise, thats not how it is meant to be. I am also opposed to it because do you see everyone, or at least a large population of gays? No. Why do some states not allow gays (married) to reside in that state? Because the state's political...people, I guess... think that it is for the most part wrong, otherwise they would let them reside in that state.

Jae Onasi
12-02-2007, 07:25 PM
Gays are allowed to reside in whatever state they want. An individual state may not recognize gay marriage (most do not), but that doesn't mean gays can't live in that state. All it means is that the state doesn't recognize homosexual union as legal.

John Galt
12-02-2007, 07:25 PM
besides, we've moved on beyond the APA partially, and this discussion seems to be more one of morals now.

My moral values vis a vis others begin and end with the question "does it directly harm another individual without their consent?"

By that sieve, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, unless they force it on (i.e. rape) someone else.

Jae Onasi
12-02-2007, 07:27 PM
Does that mean it's OK to harm an individual _with_ their consent?

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 07:30 PM
Does that mean it's OK to harm an individual _with_ their consent?

S&M is apparently quite popular these days.

Web Rider: i say they deserve the same rights as us now. all i'm saying now is homosexuality is wrong and is a sin according to my beliefs.

So, we(being straight people), have the rights to adoption and marriage, even those of us with issues. You agree now that homosexuals should have these rights too, since they're human beings like the rest of us?

Rev7
12-02-2007, 07:31 PM
Gays are allowed to reside in whatever state they want. An individual state may not recognize gay marriage (most do not), but that doesn't mean gays can't live in that state. All it means is that the state doesn't recognize homosexual union as legal.
I know, thats why I said,"Why do some states not allow gays (married) to reside in that state?"

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 07:35 PM
I know, thats why I said,"Why do some states not allow gays (married) to reside in that state?"

Gays can live where ever they want. Federal anti-discrimination laws say so. Some states simply don't recognize gay marriage liscenes. Ie: it says, "well, over there you are married, here you are not".

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 07:37 PM
The APA things only proves my point as i've said already.
How? I have shown how it goes against pretty much everything you've said regarding the scientific and medicinal aspect of homosexuality. Can you show me where it supports your argument?

Rev7
12-02-2007, 07:40 PM
I know I guess that I will say it again...
Why do some states not allow gays (married) to reside in that state? Because the state's political...people, I guess... think that it is for the most part wrong, otherwise they would let them reside in that state.
Might not have been the best way to say it, but that is what I said. I fully know that gays can live where ever they want to, but if they decide to get married they can only live in several states.

Web Rider
12-02-2007, 07:46 PM
I know I guess that I will say it again...

Might not have been the best way to say it, but that is what I said. I fully know that gays can live where ever they want to, but if they decide to get married they can only live in several states.

No, that's WRONG. They can only get married in a few states. And only several states recognize gay marriages. They remain married, and as soon as they move out of the state that does not recognize their marriage to one that does, they will be considered married again.

Yes, if they want to remain considered married, they are limited in choices.

Rogue Nine
12-02-2007, 10:00 PM
Guys, on topic, please. Any further off-topic posts after this will be deleted.

Bifurcation on forfeiture of rights was split to Morality/legality of forfeiture of rights (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=184142). --Jae

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-02-2007, 10:15 PM
I am opposed to homosexuality because I know anatomy wise, thats not how it is meant to be.Please elaborate.

Tommycat
12-02-2007, 11:33 PM
God may have said homosexuality is wrong, however, He still hasn't said that Homosexuals are wrong. Remember the whole: Hate the sin, love the sinner?
Destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

And your prior biblical quotes were in reference to punishing sinners. Judgement in that case is supposed to be reserved to God. However the bible also says to respect the laws of the land. Thus acknowledging the place of law in serving judgement of its own. This in turn gives US as people of the land the ability to pass judgement as well.

By the bible, homosexuality is wrong. It also says that they should be judged by the people to be wrong. However, it also states that masturbation is wrong and prostitution isn't(it is better to cast thy seed unto the belly of a whore than to spill it upon the ground).

Don't get me wrong, the bible is a pretty good place to get morals, but it isn't very practical in every case. Many who follow the bible aren't really aware of how they are not following it in its entirety.

The New Testament actually isn't the worst offender on contradictions, but it is the easiest to find. Much of it is explaining how it isn't a contradiction.

MdKnightR
12-03-2007, 03:15 AM
I think that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. That being said, I don't think marraige itself falls within the sphere of government regulation; it's a purely religious affair. I think all marraiges should be "civil unions" in the eyes of the law, and marraige should be left to the inividual and his/her religion. Furthermore, I think civil unions should be available to any group of people who want to merge their assets, whether it's a married couple, an entire extended family, or even a commune. All these should only be entered into voluntarily, of course, and should be able to be voluntarily left.


I support this message! Very well put indeed!


I said i meant no offense Web Rider.
I guess you are right though. they're people too and they should have the same rights as us. Still... It's just creepy. I was wathcing tV the other day, flippign channels, when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen, and after watchign for half a minute to make sure it wasn't soem comedy or soemthing and they were really gay, i changed the channel, hoping i'd forget what i'd just seen. is is really a good thing for them to be like that? i just seems go agiasnt nature...


You know, I've seen much more disturbing things in Pentecostal worship services than men dressing up as women....but that is merely a personal matter. What I find atrocious is the idea that someones rights should be restricted on the basis of someone else's comfort level. And that brings up another point. I wish anti-gay/homophobes would just admit this truth to themselves. Their stance is based less on religion and more on gut instinct.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-03-2007, 06:35 AM
I guess you are right though. they're people too and they should have the same rights as us. Still... It's just creepy. I was wathcing tV the other day, flippign channels, when i saw soem show ith a bunch of gay guys, wearing makeup ad wearing dresses and acting like girls. it was the most horrific thing i had ever seen, and after watchign for half a minute to make sure it wasn't soem comedy or soemthing and they were really gay, i changed the channel, hoping i'd forget what i'd just seen. is is really a good thing for them to be like that? i just seems go agiasnt nature...So in our world of terrorism, global warming, horror flicks, wars, torture and other gruesome features... a couple of cross-dressers is what you're the most afraid of?

