Home - List All Discussions

Why does homosexuality exist and what does it have to do with raisng children

by: leftsfoil

The following are excerpts from a previous post named, "The true purpose of marriage". Because it has become evident to me that nearly every post in this forum gets high-jacked and derailed by the pro-Gay crowd, I've decided to re-post my knowledge of homosexuality itself, and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to the proper raising of healthy human children, in a separate thread. This way all the Gays and their sympathizers can perhaps learn a little something about themselves and at the same time, have an opportunity to spew their venom in the appropriate thread for a change.
Part #1. Homosexuality explained.
Homosexual behavior in the human genome survives because it's generally not lethal. It is however, an addictive and from the standpoint of benefiting the species, a non-productive behavior. The most common form of addiction in humans is sexual addiction. Who can deny this? We all got it to one degree or another. It is a brain chemical reward system that we all share that is not only the primary motivator for procreation and thus species survival, but it is also the gray matter hard wiring system that makes us susceptible to drug addiction. Drugs that closely mimic the effects of orgasmic chemical release are hard to resist.
Personally I would prefer I was not privy to the sexual habits of anyone gay or straight. I believe sex should be a private matter. This is why I denounce porn and why I'd be happy if you the gay community kept their activities on the DL.
Part#2. The following is what a perfect world would look like from the standpoint of a child's well being.
A. The child would be of legitimate birth to a loving Mother and Father who ran a household based upon mutual respect. The Mother's primary responsibilities would be to love, nurture, to discipline and provide an example of a healthy female adult. The Father's primary responsibilities would be to love, provide resources, to discipline and provide an example of a healthy male adult.
B. The child would be raised in the Christian faith in order to educate him/her in the ways and value of civil behavior and honesty.
C. The child would be socialized early and know the joy of family and the sense of belonging and security that it brings.
Practicing homosexual behavior has absolutely nothing to do with the well being of a child.
Homosexuality is about adults having sex with whomever they want to have sex with. Clearly, this is a topic and practice that children have no use for.
I, having been a child, personally know that parents are embarrassing enough without your friends knowing/thinking that they are Gay, or as my teen-aged son once called them.. M&Ms = Mutual Masturbaters.
So O.K. M&Ms, it's time for you to let your nonlinear and self serving, venomous and vile thoughts and feelings soil and defile the haloed pages of this blessed ProLife forum. Please don't hold back. We need to hear all you have to say. We need to know the enemy. C'mon.. give it to us. Let it all out.
May you bask in the warmth of God's love forever and ever.

reply from: BossMomma

Lovely, another bigot with their head up their ass.

reply from: leftsfoil

You go girl! That's what I'm looking for. Insults.. not a reasoned argument refuting my position.. no rational dissertation of the facts proving me wrong.. just insults. I suspect that you are still holding back a little. Are you sure you don't have something else you want to tell me?

reply from: sk1bianca

well... we have to admit that kids grow up learning from adults, imitating people around them.
personally, i would be pretty disturbed if my kid came home from school and said he saw two guys kissing in the street, or some parade with men wearing women underwear.

reply from: Banned Member

I once saw a local gay couple in public and a conversation was taking place. The couple is two women who are "raising" a teenage daughter from one of the women's previous marriage to her husband. Without the details of the conversation I will tell you that the conversation ended with the daughter telling her non-mom "I'll let you call me honey when you let me call you Butch". Yeah, you feel the love in the air.

reply from: Banned Member

No Spinwiddy, perhaps raised by Christians like Scott Hahn, or Kirk Cameron or the Rose family (you know, that Lila Rose person and her many brothers and sisters).

reply from: Faramir

An argument could be made that heterosexual couples who use contraception could also be called M&Ms.
Agreed?

reply from: faithman

You go girl! That's what I'm looking for. Insults.. not a reasoned argument refuting my position.. no rational dissertation of the facts proving me wrong.. just insults. I suspect that you are still holding back a little. Are you sure you don't have something else you want to tell me?
snicker....

reply from: Faramir

You go girl! That's what I'm looking for. Insults.. not a reasoned argument refuting my position.. no rational dissertation of the facts proving me wrong.. just insults. I suspect that you are still holding back a little. Are you sure you don't have something else you want to tell me?
Well, when you bait someone with a comment like yours below, what do you expect?
You've already accused them of "vile and venomous thoughts and feelings" before they had an opportunity to respond.
Why not try again, but without a chip on your shoulder and see if there is a different response?

reply from: Banned Member

Faramir, Catholics are already opposed to contraception as are many Christians.
The rejection of contraception is something which is coming of age among Christians of all denominations. I have seen a serious shift especially among protestant non-Catholics on the issue of contraception. I would even say that I think that non-Catholics are taking a cue from Catholics on contraception largely because they have been so out in front on the issue of abortion.

reply from: Faramir

Is Leftsfoil a Catholic?
Do you know whether he or she opposes contraception?
I haven't seen that shift you speak of. Where have you seen evidence of it?

reply from: Banned Member

Being a Catholic is how you live your life in conjunction with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church. One is not a Catholic simply because they call themselves Catholic. Or they are in a state of grave sin or likely anathema. It is the responsibility of Catholics to know the teachings of the Catholic faith and I might add to teach other Catholics the teachings of the Catholic faith.

reply from: faithman

Are you talking pre- V2, or this gobbledy goop that is passed off in this post modernist age?

reply from: Banned Member

Many Catholic, including priests and bishops took Vatican II to be something that it wasn't. The 20th century was a horrible century for the Catholic Church. Changes in the Liturgy led people to believe that the Church had changed and many lived as though the Catholic faith and Jesus Christ himself had changed. Catholic education was deplorable. I quit my own Catholic education when I was in gradeschool. My own Catholic education came by reading some newer more orthodox Catholic writers and older Catholic writings and I wasn't confirmed until the age of 33. Looking over the material that was being taught to Catholic confirmants even in 2006 I found it be be ambiguous at least and lacking in true Christian orthodoxy. I often find that many non-Catholics are more Catholic than they realize and I am always impressed by their biblical knowledge.
One area that Catholic education is lacking in; the defense of Christian marriage as being between one man and one women and the education of children in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I haven't heard the word abortion mentioned in my own church in 12 years or more.

reply from: faithman

Don't feel put upon. I pick on protestants just as hard. despite the pagan trappings, there are many sincere catholics around that have a deep love and reverence for the Lord Jesus Christ.