Tommycat
12-03-2007, 07:10 AM
I gotta agree with those saying it really shouldn't be the most horrific thing. At least to me it is far down the horrific scale. You must not get the premium channels. Funny thing is that a majority of cross dressers are in fact straight males with a fetish for women's clothes(you'll just have to trust me on my sources, because I have worked "in the industry" for a while). The majority of gay males tend to enjoy wearing mens clothing. Heck, J. Edgar Hoover was a cross dresser. I even knew one full on female impersonator that was married(to a very lovely woman I might add). Funny thing is most rock stars wear women's clothing on stage. I understand your confusion though. At one time it was considered wrong for a woman to wear men's clothing. Strangely enough, men wearing dresses isn't very new. The taboo on it comes from those stereotypes of gay men wearing women's clothing.

If I were to run down the list of gay and bi-sexual men in film and TV, you might be shocked to learn just how many of them there are... I mean even George Takae(aka Sulu or Hiro's dad) is gay.

Oh and +1 on John Galt's proposal. I agree with it 100% Marriage is a religious thing. The government can only control Civil Unions without impeding on religious ground.

aside: I want my rainbow back. Can the GLBT community pick a new symbol.

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 08:53 PM
I've stateed my opinion of this and i will not change it. and when i said it was the most horrific thing i'd ever seen that was rhetrical or whatever the word is. maybe a better word is it was revolting? (sorry for blutness in words, i see no other way to fully establish my veiws without such words though, even though that isn;t bad language)
i realize terrorism and other things are much bigger things than homosexuality in the sense of being horrific. i'm not actually really afraid of anything, except for havign a slow, gruesome, painful death. but death itself i am not afraid of.

Rogue Nine
12-03-2007, 08:57 PM
Arcesious, could you please answer my question? In detail, if it's not too much of a bother.

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 09:39 PM
Okay then....

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.

True_Avery
12-03-2007, 09:48 PM
Okay then....

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.
Thank you.

Thank you.

That make me laugh so hard I nearly choked. Thank you for making my day.

On a serious note:

Don't try to play off that you were right and the world is after you and your beliefs when you obviously read a paragraph wrong and do not want to admit it. You read it wrong and tried to use it as proof to back up your arguement and found out that you were wrong, and instead of admitting it like a good debator you simply state that the proof is there but we simply cannot see it.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 09:48 PM
Okay then....

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.As an internet detective working for the FBI, I will be looking into this matter personally as I believe that the APA site may have been a victim of an anti-Christian hacker organization based in Montana. I will also be questioning this "Rouge Nine" privately as I believe he may have vital information concerning this particular attack.

You can rest assured the FBI will not stop until this cyber-bandit is brought to justice.

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 10:23 PM
true_avery: what the heck is your problem?
jeez. this debating is really starting to get me hot-tempered over all the people making me mad (mad/hot-temped in use of as a lighter word thna i wish to say)
jmac7142: that's not funny.

okay. i admit i read it wrong. happy?!

Web Rider
12-03-2007, 10:25 PM
Okay then....

Huh.... several paragraphs from the APA site have suddenly disappeared.... no proof that it supports me anymore. it's as if sombody did that on purpose, but id oubt you believe me. I know that I remember a sentence there saying something about hormones effectign sexuality attraction and hormone imbalances, and drugs meant to help reblance it correctly. it must be soem sort of mental drug. jeez, it's weird that paragrpah is gone! what the heck is upw ith that. *sighs in disgust* that sure will help me debate my case. (sarcastic in the last sentence)

Edit: i could've sworn i saw a paragraph supporting me yesterday... i gues si can't debate anymor ein this thread thnaks to that.

In the 1970's the DSM IV(that's 4 in Roman numerals), classified Homosexuality as a mental disorder, based on a hormonal imbalance. During the 1970's much more research was done into homosexuality and it was agreed that homosexuality was not caused by a hormonal imbalance. The DSM IV has reflected this change since...the 1970s.

So unless you were reading from an old psychology book, the APA has not said homosexuality was caused by a hormonal imbalance for some 30 years.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-03-2007, 10:37 PM
true_avery: what the heck is your problem?
jeez. this debating is really starting to get me hot-tempered over all the people making me mad (mad/hot-temped in use of as a lighter word thna i wish to say)Flustered?

jmac7142: that's not funny.Yes it was.

itchythesamurai
12-03-2007, 10:43 PM
Oh man, the other night a gay guy kissed me on the cheek because he is into me and it was really flattering but I still like women. It made me feel pretty but somewhat uncomfortable. True story.

Arcesious
12-03-2007, 10:43 PM
i'm just kind of gettign tire dof these debates. allt hey do is make me mad now. but it's like i'm addicted to debating here. it's just starting to make me P-offed at everyone.

True_Avery
12-04-2007, 12:03 AM
i'm just kind of gettign tire dof these debates. allt hey do is make me mad now. but it's like i'm addicted to debating here. it's just starting to make me P-offed at everyone.
Lets see...

You have not given any actual facts to back up your opinions but the claims that you are right and we are all wrong. That is not debating. That is throwing your ego around trying to hit as many people as possible with it.

Any apparent evidence you have given has been non-existent, wrong, or claimed by you to be true with nothing solid behind it. Debating is presenting your opinion with proof to back up your claim from books, the Internet, etc.

So far you have done a good job of "I hve a religon, I beleive it is hey only tru relgion", throwing everybody else's evidence out the door or manipulating other opinion's proof into your own argument by twisting words.

And please, work on your spelling. A spell check takes about 5 minutes to download and it is really hard to take someone seriously when they have no concept of a full sentence.

This applies to not only this thread, but all other threads you have made in Kavar's Corner. You make wild claims and outright punches at other people's religions with absolutely no regard for their personal feelings, and their right to their opinion. You are right, and screw everybody else.

I am normally a person who sees an opinion and can understand the viewpoint and allow myself to say "They have a right to their opinion", but I cannot and will not respect someone who makes the claims and accusations you make.

And with that, good day!

~snipped~

The 'cute' pictures are flame-baiting, True_Avery, please avoid those.

MdKnightR
12-04-2007, 01:12 AM
Lets see...

You have not given any actual facts to back up your opinions but the claims that you are right and we are all wrong. That is not debating. That is throwing your ego around trying to hit as many people as possible with it.

Any apparent evidence you have given has been non-existent, wrong, or claimed by you to be true with nothing solid behind it. Debating is presenting your opinion with proof to back up your claim from books, the Internet, etc.

So far you have done a good job of "I hve a religon, I beleive it is hey only tru relgion", throwing everybody else's evidence out the door or manipulating other opinion's proof into your own argument by twisting words....

...You make wild claims and outright punches at other people's religions with absolutely no regard for their personal feelings, and their right to their opinion. You are right, and screw everybody else.




Welcome to the Wonderful World of Fundamentalism! :sign2:

Tommycat
12-04-2007, 01:45 AM
i'm just kind of gettign tire dof these debates. allt hey do is make me mad now. but it's like i'm addicted to debating here.
There is an easy way to resolve this.
1) Admit defeat and give credit to superior debaters. If you cannot win the debate, simply admit you were wrong, and move on.
2) RESEARCH YOUR OWN SOURCES!!! Don't demand proof from us when you have not given us a single valid piece of evidence in support of your views and "facts"
3) Choose a topic you can defend well. Become an expert in what you are debating. If you are too broad, it makes the debate too hard to keep track of.
4) Spell check is your friend. It is hard to tlak to soemnoe siriusly if tehy cna nto understnad waht yuo are sayign

Aeroldoth
12-04-2007, 10:38 AM
Let me try to address the topic from a different angle.

What I want to ask is, "why do you think your views should be imposed on others?" It's perfectly fine to have opinions and make decisions on what sorts of things you want in your life, but why do you feel it is good to force others to live according to your views? What do you think justifies telling others how they can or cannot live?

The whole ideal of America is one of freedom, "live and let live." Don't you think it goes against this to attempt to limit the lives of others, and for no better reason than the "ick" factor? Because, let's be honest here, the reason people oppose gay rights is not because, "it'll harm the children" or, "it'll destroy marriage!" It's because when people think of gays, all they think of is gay sex, and gay sex is icky, so we must oppose it!

Religious arguments regarding homosexuality only apply to members of that faith, not anybody else. By using a religion's position on sexuality (of any kind) to argue enforcement of same is to attempt to force others to follow/obey your faith. That works for theocracies, not republics.

Gays having rights won't affect heterosexuals at all. Marriage won't disappear, the economy won't collapse, the population won't die out, and children won't be scarred for life. I simply fail to see how someone can argue relegating someone to second-class citizenship and think themselves good for doing so.

Commander Thire
12-04-2007, 09:15 PM
Once again i have strong christian beliefs but i think they deserve the same rights

Arcesious
12-04-2007, 10:04 PM
It would be really kind of nice if you people would lay off the insults. ~snipped~ I'm done debating these bigger subjects.

Arcesious, that's why this forum has moderators. If you have a concern about a post or feel like it's flaming, feel free to click the 'report post' feature (the little yellow dot next the the red/green dot beneath someone's title/avatar--everyone's except your own, you can't report your own post). Let us take care of it after that. --Jae

MdKnightR
12-05-2007, 11:52 AM
Let me try to address the topic from a different angle.

The whole ideal of America is one of freedom, "live and let live." Don't you think it goes against this to attempt to limit the lives of others, and for no better reason than the "ick" factor? Because, let's be honest here, the reason people oppose gay rights is not because, "it'll harm the children" or, "it'll destroy marriage!" It's because when people think of gays, all they think of is gay sex, and gay sex is icky, so we must oppose it!

Gays having rights won't affect heterosexuals at all. Marriage won't disappear, the economy won't collapse, the population won't die out, and children won't be scarred for life. I simply fail to see how someone can argue relegating someone to second-class citizenship and think themselves good for doing so.

Very well put indeed!

Aeroldoth
12-07-2007, 11:29 PM
Thanks, I wish someone would answer it.

PoiuyWired
12-08-2007, 03:16 AM
Let me try to address the topic from a different angle.

What I want to ask is, "why do you think your views should be imposed on others?" It's perfectly fine to have opinions and make decisions on what sorts of things you want in your life, but why do you feel it is good to force others to live according to your views? What do you think justifies telling others how they can or cannot live?

The whole ideal of America is one of freedom, "live and let live." Don't you think it goes against this to attempt to limit the lives of others, and for no better reason than the "ick" factor? Because, let's be honest here, the reason people oppose gay rights is not because, "it'll harm the children" or, "it'll destroy marriage!" It's because when people think of gays, all they think of is gay sex, and gay sex is icky, so we must oppose it!

Religious arguments regarding homosexuality only apply to members of that faith, not anybody else. By using a religion's position on sexuality (of any kind) to argue enforcement of same is to attempt to force others to follow/obey your faith. That works for theocracies, not republics.

Gays having rights won't affect heterosexuals at all. Marriage won't disappear, the economy won't collapse, the population won't die out, and children won't be scarred for life. I simply fail to see how someone can argue relegating someone to second-class citizenship and think themselves good for doing so.

^^^
QFT.

Opposing other's right with your own religion as basis is just bad.

Some stuff other people do might not be appealing to you, but bear in mind that in their eyes you might be doing something unappealing also. Don't invade other people's rights because you "don't like what they are doing" if their actions does not directly affects you.

Its not like someone is trying to give you a sore bum.

Eiganjo
12-09-2007, 11:53 AM
"live and let live."

Don't you think it would affect a childs life greatly to grow up without either a mother or a father. You are talking about the right of gay people, which by all means are not normal, but I'm more concerned about the childs right of having a normal life. Don't get me wrong, let them be gay if they want to, but don't let them affect another persons life with it, especially since a child can't do anything about his/her parents.

mur'phon
12-09-2007, 12:42 PM
gay people, which by all means are not normal

Geniuses aren't normal either, not being normal dosen't mean being any "worse" than the majority. I'm curious why you are pointing out the obvious.


but I'm more concerned about the childs right of having a normal life.