reply from: Faramir

I have heard prolife messages from our pulpit many times--several times a year and at least once or twice a year involving a special prolife speaker.
I have heard abortion mentioned in many Catholic churches throughout the country.
If you have not heard anything about prolife or abortion in 12 years, maybe it's time to find a new parish or dicese. I
Regardless, the Church is the same Church pre and post Vatican I and Vatican II.

reply from: leftsfoil

Ah.. Faramir The shiniest penny to the left.
Agreed. But not exclusively without exception. Agreed?
You've already accused them of "vile and venomous thoughts and feelings" before they had an opportunity to respond.
Why not try again, but without a chip on your shoulder and see if there is a different response?
So.. you perceive the trap. Only the dumb ones take the bait so willingly. Long experience has shown me that leftist need no urging to nastiness.
I profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I was baptized in the Baptist church, married in the Lutheran church, attend midnight mass in the Catholic church every Christmas eve and am a member of The Coral Ridge Ministries Presbyterian Church in Orlando, Florida. As I said, I profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I love Jesus and by the way, thank you for asking.
May you bask in the warmth of God's love forever and ever.

reply from: Faramir

Huh?
Not sure what that means, but thank you for your responses.

reply from: Faramir

I see you attend a Catholic Church once a year, so you attend Mass as frequently as half the Catholics do.

reply from: Banned Member

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk135/kedesign/me_yellow2.jpg

reply from: leftsfoil

Hey Toofy.. if u r homo.. n u tink dat i am homo.. den why do u tri tu m8k fun uf me? I taut dat duh homos wood bee nice tu one anudder. U wun meen homo Toofy.

reply from: faithman

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

reply from: Shenanigans

Isn't that a homosexual thing?

reply from: Shenanigans

Is Leftsfoil a Catholic?
Do you know whether he or she opposes contraception?
I haven't seen that shift you speak of. Where have you seen evidence of it?
IF anything its swinging the other way, every Catholic couple I know, bar one, are using contraception. I know Catholics who have abortions and still show their face for communion at church. And every protestant I know uses contraception. In fact, a good deal of Protestants I know actually read horoscopes, go to mediums and do other bibically contraindicated actions.
I'm guessing its the lazy arse religious culture that exists down here.

reply from: Banned Member

Every Catholic and protestant you know uses contraception? What did you do, ask them?

reply from: Shenanigans

Nope.
They told me.
You'd be amazed what people, even complete strangers tell me. I'd sure as hell like to know what kind of vibe I'm giving off that I'm given this kind of info. >_<'

reply from: BossMomma

Isn't that a homosexual thing?
only with men, typical no?

reply from: BossMomma

You go girl! That's what I'm looking for. Insults.. not a reasoned argument refuting my position.. no rational dissertation of the facts proving me wrong.. just insults. I suspect that you are still holding back a little. Are you sure you don't have something else you want to tell me?
Your entire post was nothing but a jumble of insulting opinions, not fact so, I answered insult with insult. Homosexuality is not a disease, disorder or, deviant act. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals are attracted to persons with characteristics they find desirable. Relationships form and are established. Children raised in homosexual relationships are just as happy and healthy as are children in hetero relationships. My kids and my girl friends kids consider each other family and love one another. We work together to ensure that every aspect of their needs are met. You have no experience with homosexual relationships or families yet you want to come and spew your "facts" about us based on what your church teaches? Well I have news for ya, God made Gays too. God made us who and what we are and we are proud of who and what we are. Get over yourself.

reply from: Banned Member

It is a lack of men and women recognizing their proper roles in the family as mother and fathers and as male and female sexual persons that has greatly aided in the destruction of the family. Young people I think now greatly look at a lack of early success in personal heterosexual relationships as somehow being reflective of something defective in their own personal sexuality. There are many ways to be a happy heterosexual person without subscribing to superficial stereotypical images.
Young people more than ever view sexual conquest and the amount of sexual gratification in their lives as being the equivalent of a loving relationship. Children naturally look for role models and whether they believe they have a 'happy' relationship with their parents or not, they tend to naturally emulate those people who are raising them. If children seen a man and woman who respect one another, or who at least or perhaps most importantly make every effort to work to respect one another, than that is what they will emulate. If children see members of the same sex evading their roles as sexual persons by escaping into destructive homosexual environments, one after another, than sadly they may emulate that as well. Children need correct and positive role models.
Relationships are not simply about personal sexual and emotional gratification of immediacy. Men and woman must be responsible to one another as a man and as a woman for what each and the other truly is. They must be responsible and are accountable for who they are to their children and to society, because how we act ultimately make a greater impression in the moral formation of children than simply what we say to children. The children who we raise today become the adults of tomorrow. Adults need to be about being complete human persons on every emotional, creative and social level that they can and not simply about sexual sense gratification.

reply from: BossMomma

My girl friend and I have not had sex even once in the months we've been together, our relationship is based on love and devotion. She's shown a restraint that none of the men in my life could show, all they wanted was to jump my bones at the earliest opportunity. So once again, you fail.

reply from: Banned Member

So you feel safe with this woman because you do not feel sexually threatened the way that you do when you are with a man? And what if she does suddenly make those advances? How will you react then? Have you considered that men should act in a way of respect? Suc men do exist. Are you looking for love or friendship? Because if you are with a homosexual woman sooner or later she is going to seek sexual companionship in sexual contact with you and if you are not that person, she will seek that companiponship elsewhere. Men and women seek that same restraint in one another and that is what should be expected. It's not unique to homosexuals despite what you may think.

reply from: xnavy

homosexualty is not a healthy lifestyle, because even the red cross won't accept their blood, try to donate blood at the red cross, and
their is several questions that you have to answer about homosexual sex.

reply from: Banned Member

Do I sound like I have no clue? Do I sound like a man of no experience or knowledge? It's perfectly normal and expected for a single male to have not had sex with a woman. That doesn't mean that he should have no knowledge of what is expected of people as men and women. Being promiscuous does not make you an expert on anything but personal failure. And yes, sex with a person who is not your own spouse or to whom you are not married is a great personal failure.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm gay and a blood donor, go figure.

reply from: BossMomma

I've considered that men Should act in a respectful manner, but I've also observed that they don't. When my girl friend and I are ready to take that next step we'll talk about it and make sure we're both comfortable. We have both found love and romance without sex as we see each other as persons and not simply bodies with which to achieve gratification.

reply from: sk1bianca

because i wouldn't want my kids to think that homosexual behavior is healthy or normal, or that it's ok for people to display their sexual deviations in public.