Far from everyone get adopted, those who don't end up in orphanages with lots of kids, few adults (and they tend to be only women....), and generaly end up as "loosers" later in life. Who do you think have it worse, the kid in the orphanage or the kid who have two same-sex adults who loves them?

Eiganjo
12-09-2007, 01:02 PM
I will just answer that with a question: Don't you think a child is better of with two opposite-sex parents than a pair of same-sex ones?
And you want to tell me there is no diffrence between being adopted by a genius and a gay person? Whichever way you put it, there is just no reason why a child should go to a gay couple, as long as there are heterosexual couples that are willing to adopt a child. Because the best environment for a child is, was and always will be to have a Father and a Mother.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-09-2007, 01:38 PM
I will just answer that with a question: Don't you think a child is better of with two opposite-sex parents than a pair of same-sex ones?No. Lesbian parents have been proven to be better parents than one man and one woman. I'll provide a link.

Here (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf) we go.

Wiki's summary: [...] Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types, a major report prepared by the Department of Justice (Canada) in July 2006 but not released by the government until forced to do so by a request under the Access to Information Act in May 2007, reaches this conclusion:

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion.

Game, set and match.

mur'phon
12-09-2007, 01:40 PM
I will just answer that with a question: Don't you think a child is better of with two opposite-sex parents than a pair of same-sex ones?

I don't honestly know, there probably is a diference, wether it's negative or not I don't know. Feel free to show me anything showing homosexuals to be worse parrents than heterosexuals.

And you want to tell me there is no diffrence between being adopted by a genius and a gay person?

A person could be both you know...........

Whichever way you put it, there is just no reason why a child should go to a gay couple, as long as there are heterosexual couples that are willing to adopt a child.

Emphasis mine.
You are asuming there is enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt a child, yet the amount of persons in orphanages sugest this isn't so. The choice isn't betwen hetero or homo sexuals, but betwen homosexuals and orphanages. Even if it's proven that homosexual parents are worse than heterosexual ones, there isn't enough heterosexuals who want to adopt.

So I ask you again: Who do you think have it worse, the kid in the orphanage or the kid who have two same-sex adults who loves them?

Dagobahn Eagle
12-09-2007, 02:16 PM
And you want to tell me there is no diffrence between being adopted by a genius and a gay person?The point is that not normal≠less suited for parenthood.

Don't get me wrong, let them be gay if they want to, but don't let them affect another persons life with it, especially since a child can't do anything about his/her parents.At least in Norway, orphanage children can choose for themselves which parents to go to from the age of 12, meaning they could, if they wanted to, refuse to go to a homosexual couple.

Aeroldoth
12-09-2007, 03:18 PM
Whichever way you put it, there is just no reason why a child should go to a gay couple, [...]Why not?

[...] as long as there are heterosexual couples that are willing to adopt a child. As Mur'phon pointed out, there aren't.

Because the best environment for a child is, was and always will be to have a Father and a Mother.On what do you base this opinion?

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 03:42 PM
I will just answer that with a question: Don't you think a child is better of with two opposite-sex parents than a pair of same-sex ones?

Many geniuses are societally-inept, work many hours a day, have no skill with children, and aren't necessarily financially well off enough. Many of them were pushed hard by their parents, and thus are likly to think many, less than pretty, parenting techniques are good for raising a child.

So you're saying, it's better that a single man/woman, who has no socializing skills, is rarely home, may or may not have a lot of money, and know no good tactics for parenting kids is a better parent than two gay people?

I don't know if you've noticed, but geniuses tend to be about as far from "normal" as gays.

Serpentine Cougar
12-09-2007, 04:16 PM
No. Lesbian parents have been proven to be better parents than one man and one woman. [...]

Wiki's summary: [...] Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types, a major report prepared by the Department of Justice (Canada) in July 2006 but not released by the government until forced to do so by a request under the Access to Information Act in May 2007, reaches this conclusion:

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion.
At least from the summary, it seems to me that it actually argues that there's no difference.

So you're saying, it's better that a single man/woman, who has no socializing skills, is rarely home, may or may not have a lot of money, and know no good tactics for parenting kids is a better parent than two gay people?
Actually I don't think Eiganjo said anything about single parents.

Eiganjo
12-09-2007, 07:00 PM
No. Lesbian parents have been proven to be better parents than one man and one woman.
Oh, now you want to tell me a boy's lesbian parents can teach him how to be a man? That they will be able to teach him how to work on cars(not saying there isn't girls that know how to deal with cars) or play football with them? A girl with lesbian parents will have a really hard time getting help in how to deal with boys. And I don't even want to think about two fathers explaining a little girl about her period...
On what do you base being better Parents?

A person could be both you know...........
You know, I had already written that down until I figured that noone would throw an argument like that. Comparing these two properties does not mean that they can't co-exist.

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 07:09 PM
Actually I don't think Eiganjo said anything about single parents.

I was under the impression that his use of the singular "genius" instead of it's plural form indicated he thought one "genius" parent was better than two homosexual parents.

Oh, now you want to tell me a boy's lesbian parents can teach him how to be a man? That they will be able to teach him how to work on cars(not saying there isn't girls that know how to deal with cars) or play football with them? A girl with lesbian parents will have a really hard time getting help in how to deal with boys. And I don't even want to think about two fathers explaining a little girl about her period...
On what do you base being better Parents?
You wanna know how much my mom taught me about dealing with girls? jack. I learned almost everything I know from my father. Women who are straight do not know how to approach a girl with the intent of flirting with her. Why? For the obvious reason, they've never done it. Not to mention my mother grew up in the 60's(teen years), her knoweledge about girls today is minimal. At least my father has experiance on how to approach girls from a guy's perspective and what he's done that was successful and what wasnt.

Oh, and it's a well known fact that men know nothing about the female period. WRONG. While I'm sure that two gay men would be a little lost in how it actually feels, that doesn't stop them from being able to be kind and nice and make the girl understand that this kid of thing is normal and healthy.

jeeze, your argument is essentially saying that a single mother of a son could never raise them with any knoweledge on how to be a boy, and a single father of a daughter could never teach their daught to be girly.