reply from: Faramir

Still trying to discern your meaning, leftsfoil. Care to shed a little light?
If you mean "left" as in "leftwing" or "liberal" in the political sense, I'd be interested in knowing what posts of mine lead you to draw such a conclusion.

reply from: xnavy

if you have donated you know they have questions about men sleeping with men. i have given over 33 times at the american red cross

reply from: Faramir

Leftsfoil, regarding your comment in response to my comment about contraceptive sex--I do not agree.
What would be the exceptions?

reply from: BossMomma

Yeah, your right. Lets disband the catholic church, plenty of sexual deviation in there.

reply from: BossMomma

I can answer with all honesty that I'm not a man sleeping with men. lol

reply from: 4given

BM: sk1bianca is not Catholic. And I agree that is inappropriate to display any sexual deviations in public. You?

reply from: Banned Member

Do you realize how many young people are now counting themselves among bi-sexuals? They are dating people of either sex or worse are experimenting with sex both heterosexually and homosexually. It's an age of degradtion of morals on a scale hitherto unknown. People may be born a specific way, but they can choose to act however they choose. I know one gay male who dated a woman for a while, for something different. Who knew right?
People may all be born to parents who conceived children through heterosexual encounters but that does not mean that the children grow up in heterosexual homes. Divorce is common where one partner or the other comes out and ends up raising their child in a homosexual environment. I have been a witness to this in my own community and more than several times. Really Spinwiddy, perhaps you should get out more.
Not every child emulates the behaviour of their parents. My mother had me out of wedlock, dated some other men but did not make the same mistake twice and raised me right. She married when I was 8 years old and has been married to the same man for 28 years. Can you claim a single relationship that long Spinwiddy?
I didn't say that a gay partner is likely to cheat sooner than anyone else, but unless they are celibate, they are sooner or later going to seek sexual contact with the person that they are with. And if that person has been in abusive relationship, they may not be ready. Did BossMomma suddenly change and go gay? Is she a true homosexual or is she seeking companionship from someone who is accomodating at the moment? Sounds more like she is looking for companionship and understanding than a gay sex partner. I fear that she could end up getting more hurt by this new person than helped.
It should be perfectly normal and expected for a male not to have had sex before he is married. Years past many the man and woman didn't have a clue on their wedding night. But 50 years of marriage and 6 children later very many heterosexual married couples knew a hell of a lot more about sex, marriage, love and children than you ever will Spinwiddy.

reply from: sander

Considering you're a bald faced liar, you can't spell clue.

reply from: leftsfoil

Faramir.. I called you shiny because you seem bright. Heteros can stop using contraceptives and escape the definition of M&M whereas gays cannot. I apologize if I've offended you but your defense of the lefties led me to the conclusion that you were a lefty, however, your use of civil discourse and logic don't really jibe with typical leftists debating style. Finally, I am a 57 year old man, married 33 years to the same lovely woman. I know you didn't ask about my wife but I thought I'd just throw that in.
May I ask, are you a leftist or a progressive or a Democrat?

reply from: Faramir

I haven't "defended" a leftie to my knowledge--certainly not any leftie politics. But I don't mind being friendly to them. Some are very nice and would make wonderful neighbors.
But I get a little cranky with some of the posters here who hide behind babies and religion and use good things as an excuse to hurt others. I'm not saying that I don't screw up too--but it's not a way of life for me.
Regarding my politicis--I'm a Republican--would consider myself to be a conservative. My favorite president was Reagan. I began voting in 1980 and have never voted for a Democrat--always a Republican so far.
My religion is Catholic--by choice at age 38. I consider myself to be an "orthodox" Catholic. I don't believe the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are appropriate for religion, but if they were, I would be considered a conservative Catholic (but I prefer to say "orthodox.")
I am prolife and allow for no exceptions for abortion, but would be happy to support any law or any group that strives to reduce abortion in an ethical way.
Thanks for sharing the personal info. I'm 54 and have been married 29 years. They have been the best 29 years of my wife's life. I believe in being respectful of my elders, so I will keep your age in mind henceforth when I respond to your posts.
BTW, I forgot my manners. You're new here and I should have been more courteous to you.
Welcome to the forum.

reply from: leftsfoil

Faramir... I am very pleased to make your acquaintance. You remind a lot of me of me.. so I guess you're OK.

reply from: BossMomma

Depends on what is being called a sexual deviation. A gay couple holding hands while taking a walk is not what I'd consider sexual deviation, and if it's not a deviant act for straight people to kiss in public then it shouldn't be when gays do it.

reply from: BossMomma

If I just wanted companionship I'd simply neglect my kids and screw around like your mom did. Me and my girlfriend are very much in love and we base our relationship on that love, not on the amount of physical pleasure we can get from each other.

reply from: 4given

General rule- don't bring one's children or parents in.. unless they are underage.. Yo mama's are a tad overdone.. Can anyone here teach me how to respectfully disagree? Curses. I have been working on that one.. trying anyway. Sigh.

reply from: Faramir

Sadly, there are no "general rules."
Do you know any "yo mama jokes" btw?

reply from: BossMomma

Sadly, there are no "general rules."
Do you know any "yo mama jokes" btw?
Yo mama's so fat she has her own gravitational pull.
Yo mama's so hairy, big foot sells pictures of HER to the Discovery channel.
Yo mama's so dumb she thought a quarterback was a refund.
Yo mama's like a bowling ball, she can get picked up, fingered, thrown in the gutter and still come back for more...heh, inmate jokes I've heard.

reply from: 4given

You know that common courtesy thing as opposed to come on curtsy.. I am learning.. *shrug* General for me isn't the same for others? I thought it was unspoken?

reply from: Faramir

What BossMomma said is the least of what happens here.
A poster uses words like "scanc" and "whore" as a regular part of his vocabulary, and he's defended as if that is a way to "help the babies," so the idea of "common courtesy" seems to be expected to be common for some but not for others.
Rules are needed.
Some will restrain themselves, but others will take full advantage of the freedom and abuse it and abuse others.

reply from: Faramir

Those were pretty good, BossMomma.
Well, maybe the last one was a little raw, but they were all pretty funny.

reply from: BossMomma

What BossMomma said is the least of what happens here.
A poster uses words like "scanc" and "whore" as a regular part of his vocabulary, and he's defended as if that is a way to "help the babies," so the idea of "common courtesy" seems to be expected to be common for some but not for others.
Rules are needed.
Some will restrain themselves, but others will take full advantage of the freedom and abuse it and abuse others.
True, several here have participated in slandering a post abortive woman yet I saw no such coming to her rescue. Or the frequent attacks on Spin for being unwed though in a monogamous relationship, attacks on me for being gay, attacks on Yuuki for having a college education and teaching disabled children. If 4givn wants to play crusader against low blows on this forum the least she can do is be consistant.

reply from: BossMomma

They are common jokes told by inmates..except for the last one, that one's mine. Smacked an inmate down with that one after he offered me a soda for a BJ.

reply from: Faramir

They are common jokes told by inmates..except for the last one, that one's mine. Smacked an inmate down with that one after he offered me a soda for a BJ.
Can't they be punished for talking like that?

reply from: BossMomma

They are common jokes told by inmates..except for the last one, that one's mine. Smacked an inmate down with that one after he offered me a soda for a BJ.
Can't they be punished for talking like that?
They can, it's a code 20.1 lewd conduct charge but it's a lot of paperwork and not a lot of clout. If it even goes through they might get a slap on the wrist or, at most day room restriction. Saves a lot of time and paper to just give em some of their own.

reply from: Faramir

Nice to meet you too, but you don't know me that well yet, so don't be so quick to sell yourself short.

reply from: BossMomma

Interesting approach, you can't back up your mouth so you reply with a bunch of smilies? I think you need to lay off the

reply from: leftsfoil

Nice to meet you too, but you don't know me that well yet, so don't be so quick to sell yourself short.
LOL

reply from: leftsfoil

I've heard that before but I'd like to see some real proof of that. Just hearing/reading it over and over doesn't convince me. Have they found "the gay gene" yet? I've no idea. Post a url if you can find one please.
I see a contradiction in these two statements. According to the first quoted statement, you must believe that there is a gay gene as only genes can determine something that we are "born as/with". So if the gay gene does exist, and both of your parents are gay, (and I suppose that could happen), then the genetic odds would be that their offspring will be gay as well. On the other hand, if it turns out that you are right in your assertion that gay parents are as likely to produce straight offspring as the rest of the population, then your assertion that people are born either straight or gay.. must be incorrect.

reply from: faithman

I've heard that before but I'd like to see some real proof of that. Just hearing/reading it over and over doesn't convince me. Have they found "the gay gene" yet? I've no idea. Post a url if you can find one please.
I see a contradiction in these two statements. According to the first quoted statement, you must believe that there is a gay gene as only genes can determine something that we are "born as/with". So if the gay gene does exist, and both of your parents are gay, (and I suppose that could happen), then the genetic odds would be that their offspring will be gay as well. On the other hand, if it turns out that you are right in your assertion that gay parents are as likely to produce straight offspring as the rest of the population, then your assertion that people are born either straight or gay.. must be incorrect.
.....and what about killing the womb gay if abortionist come up with a test that targets womb gay's ? Should a woman be able to abort based on gayness?

reply from: Cecilia

you leave out all discussion of homosexual feelings and focus only on the physical aspect of homosexual relationships. would you define your relationshp with your wife solely as a 'sexual addiction' or is there more to it?
i alwasy think it sad to say a child is of 'illegitimate' birth. Every birth is legitimate.
because there are no other faiths that teach civility and honesty?
that sounds wonderful.
right, i couldn't agree more, that is why i don't care.
that is very narrow. have you considered that homosexuals might actually have feelings for other people of the same sex, and it's not just about 'having sex' promiscuously?

reply from: faithman

you leave out all discussion of homosexual feelings and focus only on the physical aspect of homosexual relationships. would you define your relationshp with your wife solely as a 'sexual addiction' or is there more to it?
i alwasy think it sad to say a child is of 'illegitimate' birth. Every birth is legitimate.
because there are no other faiths that teach civility and honesty?
that sounds wonderful.
right, i couldn't agree more, that is why i don't care.
that is very narrow. have you considered that homosexuals might actually have feelings for other people of the same sex, and it's not just about 'having sex' promiscuously?
But homosexuality is about the perverted act. I have a great deal of affection for some men in my life, but I don't want them puffing on me, nor ramming bungs or anything like that. Homosexuality is about perverted sex, others wise you ain't one.

reply from: leftsfoil

Dear Cecilia, homosexuality is about sexuality.. that is why the word sexuality is in the word homosexuality. If you want to talk about feelings and love.. then start your own post and I'll join in. (See faithman's previous post).
We all know what legitimate birth means in the context of my post and for you to insinuate that I was disparaging children in my post is pure slander and typical leftist venom. I not only believe that all births are legitimate but I also believe that all conceptions are legitimate.
I warrant that Christianity is the world champion religion for civilizing the human animal/beast. I did not insinuate in my post that other religions don't tame the beast in humans, that came from between your ears. Why do you think they call Christians gentiles?
Finally, I would like to point out the fact that certain chemicals are released in the brain after orgasm that cause a person to fixate and feel love for the object of their affection no matter what the object's gender happens to be. This is a chemical bonding process that has been extensively studied and documented. Google oxytocin and vasopressin.

reply from: Banned Member

If homosexuality were a normal genetic trait, than it would be a genetic trait that would be passed on nearly exclusively through the offspring of heterosexuals who do not exhibit the trait. Is is logical to conclude that a genetic trait which is sexually bahavioural in nature could be be so commonly passed on through hundreds of thousands of year when the trait is not looked for by the offspring producing members of the species? More to the point, in heterosexual breeders, homosexuality is a trait which is never looked for. From the standpoint of genetics and breeding, it would seem that such a trait would have vanished a very long time ago. At best if homosexuality were genetic the best that it could hope for would to be an extremely rare recessive trait. That is, presuming that homosexuality is genetic in nature. Homosexuality seem to be beating the odds which leads me to conclude one of two things. That homosexuality is a genetic defect which could be increasing with regularity which seem unlikely given that homosexuals exhibit no other genetic traits connected with their homosexuality. Or, homosexuality is in no way genetic either by design or defect and is a purely acquired behavioural condition if the mind and/or physiology.
Gay and born that way? Doesn't seem so. Something happened to make homosexuals that way.

reply from: 4given

Perhaps. I have made my voice known when it was necessary. Have you?