But come on, sexist much? Since when did every last boy and girl have to be the embodyment of "maleness" or "femaleness"? Girls raised by men and boys raised by woman may gain some valuable insight into how the other functions, it would be great for society.

mimartin
12-09-2007, 07:36 PM
Oh, now you want to tell me a boy's lesbian parents can teach him how to be a man? Are you saying a female heterosexual couldnít raise a boy to be a man either without a father in the household? Or are you only speaking to homosexual females?

Iím a man and my mother did not benefit from my fatherís influence till I was already a man. Single mothers raise many boys into to adulthood without a father; do you have any arguments that show that it would not be possible for two female parents to raise a boy into a man? Honor, honesty, trustworthy, compassion, reliability, patience, manners are the criteria that I measure myself by and these can be taught by any gender to their loved one. Besides, even if these children do not have a male influence within the household couldnít they have a male family member outside the household or a male friend of the family to be a role model to them? I had uncles and a grandfather figure as mine.
That they will be able to teach him how to work on cars(not saying there isn't girls that know how to deal with cars) or play football with them?Books, jobs or a coach. My mother still does not even know how to put gas in her car, yet I put a new compressor (A/C in case you did not know) into my car less than a month ago. I know more about auto repair than many of my friends that had dads. Why? Because if I wanted it fixed I had to learn to do it myself and not let a parent do it for me. Information that has greatly benefited me in life as working in a gas station and tire repair paid for my first two year of college.

I played sports (football and baseball) never had anyone show me how to throw a ball, but the other kids in the neighborhood. Most of them learn how to do it from their siblings and not their fathers either. Oh, and I was a pitcher though Babe Ruth League Baseball and no I did not throw underhanded.

A girl with lesbian parents will have a really hard time getting help in how to deal with boys.Why? Donít you think they were adolescent at onetime. How do you know they did not go out on dates with boys in high school? Beside boys that age are not hard to figure out. At least I know I wasnít and my friend were not. Even if I was raised without a fatherís influence.

And I don't even want to think about two fathers explaing a gil about her period... Iíve actually had to deal with this. One of my cousins got her first one when I was watching them. It was comical, but not difficult. Again, these two fathers could do as I did and call a female friend.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 11:35 PM
I had to respond to this:

Oh, now you want to tell me a boy's lesbian parents can teach him how to be a man? That they will be able to teach him how to work on cars(not saying there isn't girls that know how to deal with cars) or play football with them? A girl with lesbian parents will have a really hard time getting help in how to deal with boys. And I don't even want to think about two fathers explaining a little girl about her period...
First off, I think that my wife would be very upset to hear that she can't teach someone to work on cars. I mean her dragster that she built, welded on, hammered out the sheet metal for, MUST have been mostly me. I know a great many guys who cannot work on their own cars(hey it keeps mechanics in business). Can you tell me the best cam to get a smooth idle and be able to get 525HP on a chevy small block with an internally balanced 400 crank and bored 30 over the stock 4.000? Or what the compression ration would be with that cam and 72CC heads(assuming flat top pistons and 6" rods)? My wife can. Funny thing is, our best friend couldn't even change his own tire. My wife did it(in a skirt and heels no less haha).

I hate when people make assumptions that women can't work on cars. Considering my wife and I work on our cars together, I just can't stand the stereotype. Heck a friend of mine when we couldn't figure out what was wrong with an engine asked his mom(not his dad) what it might be. And she knew the answer.

I hate stereotypes.

Oh and by the way: Most same sex couples have a male and a female role, even if the outward appearance is the same.

El Sitherino
12-10-2007, 01:44 AM
Oh, now you want to tell me a boy's lesbian parents can teach him how to be a man?

Gender doesn't make one capable of teaching a boy how to be a man, infact the way I see it apparently fathers have been failing to do that for quite some time. I look around, don't see many men, just grown boys acting like the childish craps they are.


That they will be able to teach him how to work on cars(not saying there isn't girls that know how to deal with cars) or play football with them?

I've seen some lesbians that could probably take out an NFL linebacker, so yeah, I think they can do it.

A girl with lesbian parents will have a really hard time getting help in how to deal with boys.

Not really, love/relationships are pretty much the same no matter what combination. Especially in the teen years, lots of angst, lots of "but I wanna".

And I don't even want to think about two fathers explaining a little girl about her period...

You know, that happens from time to time in hetero couples, and single parents, too.


On what do you base being better Parents?

Showing love to a child, despite because of their flaws. Teaching them how to be a real human being by showing (com)passion, empathy, and respect. These are what make a true, normal human(e) being.

You know, I had already written that down until I figured that noone would throw an argument like that. Comparing these two properties does not mean that they can't co-exist.

You shouldn't have even made the comparison. A genius will do no better job raising a child than a gay person. A genius would only come into play through genetics, as their child would be genetically predisposed toward being of higher intellect. A genius' traits cannot be rubbed off on an adopted child, except that they'll probably understand the value of a great education and will likely encourage their adopted child to study and achieve a great education. However, this can be equally accomplished if said adopted kid was placed with a gay adoptive parent or parents who also encourage the same. So moot **** point.

Eiganjo
12-10-2007, 09:41 AM
The diffrence is Lesbians are women that are focused on women, and thats the diffrence. They either don't like, or care about men, unlike a heterosexual womn would do, and hence has way less experience.
And it is well known fact, that boys with only one parent are more common to be convicted of a crime, and most of the teen pregnancy cases are of girls with a single parent. So yes, I am saying that a single parent has not everything that is neccesary to raise a child properly. And of course there is exceptions again, don't start me on that, but it doesn't change the fact.

Let me add this question. Do you think you would be better of, if your mother would be replaced by a second gay father, or the other way around? Why is it of advantage to not have the possibility to have a parent of each gender?
Frankly, I did not even consider before, that anybody would not think of a father and a mother as ideal for a child...

Oh, and Tommycat: I have no doubt that there are some skilled female mechanics. Thats why I included the one sentence in the (...). There are always exceptions to everything. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of automechanics are male

Dagobahn Eagle
12-10-2007, 10:00 AM
Let me add this question. Do you think you would be better of, if your mother would be replaced by a second gay father, or the other way around?Bad way to phrase the question. I don't want my parents switched around, nor do most other offspring.