reply from: 4given

What? I have no problem "backing up my mouth". Laughable yet irksome. You were the one that wanted to compare your cheap shots to anothers. Did you speak any word about it, until it fit into your bit? NO. You use this forum for entertainment purposes. Your attempt to call out misbehavior of others to aid you in your petty attacks is pitiful. It is pretty weak to have to comparatively justify corrupt communication. Beer? Wine? No. Forum bi-polar. Another smiley for you

reply from: nancyu

What? I have no problem "backing up my mouth". Laughable yet irksome. You were the one that wanted to compare your cheap shots to anothers. Did you speak any word about it, until it fit into your bit? NO. You use this forum for entertainment purposes. Your attempt to call out misbehavior of others to aid you in your petty attacks is pitiful. It is pretty weak to have to comparatively justify corrupt communication. Beer? Wine? No. Forum bi-polar. Another smiley for you
**thumbs up!**
4given, rarely has a nail been hit so squarely upon it's head. I hope your hand doesn't hurt too much, though, because there's not much hope for this particular nail.

reply from: leftsfoil

Hey toofy..
I admit it.. I am afraid of homos.. I am afraid that I will have to listen to their self serving, finger pointing psychobabble for the rest of my life. Most of what Sigmond Fraud theorized has been discredited by his successors, whom, incidentally, I believe will eventually be discredited by their successors, etc., etc., ad nauseum. I understand your need to be accepted for who you are but I also perceive that you like to use offense as your defense. It's a convenient argument that we are all a little gay. A little too convenient to be above suspicion. Sorry, but I'm just not feeling the thoughts of a troubled, mid 19th century, non-Christian European. I am also disinclined to grant much weight to the conclusions of gay psychiatrists on the subject. Additionally I'd like to mention my disgust for Universities that waste taxpayer money on foolish and useless research such as your example of the Sexuality Research Program at the State University of New York at Albany.
But right go ahead, by all means, believe what you want to believe if it comforts you. Personally I don't care for the smell of hogwash.

reply from: Banned Member

I still stand my theory....
If homosexuality were a normal genetic trait, than it would have to be a genetic trait that would be passed on nearly exclusively through the offspring of heterosexuals who do not outwardly exhibit the trait. Is is logical to conclude that a genetic trait which is sexually bahavioural in nature could be be so commonly passed on through hundreds of thousands of years of human offspring when the trait is not looked for by the offspring producing members of the species?
More to the point, in heterosexual breeders, homosexuality is a trait which is never looked for. From the standpoint of genetics and breeding, it would seem that such a trait would have vanished a very long time ago. If homosexuality were genetic the best that it could hope for would to be an extremely rare recessive trait which occasionally manifests itself in the offspring of heterosexual parents. That is, presuming that homosexuality is genetic in nature.
If there is a homosexual gene it would seem to be beating the mathematical odds which leads me to conclude one of two things. One, that homosexuality is a genetic defect which could be increasing with regularity which seem unlikely given that homosexuals exhibit no other genetic traits connected with their homosexuality and do not reproduce. Or two, homosexuality is in no way genetic either by design or defect and is a purely acquired defective behavioural condition if the mind and/or physiology.
How could a recessive genetic trait be so commonly passed on when the bearers of the genetic do not normally reproduce?
Gay and born that way? Doesn't seem so. Something happened to make homosexuals that way.
In the world of science and ecosystems, genetically intended homosexuality in humans could have no purpose since the trait itself would be in effect lethal since it's genetic bearers would seemingly never reproduce.

reply from: yoda

True, but sad. What a shame that we must deal with such distractions in order to post in defense of the unborn. But that's the nature of the beasts who seek to facilitate the destruction of unborn human life, unfortunately.

reply from: Faramir

True, but sad. What a shame that we must deal with such distractions in order to post in defense of the unborn. But that's the nature of the beasts who seek to facilitate the destruction of unborn human life, unfortunately.
Last time I looked, Bossmomma was prolife, so in what way is she "facilitating the destruction of the unborn"?
Sorry, standing up to the abusiveness of your buddies here doesn't count. She might be "dealing in distractions" when she does that, but so do your buddies with their inane and continuous personal attacks.
But what you've done is worse, since you've esentially called a pro-lifer a "pro abort," just because you don't like her or her style.
That's very petty and very short-sighted. You ought to at least embrace the pro-life beliefs of a person instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

reply from: leftsfoil

I have an honest question to ask. I've Googled it and can't seem to find any data.
To preface my question I'll share this with you. I am a remodeling contractor and, believe it or not, my company enjoys a good reputation and referral base in the general community as well as (oddly enough) in the local lesbian community. Many years ago I was introduced, on a referral, to a prominent lady lawyer who happened to be gay. She liked my work so much that she referred me to several of her gay friends who in turn referred me to their friends and their friends and so on. One thing that I came to notice is what seemed like a disproportionate number of these ladies worked in abortion clinics. Usually I would discover this in the initial interview and would excuse myself from the bidding process. No blood money for me thank you.
My question is this. Was my experience concerning lesbian abortion workers unique, or is this the norm everywhere? Does the proportion of gay workers in the abortion business match that of the general population?

reply from: faithman

I would say yes. It is usually the same crowd in our area who show up at "gay" events, that show up at Planned Parenthood events. Most are also involved in the local Unitarian Universalist "fellowship". To be fare, there are some pro-life gays, and there main issue is abortion of womb gays. I support the right of gays in the womb to live.

reply from: 4given

Volume 12, Number 37
August 27, 2009
UN Committee Asserts Special Rights for "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity"
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
(NEW YORK - C-FAM) A UN human rights committee recently told UN member states they must grant broad new human rights on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity." By making sweeping changes to their national laws, policies and changing practices and attitudes within families and cultural institutions, or else they will be in "violation" of their obligations under international law.
The document, called "General Comment 20," was released on July 2nd by the committee responsible for monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Going well beyond putting an end to criminal penalties against homosexuality or stopping violence and unjust discrimination, it claims that two new anti-discrimination categories exist even though sovereign states have repeatedly rejected these same categories in open UN debates.
In those debates, nations expressed concern that since the terms "sexual orientation and gender identity" are not recognized or defined in international law, the new category could be used to impose limitations on freedoms of speech, religion and conscience as well as marriage laws and school curricula. Indeed, the committee asserts that changes must include "a State's constitution, laws and policy documents," as well as "measures to attenuate or suppress conditions that perpetuate discrimination" including "employment in educational or cultural institutions," as well as "families, workplaces, and other sectors of society." Measures must remain in place until such a time "when substantive equality has been substantially achieved." No definition of or standards for measuring "substantive equality" are provided.
Full article here:http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1391/pub_detail.asp

reply from: BossMomma

Perhaps. I have made my voice known when it was necessary. Have you?
When it was nessesary? Why was your voice nessesary in an argument that had not a thing to do with you?