Why is it of advantage to not have the possibility to have a parent of each gender?I already answered that above. There are some studies that suggest that children of lesbian parents are abused less than those of heterosexual parents. A few even suggest they fare better socially.

Frankly, I did not even consider before, that anybody would not think of a father and a mother as ideal for a child...Of course not. We're used to thinking of the social structure we grow up in as the 'right' and 'ideal' one, and won't question things no one else question.

Ray Jones
12-10-2007, 10:18 AM
The diffrence is Lesbians are women that are focused on women, and thats the diffrence. They either don't like, or care about men, unlike a heterosexual womn would do, and hence has way less experience.You know, some women "turn gay" after they had some experiences with men. Same goes for men.


I'm just curious, what do you think what parents do when they raise children? I mean there are *tons* of things in life more important than to know how to engage in the opposite gender. And while we're at social interaction, friendship, reliability, trust, all things that are not gender dependent, but must be learned. Moreover, parents who have nothing better to do than teaching their 5 year old kiddo how to get it on with the other kiddos fail in my eyes.

Eiganjo
12-10-2007, 10:25 AM
Bad way to phrase the question. I don't want my parents switched around, nor do most other offspring. It is not a bad way to phrase a question. I know I would not accept a second father, if that in any way would happen to me. Actually I think I would not only not accept the second, but loose all my respect for my actual one.

And yeah, I guess that's how I was raised. I had never even met a gay person until I moved to the US, and I know some people may have a problem with me saying that, but it grosses me out. I actually already changed my mind into accepting gay people as they are, even though I still try to stay away from them. And seriously, cross-dressing guys and all having two guys talk about ana* ***...I hope they do not try to adopt a child, I'm sorry, but that is just too much.

Ray Jones
12-10-2007, 10:32 AM
You know gay people have other things to do as well, besides **** butts or dress up somehow. And just so you know, men dressing up in womens dresses is not necessarily connected to gayness. And do you also have a problem with girls riding plastic dicks? :rolleyes:


And of course you wouldn't "accept" your new father. On the other hand, in case your father would leave for another woman, would you accept her right away to replace your "old" mother?

mur'phon
12-10-2007, 10:34 AM
Let me add this question. Do you think you would be better of, if your mother would be replaced by a second gay father, or the other way around?

I wouldn't mind if one of my parrents where switched with one of the opposite sex any more than if they where switched with one of the same sex.

Now would you kidly answer this question: Who do you think have it worse, the kid in the orphanage or the kid who have two same-sex adults who loves them?

Oh, now you want to tell me a boy's lesbian parents can teach him how to be a man?

Gender roles are largely decided by culture, and personally I believe it would be a good thing if same sex parrents could blur the line betwen male/female roles. But asuming gender roles are something we want, the guy would be no worse of than the guy in an orphanage with only female workers.

Rogue Nine
12-10-2007, 10:41 AM
As a bit of anecdotal evidence, I was raised by my grandmother and several aunts, with no father figure present during my formative years. I am straight, fairly well-adjusted (I think), have not committed any crimes and am relatively successful in most things I do. The lack of a father figure in my life has not affected me negatively in any way whatsoever.

In regards to the topic of gay adoption/parenting the American Medical Association (link (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html#H-60.940)) fully supports same-sex adoption, the American Psychological Association (link (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html)) deems gay parents fit and that children's psychosocial development is not impaired in anyway, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (link (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339)) promotes full support of same-sex adoption.

If it's good enough for those guys, it's good enough for me.

mimartin
12-10-2007, 11:08 AM
The diffrence is Lesbians are women that are focused on women, and thats the diffrence. They either don't like, or care about men, unlike a heterosexual womn would do, and hence has way less experience. And white men canít dance or jump. Love those stereotypes, so ground into our collective way of thinking, yet so untrue. First off how do you think a woman that was married to an abusive alcoholic husband that left her after nine years of marriage the moment she gave birth to a new born is going to feel about men? Letís just say even heterosexual women can hate men.
Second not all feminist hate men or are lesbians. That is a stereotype plain and simple. Donít you think these woman had brothers, fathers, grandfathers, uncles, friend and coworkers that were males in their life.
And it is well known fact, that boys with only one parent are more common to be convicted of a crime, and most of the teen pregnancy cases are of girls with a single parent. So yes, I am saying that a single parent has not everything that is neccesary to raise a child properly. And of course there is exceptions again, don't start me on that, but it doesn't change the fact.That is all going to depend on the parent isnít it?
That is like saying most of these kids that shoot up schools had two parents, so children that have two parents are more likely to shoot up school. That would be an incorrect statement just as saying one parent kids are more common to be convicted of crime. Both have more to do with the parent/parents and how they are raising the child then the fact that there are one or two parents.

One parent households are more difficult to raise a child in balancing the needs of the child with economic considerations can be difficult, but not impossible. The fact that we are talking about homosexual parents make this moot anyways as there are two parents even if they are of the same sex.

Do you think you would be better of, if your mother would be replaced by a second gay father, or the other way around? Better than what? Better than being with both bioglocial parents that are good people and love the child? Then my answer is no. Better than being in a house with alcoholic abusive straight parents or going to a loving caring homosexual household, then I would be say the child was better off in the homosexual household. I fail to see what sexual orientation has to do with this if we are talking about people that will love and put the childís needs ahead of their own.

Why is it of advantage to not have the possibility to have a parent of each gender? Children are removed from halfway houses, orphanages and abusive household and given loving caring homes. What other advantage do you need?
Frankly, I did not even consider before, that anybody would not think of a father and a mother as ideal for a child... Never said it wasnít, no one is saying we should take children away from their parents in the middle of the night and give them to a homosexual couple. We are talking about adoption. These children have already lost their parents for whatever reason and are looking for replacements. Are you saying it is not best to put them in to a household that wants them and that will love them than leaving them in an institution such as an orphanage?