reply from: BossMomma

What? I have no problem "backing up my mouth". Laughable yet irksome. You were the one that wanted to compare your cheap shots to anothers. Did you speak any word about it, until it fit into your bit? NO. You use this forum for entertainment purposes. Your attempt to call out misbehavior of others to aid you in your petty attacks is pitiful. It is pretty weak to have to comparatively justify corrupt communication. Beer? Wine? No. Forum bi-polar. Another smiley for you
Cheap throwing my bi-polar disorder in there, you wanna talk cheap shots? It just goes to show that you can always tell what sins a preacher committed on Saturday by what he condemns on Sunday.

reply from: Cecilia

homosexuality is not exclusively about sexuality any more than heterosexuality is. i asked, is your relationship with your wife soley a 'sexual addiction'? I doubt it. it is the same for homosexual individuals; it's not only about sex.
a reasonable person would then ask why you originally stated that "a child would be of legitimate birth", if you think there are no "illegitimate births".
You didn't insinuate, you flat out stated: "A perfect world would look like"..."The child would be raised in the Christian faith in order to educate him/her in the ways and value of civil behavior and honesty."
i think you should research "gentile" and etiology of that. gentile is latin for 'not something' , particulary not a jew, and it has nothing to do with the english word "gentle".
so you have sex with your wife and that is all where your feelings derive from? does she know that?

reply from: Cecilia

i think it would depend on your location and how you are defning 'abortion clinic'.

reply from: Cecilia

What? I have no problem "backing up my mouth". Laughable yet irksome. You were the one that wanted to compare your cheap shots to anothers. Did you speak any word about it, until it fit into your bit? NO. You use this forum for entertainment purposes. Your attempt to call out misbehavior of others to aid you in your petty attacks is pitiful. It is pretty weak to have to comparatively justify corrupt communication. Beer? Wine? No. Forum bi-polar. Another smiley for you
Cheap throwing my bi-polar disorder in there, you wanna talk cheap shots? It just goes to show that you can always tell what sins a preacher committed on Saturday by what he condemns on Sunday.
that is really crappy. using someones mental illness to 'attack' them shows the kind of person "4given" (who is going to need it) is, not you boss mom.

reply from: 4given

Perhaps. I have made my voice known when it was necessary. Have you?
When it was nessesary? Why was your voice nessesary in an argument that had not a thing to do with you?
I am sure you are right. It wasn't perceived to be an "argument". You were just being hateful. I truly have no business or desire to remain on this thread.

reply from: 4given

What? I wasn't talking about you. You desire to be the victim in this which is interesting.. It has not ever been my intention to hurt you. I don't get the last bit. Who was preaching?

reply from: 4given

Show me an "attack". If I were you.. *no* You should be far more concerned about your day of reckoning.

reply from: Faramir

What? I have no problem "backing up my mouth". Laughable yet irksome. You were the one that wanted to compare your cheap shots to anothers. Did you speak any word about it, until it fit into your bit? NO. You use this forum for entertainment purposes. Your attempt to call out misbehavior of others to aid you in your petty attacks is pitiful. It is pretty weak to have to comparatively justify corrupt communication. Beer? Wine? No. Forum bi-polar. Another smiley for you
Cheap throwing my bi-polar disorder in there, you wanna talk cheap shots? It just goes to show that you can always tell what sins a preacher committed on Saturday by what he condemns on Sunday.
that is really crappy. using someones mental illness to 'attack' them shows the kind of person "4given" (who is going to need it) is, not you boss mom.
I'm sure it was a misunderstanding.
I think 4given was referring to herself or something else with the bi-polar comment. It wasn't an intentional slam against bossmomma. I doubt if she even remembered bossmomma's comments about being bi-polar. I know I didn't until reminded.

reply from: BossMomma

What? I wasn't talking about you. You desire to be the victim in this which is interesting.. It has not ever been my intention to hurt you. I don't get the last bit. Who was preaching?
Don't backpeddle, you suck at it. I wasn't being hateful, I was offended at being called a sexual deviant and a bad mother for being of a different sexual orientation than our current bible thumper crowd and you stuck your nose in it. That last bit was a figure of speach. I'm well known for giving as well as I get and if people are that taken aback by my method of defending myself maybe, just maybe they should stop attacking.

reply from: BossMomma

What? I have no problem "backing up my mouth". Laughable yet irksome. You were the one that wanted to compare your cheap shots to anothers. Did you speak any word about it, until it fit into your bit? NO. You use this forum for entertainment purposes. Your attempt to call out misbehavior of others to aid you in your petty attacks is pitiful. It is pretty weak to have to comparatively justify corrupt communication. Beer? Wine? No. Forum bi-polar. Another smiley for you
Cheap throwing my bi-polar disorder in there, you wanna talk cheap shots? It just goes to show that you can always tell what sins a preacher committed on Saturday by what he condemns on Sunday.
that is really crappy. using someones mental illness to 'attack' them shows the kind of person "4given" (who is going to need it) is, not you boss mom.
I'm sure it was a misunderstanding.
I think 4given was referring to herself or something else with the bi-polar comment. It wasn't an intentional slam against bossmomma. I doubt if she even remembered bossmomma's comments about being bi-polar. I know I didn't until reminded.
I've mentioned it enough times, and why would she make such a comment unless she knew I suffered a bi-polar disorder?

reply from: kd78

it's funny how i've seen more displays by heterosexuals in public that should be in the bedroom vs homosexuals or bisexuals. why is acceptable to see a man and a woman kiss, hug and hold hands in public but if a glbt couple does so they are "flaunting?"
xnavy- the red cross also says if you are born in several african countries or asian countries and other things, you cannot donate. you could be a virgin, but they assume you have AIDS or HIV based on where you were born.

reply from: Banned Member

BossMomma, you are sexual deviant and a bad mother for being of a different sexual orientation. And more than just Bible thumpers believe that about gays who prostitute themselves out for heterosex until they have a few babies only to then shack up with their bedroom perve compatriots.

reply from: BossMomma

And I'll bet secretly that turns you on.

reply from: Cecilia

it's alright boss we all know what 4given meant even if they think they can lie about it now.
Show me an "attack". If I were you.. *no* You should be far more concerned about your day of reckoning.
oh, my, if that's not an attack (or you are just lying!) then you shoudl be concerned about what kind of IQ they let into wherever you go on your day of reckoning!

reply from: yoda

How's that "control freak" thing working out for you?
Do you still desire to see unborn children "controlled" to death?

reply from: qbelle

Okay, so you're asking for responses from the opposite side, and I'm going to set this out logically, and without malice. I respect your opinion, and all I ask is that you respect mine. And, preferably, try to poke holes in my logic so I can see where my argument isn't going through.
So, your premise, as I understand it, is:

Practicing homosexual behavior has absolutely nothing to do with the well-being of a child.
Homosexuality is about adults having sex with whomever they want to have sex with. Clearly, this is a topic and practice that children have no use for.
I think the first thing to address is your second statement: homosexuality is about adults having sex etc. This is blatantly untrue. Admittedly, a portion of the exuberantly gay (particularly male) culture has to do with having sexual flings with other gay people. This is, I repeat, solely a portion of the gay community, just like there is a portion of the straight community who only wants to have multiple flings with multiple people. "Mutual Masturbators?" That's just disgusting. I understand that you don't agree with having sex without the express purpose of having children (which means I assume that you never jerk off, never use condoms, and never have sex unless you want a child). This is very interesting, seeing as I believe the Bible talks about love for each other, and sex, when done properly, is the supreme act of love.
As to your second point, much of the gay community, in fact, is loving and caring and truly wants to raise happy children. Being gay is not a choice, as you seem to think. It is just how some people were born. These people want to be able to raise children despite their not having sex with a person of the opposite gender. Gay and lesbian people are absolutely no different than any other people; some are immoral, and some are wonderful human beings who follow the exact same laws of God that you claim to. In fact, there are no statistics showing that children adopted by gay couples are any worse off than kids of straight parents. I quote "In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual. Studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents, than by their sexual orientation." This, by the way, supported by the American Association of Pediatrics. Speaking as a daughter of 2 divorces, I would have much preferred to be a child of happily married gay parents than very unhappy straight parents. Also, would you not agree that it is far better for children to grow up in a gay or lesbian home than be left to rot at an orphanage or foster home? Unless you're willing to do your part and adopt instead of having your own children, you cannot condemn these hopeful parents. Again, I quote: "The law only hurts children waiting to be adopted and deprives loving parents who would care for these children."
As to what you have to say about children already being embarrassed enough by their parents, that is true, but children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents aren't going to be embarrassed by their parents because they will have grown up with the understanding that being gay is A-Ok. In fact, they are likely to grow up with better values because gay parents teach tolerance to all people no matter what, as opposed to children growing up with parents who tell them not to accept other people because of who they love.
Finally, I'd like to briefly address the idea of religion. Jesus taught, in his infinite wisdom, that it is of the utmost importance to tolerate others. For instance, in this passage, Jesus refuses to let his apostles burn a pagan village in Samaria: Luke 9:52-56 "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." This quote is talking about NON-Christians, whereas many gay and lesbian people are actually Christian, and therefore should be doubly accepted. And what happened to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"? What happened to: "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (John, 13:34-34) Or: If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much. "There is a saying, 'Love your friends and hate your enemies.' But I say: Love your enemies!...If you are friendly only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even the heathen do that. (Matthew 5:43-48)
I'll end with a final quote from Romans 14, spoken by St. Paul.
"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind...But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

reply from: 4given

No packpeddling here. You will know when I insult you. If I meant to offend you, there would be no doubt. That was never my intention.

reply from: 4given

What lies?
Well luckily for me, an IQ doesn't determine eternal life.

reply from: leftsfoil

Hey toofy,
Twice now you've tried to get my goat by stating that you think that I may be gay because you couldn't see any other reason why I'm worrying about homosexuality in the first place.
Perhaps if you had taken the time to actually read my original post you would not find yourself so confused on the subject.
I find the pro-gays in this forum to be disruptive to the process of rational discourse and generally rude. Bringing the biggest insult does nothing to further the debate or your cause.
I am left wondering why you were are so angry at me that you would try to slander and shame me in the first place? Have you been damaged?

reply from: leftsfoil

homosexuality is not exclusively about sexuality any more than heterosexuality is. i asked, is your relationship with your wife soley a 'sexual addiction'? I doubt it. it is the same for homosexual individuals; it's not only about sex.
Response to the above. Well I hate to beat a dead horse into powder.. but here we go. I agree that, if you exclude sex, then everything else in a relationship, irregardless of gender, would be the same. But how can you exclude the notion of sex from a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship. By definition, both relationships are sexual. Without the sex aspect to it.. you're just friends. Why would you think that I'm so obtuse as to not understand this? On your second point.. I also agree. You are correct. My love relationship with my wife has matured into additional dimensions but the chemistry is still there for me. However, I must say that I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.,
a reasonable person would then ask why you originally stated that "a child would be of legitimate birth", if you think there are no "illegitimate births".
Response to the above. OK.. why do you pretend that there is no difference in the contextual meanings of the word, legitimate, as used in this thread. I used it to mean (legal) in my original post and you used it to mean emotional/spiritual in yours. I then used it in the same context as you did in my reply, and then you try to employ a stratagem of subterfuge to subvert my original point. Further, I am convinced that you knew fully well what I meant in my post and you are just trying to create chaos and perhaps wear me down with your false rhetoric.

You didn't insinuate, you flat out stated: "A perfect world would look like"..."The child would be raised in the Christian faith in order to educate him/her in the ways and value of civil behavior and honesty."
Response to the above. OK.. so this proves that you can read.
i think you should research "gentile" and etiology of that. gentile is latin for 'not something' , particulary not a jew, and it has nothing to do with the english word "gentle".
Response to the above. I did, in fact, research the word gentile and the second meaning listed in Websters is: Christian, as distinguished from Jewish. The latin root of the English word gentle is: gentilis. Which means: of family. The word gentle is a direct derivative of the Latin word gentilis as is gentile. You seem very focused on discrediting me. I'll admit that I make mistakes but not this time.
so you have sex with your wife and that is all where your feelings derive from? does she know that?
Response to the above. First of all, your repeated references to my wife in this discussion are indecorous at minimum and frankly none of your business. Your rudeness is revealing and your ire disappointing and from the standpoint of reasoned debate, counterproductive.