ET Warrior
12-10-2007, 11:18 AM
and all having two guys talk about ana* ***...I hope they do not try to adopt a child, I'm sorry, but that is just too much.Out of curiosity, when you are around your parents do they often engage in conversation about the way that they copulated the night before? Or how they intend to throw down later that evening? Mine certainly don't. In fact, most of my knowledge involving members of the opposite gender, sex, etc. was learned socially. My father never sat me down and told me how to pick up girls, he never taught me anything about cars (I can change a tire and fill it up with gas...), he just taught me how to be a good person, gave me a few general social skills, and supported me in the things that I do.

Answering your question, no I wouldn't have wanted one of my parents exchanged for a member of the opposite gender, but that's only because I love the parents that I have right now, and wouldn't want either of them changed at all. But were one of them to pass away and the other to have a change in sexual orientation, I would not be against it, and certainly am not so closed minded as to lose any respect for someone who has done so much for me.

Aeroldoth
12-10-2007, 12:53 PM
Of course not. We're used to thinking of the social structure we grow up in as the 'right' and 'ideal' one, and won't question things no one else question.Very well said.

Darth Xander
12-10-2007, 01:07 PM
Homosexuals are humans too, they should get the same rites as every other human on this planet.

Tommycat
12-10-2007, 09:12 PM
It is not a bad way to phrase a question. I know I would not accept a second father, if that in any way would happen to me. Actually I think I would not only not accept the second, but loose all my respect for my actual one.
Yes it is. Those that have two parents that are still together are more likely to say that they would not accept one to be changed. My parents divorced when I was a child. My mother raised me for a long time. Had she gained a new partner that was a woman, It really wouldn't have affected me. In fact for a while, her best friend stayed with us for a long time. During that time I learned how to pitch a baseball, got my speed up to 89 MPH with my mother's friend's help. I learned how to rebuild an engine from the ground up.
And yeah, I guess that's how I was raised. I had never even met a gay person until I moved to the US, and I know some people may have a problem with me saying that, but it grosses me out. I actually already changed my mind into accepting gay people as they are, even though I still try to stay away from them. And seriously, cross-dressing guys and all having two guys talk about ana* ***...I hope they do not try to adopt a child, I'm sorry, but that is just too much.
That certainly is your perogative to be grossed out. However I bet you met one, and didn't know it. Heck you probably see them more often than you think. In the adult industry most of the men are gay, even though they portray heterosexual activities. Most cross dressers aren't gay. let me repeat that MOST CROSS DRESSERS ARE NOT GAY! Many straight men just enjoy wearing women's clothes. For the most part gay men enjoy wearing nice MEN'S APPAREL. Why you ask? Gay men are attracted to MEN, not women.

Oh and quite frankly, if my parents had talked about what they did with eachother the night before.... EWWWWWWWW. I don't talk about what I did to my wife the night before. I will say this, Did you ever stop to think where your mother's lips were before she kissed your forehead?

Aeroldoth
12-10-2007, 09:35 PM
I will say this, Did you ever stop to think where your mother's lips were before she kissed your forehead?

Now there's an image. I must admit I had never thought of that until this very moment. Thanks Tom. :/

(I think we can all agree parent sex is icky.)

Web Rider
12-10-2007, 09:38 PM
Most cross dressers aren't gay. let me repeat that MOST CROSS DRESSERS ARE NOT GAY! Many straight men just enjoy wearing women's clothes.

It's also one of those annoying double standards. Save for men who go all-out to look like a woman, there's no taboo against women wearing mens clothes, so the idea that men couldn't wear a skirt or a dress, which are really the only female clothes uniquely different from men, is silly. The Scots do it with kilts, and they're some of the manliest men you'll ever meet.

Aside from the view you might get on a drafty day of a man in a skirt, that comes down to another double standard. If men kept themselves less hairy below the belt, I'm sure nobody would really care.

Tommycat
12-10-2007, 09:55 PM
It's also one of those annoying double standards. Save for men who go all-out to look like a woman, there's no taboo against women wearing mens clothes, so the idea that men couldn't wear a skirt or a dress, which are really the only female clothes uniquely different from men, is silly. The Scots do it with kilts, and they're some of the manliest men you'll ever meet.

Wellllll Female impersonators are about 60/40 gay and straight men. One guy I know met his wife while he was a female impersonator.... She was a lesbian(snicker). Trans-sexuals are a different matter altogether. They are people that truly feel that internally they are the opposite sex. There is even neurological activity that appears to back this up.

And I'm Scottish(well I have a Scottish background). Go to the Highlander games and tell them its a skirt. Then tell me how far they threw you.

PoiuyWired
12-11-2007, 04:33 PM
I will say this, Did you ever stop to think where your mother's lips were before she kissed your forehead?

Darn that is EPIC!!! 0.o And put it this way, I am usually not easily grossed out.

Now Back ot Topic. Thing is, while I am annoyed by some (not all) male-in-female-clothing, it is really no worse than some fugly-female-in-over-sexy-outfit. So before you get grossed out by some hairy man with that big mustache dangingling out of that pink miniskirt, think about your local horror of a female ancient that runs around with overly-tight skimpy tiny outfit(if you can even call those clothes/outfit) that disappears from its own bodymass... Paperbag job requested...

On the other hand, there are guys that would look better than many females in girly outfit, and vice versa. Bad fashion is just that. And having bad fashion and such do not really mean they are bad parents. Well, except for teaching their kids make up and such, but that is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.

My point, yes sometimes some people act weirdly and might annoy you, but people like that are actually all around you to start with. You are just desensatized by some of them, and some... not yet. But as long as they don't bump into your business, its all fine. One group is really no worse than the other.

PS: It might actually be fun saying "Cute Skirt!" to the good old scotsman in their highlander games. I mean, I am actually calling my hakama the "little black dress" Hack, my sister actually borrow one of those for her dinner party. :)

Tommycat
12-11-2007, 09:10 PM
Darn that is EPIC!!! 0.o And put it this way, I am usually not easily grossed out.
I like to think of it as "Just plain EVIL"

Serpentine Cougar
12-12-2007, 01:18 AM
I was under the impression that his use of the singular "genius" instead of it's plural form indicated he thought one "genius" parent was better than two homosexual parents.
I was just referring to the question itself.

fawlks
12-12-2007, 04:19 PM
most gay men don't were dresses or anything else of a woman's attire though there have been cases were STRAIGHT men have been known to were dresses.

As far as kids being bullied, kids will be bullied if there parent are poor,rich,gay or even dead.kids have always been bullied and will most likely stay that way.

as far as getting married goes i have no intention of getting married anytime soon but is i so chose i would like the option to be opened.

I have a question about the bible.Who wrote THE BIBLE? and now i will answer my question MAN.

on another note. WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT A CURE.
a cure would not makes us feel better but it would make other people who view us a freaks feel better .

PoiuyWired
12-12-2007, 09:23 PM
Welcome to the forum. ~snipped~

But just note that, we are not talking about the bible or other religious books in this thread, nor are we going to talk about any so-called cure for homosexuals.

Actually, a possible 'cure' is a fair game topic in this thread. --Jae

We are more concerned with the affacts on the adopted kids and the like.

JoeDoe 2.0
12-12-2007, 10:07 PM
Well, I personally know a couple of homosexual people and they are friendly and even funny. I think just because they are attracted to the same sex doesn't make them less of a human being, so they should have the same rights as any person. On the adoption thing: I think ( and no I'm not gay ) that a homosexual couple would do a good job raising a child ( teaching them tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs)

At the end of the day, they are as human as we are

Web Rider
12-12-2007, 11:14 PM
Actually, a possible 'cure' is a fair game topic in this thread. --Jae

Personally, I think that's a REALLY bad idea.

Jae Onasi
12-12-2007, 11:33 PM
Personally, I think that's a REALLY bad idea.

That depends on how it's handled by the individual poster and how they discuss it--e.g. the success/failure rates of alleged cure attempts for instance. I'm not particularly interested in discussing it, but I'm not going to make it off limits, either.

mimartin
12-12-2007, 11:35 PM
Actually, a possible 'cure' is a fair game topic in this thread. --JaePersonally, I think that's a REALLY bad idea.While I would tend to agree with you Web Rider it was made a choices in the poll.

WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT A CURE.
a cure would not makes us feel better but it would make other people who view us a freaks feel better .Iíd agree with fawlks sentiment here. I would not want a cure from being heterosexual. I would not want a cure from being a Christian. I would not want a cure from being maleÖ Why would someone want a cure from being who they are if they are happy with who they are? The only thing a cure for homosexuality would do is make heterosexuals happy.

I am not arguing that a cure is possible. I am saying there is nothing to cure. Even if you believe there is, would you force a cure on someone that did not want it? If so, would it be all right for them to force a cure on what they considered freakish about you?

Tommycat
12-13-2007, 12:48 AM
The only thing a cure for homosexuality would do is make heterosexuals happy.
a minor nit pick

Some homosexuals have expressed a desire to be "normal" so they could "fit in." It is more common than you think. Generally though it is because of outside pressures. Parents, schools, peers all convincing them that they are not normal. I had a friend who was nearly driven to suicide by his desire to be "normal." Fortunately we found a support group that taught him to accept himself.

mimartin
12-13-2007, 09:03 AM
a minor nit pick

Some homosexuals have expressed a desire to be "normal" so they could "fit in." It is more common than you think. Generally though it is because of outside pressures. Parents, schools, peers all convincing them that they are not normal. I had a friend who was nearly driven to suicide by his desire to be "normal." Fortunately we found a support group that taught him to accept himself.
A minor nit pick, if you would look at the line above the one you quoted for me you would not have been quoting me out of context. Yes, I agree with you. I just found out a friend from high school was a homosexual. Never knew it until two weeks ago. He was married and had a child and now he is dead because of what other expected him to be.

PoiuyWired
12-13-2007, 03:37 PM
Well, if someone needs to find a "cure" for what they are so that they can "fit in" it means that the society as a whole is still having some serious problem.

I know this sounds weird, but seriously better things should be done on the whole acceptance/tolerance level rather than providing so-called "cure" for being homo, christian/muslim/atheist/etc, black/white/etc, hutts...

Aeroldoth
12-13-2007, 06:16 PM
A sig I used for many years in another forum was: "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change." (The fact that this came from Michael Jackson was not ironic, but intentional.)

People spend sooo much time and effort trying to make the world better by changing others when, IMO, they should be spending it on the one thing they really can change... themselves.

MJ-W4
12-13-2007, 06:20 PM
^^ Award-winning. :thumbsup:

PoiuyWired
12-14-2007, 02:15 PM
A sig I used for many years in another forum was: "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change." (The fact that this came from Michael Jackson was not ironic, but intentional.)

People spend sooo much time and effort trying to make the world better by changing others when, IMO, they should be spending it on the one thing they really can change... themselves.

Well, I guess we all should be like MJ... though changing from a little black guy to some pale-looking ... thing from Racoon City is not what I think I should get myself into, plus I actually enjoy grown females, despite my love for toys.

Plus, sometimes its the problem about the whole structure/system rather than the views of a bunch of people that would make a difference.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-14-2007, 06:31 PM
Some homosexuals have expressed a desire to be "normal" so they could "fit in."That's only natural. It's akin to growing up in Norway with dark skin - you'll find yourself wishing you had the skin colour of those around you so that you weren't treated as a foreigner. As for actually 'curing' those of the homosexuals who want to have their orientation changed (and vice versa), I don't mind. Really. I mean, come on, there are sex change operations out there. You have the right to have your gender changed, why not your sexual orientation?

MJ-W4
12-20-2007, 07:42 AM
Well, I guess we all should be like MJ... though changing from a little black guy to some pale-looking ... thing from Racoon City is not what I think I should get myself into, plus I actually enjoy grown females, despite my love for toys.

Plus, sometimes its the problem about the whole structure/system rather than the views of a bunch of people that would make a difference.Sorry if I was misconstrued: 'Award-winning' refers to People spend sooo much time and effort trying to make the world better by changing others when, IMO, they should be spending it on the one thing they really can change... themselves.and the wisdom contained therein. :)

John Galt
12-20-2007, 11:55 AM
A sig I used for many years in another forum was: "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change." (The fact that this came from Michael Jackson was not ironic, but intentional.)

People spend sooo much time and effort trying to make the world better by changing others when, IMO, they should be spending it on the one thing they really can change... themselves.

QFE.