reply from: leftsfoil

it's funny how i've seen more displays by heterosexuals in public that should be in the bedroom vs homosexuals or bisexuals. why is acceptable to see a man and a woman kiss, hug and hold hands in public but if a glbt couple does so they are "flaunting?"
xnavy- the red cross also says if you are born in several african countries or asian countries and other things, you cannot donate. you could be a virgin, but they assume you have AIDS or HIV based on where you were born.
If you don't understand the revulsion felt by straight people at the sight of gays gaying it up in public.. then I'm afraid that no-one will be able to explain it to you. Additionally, it is an uncivil society that has so little control over their sexual urgings as to not to be able to behave with dignity in public. A quick kiss hello or goodbye in public are just fine but making out (or worse) are degrading to the social structure.

reply from: faithman

Cities all over America, are now having problems with "gays acting out" in public rest rooms at our parks. Mothers can no longer feel safe at public play grounds because of it. And anytime something is said about it, concerned citizens are called bigots.

reply from: faithman

http://http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-88mayoronradio,0,3446402,full.story

reply from: faithman

http://dcist.com/2007/08/tucker_carlson.php

reply from: kd78

what is so revolting about two people walking hand in hand together who happen to be gay?
what is so revolting about let's call them "bob and steve" having a nice dinner together to celebrate something special (perhaps a birthday)? why should they have to endure rude stares and comments because they are gay? they aren't fcking on the table; they're just making goo-goo eyes at each other. all around them, hetero couples are doing the same thing.
sexual assault is about power, not orientation or sex.
i have several glbt friends and acquantences (sp?) the first one to come out to me came out in gym class in grade 7. i was 13; we were running around the track. she told me she had something important to tell me and that she was bi. my reaction? "ok. what are you having for lunch?' she was my friend. i loved her. the only thing i knew about gays or lesbians or bi people back then was that if you were gay you liked people like you (boys like boys; girls like girl). bi meant you liked boys and girls. intersexed or trannsgender wasn't even a concept to me then.
3 years later i remember some college guy asking me if i was a lesbian because i would always hug my friends, especially a spanish college girl i'd met that summer. if you don't know about the spanish and latin culture, there is a lot of hugging and closeness involved. friends greet my pecks on the cheeks. again, i didn't get it, but i didn't let it hurt me. i like to hug.
my best friend from high school knows i like her enough to ask her out if she was into girls. she's still my best friend. i've only dated men.
do those things make me a terrible mother to my daughter? does it make me less pro-life? no, it does not.

reply from: BossMomma

Riight, have you taken a look at the Texas sex offender registry? Most of them are men who assaulted young girls or women, a few have assaulted boys. Many have shown young girls their genetalia. This has gone on for years. Everynight I'm writing up some pig inmate for trying to masturbate in front of me during count, all very heterosexual men who can't control themselves in the presence of a woman. Hetero's have been a problem long before gays were even an issue.

reply from: rsg007

Yes, the words "gentile" and "gentle" derive from the same Latin root but that does not mean "gentile" has anything to do with the way we use the word "gentle" today. Originally, "gentle," as in "gentleman," was clearly linked to the definition of the Latin root ("of or belonging to the same clan, stock, or race"): that's what a "gentleman" was--a member of a certain clan, stock, etc. Being a gentleman had nothing to do with being kind or gentle. It's only over time that the "kind/nice" aspect of "gentle" arose, and the same nuances ("kind/nice") did NOT come to apply to "gentile." So being a gentile has nothing to do with being gentle, even though the words come from the same place (not that you can't be a gentle gentile of course). So I'm afraid the way in which you intended to use "gentile" does not work.

reply from: Banned Member

Until the homosexuality gene is discovered I don't think that we can say homosexuality even exists at all beyond a perversion of the natural sexual drive.
Why shouldn't we let gay people raise children? For the same reason that we don't let blind people drive automobiles. It simple sends the wrong message about our intelligence as rationally thinking people regarding the welfare of persons and society.

reply from: CDC700

There is no "gay gene" It is a social/mental disorder. And the reason they shouldn't be raising kids is simple, they are openly mentally incompetent and perverse.

reply from: BossMomma

There is no "gay gene" It is a social/mental disorder. And the reason they shouldn't be raising kids is simple, they are openly mentally incompetent and perverse.
And how many gay couples are out there killing their children? How many times on the news do you hear about child abuse by gay parents? I have yet to hear even a single story, lots of stories about hetero's beating the shyte out of their kids. Susan Smith drowned her sons like unwanted kittens for the love of a MAN.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9709522
Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs 80962, USA.
40 appeals cases of custody disputes drawn systematically from all cases involving a homosexual parent in the United States were compared to 38 appeals cases involving heterosexual custody disputes drawn randomly from listings under parental "character" and 18 appeals cases drawn randomly from "general" cases in Dicennial Digest from 1966 to 1991. Each case involving homosexual vs heterosexual claimants was examined for recorded information about (1) the character of the homosexual parent, the associates of the homosexual parent, the heterosexual parent, and the associates of the heterosexual parent, (2) the effects, particularly harms, upon the child(ren), and (3) psychiatric opinion. 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual's associates vs 19% of the heterosexuals' associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant. Of the 66 recorded harms, e.g., molestation, physical abuse, to the 73 children, homosexual persons accounted for 64 (97%). Of the 32 lesbians, 6 were recorded as having engaged in criminal activity and 3 of bringing false charges of child sexual abuse against the father. Psychiatric opinion, however, ran 25 to 12 in favor of custody for the homosexual parent. In the 56 heterosexual vs heterosexual comparison cases, 38% of the heterosexual parents and 28% of their associates were recorded as having poor character. Six harms to their 105 children and 3 instances of criminality but no false charges of sexual abuse were recorded. In the appeals court literature, homosexual parents were disproportionately of poor character and disproportionately associated with various harms to their children.

reply from: kd78

wow! and people actually wonder why suicide rates are so high among gay youths? i bet the homophobes here think that matthew sheperd's killer were justified in what they did and should go free?

reply from: kd78

these types of attitudes make it hard to side with the lifers and be one sometimes.

reply from: Banned Member

Why does the acknowledgement that homosexuality is wrong morally equate with wanting to kill gay people?
No one has advocated the killing of gay people, or harming them in any way, or denying them normal rights that individuals can expect.

reply from: leftsfoil

Yes, the words "gentile" and "gentle" derive from the same Latin root but that does not mean "gentile" has anything to do with the way we use the word "gentle" today. Originally, "gentle," as in "gentleman," was clearly linked to the definition of the Latin root ("of or belonging to the same clan, stock, or race"): that's what a "gentleman" was--a member of a certain clan, stock, etc. Being a gentleman had nothing to do with being kind or gentle. It's only over time that the "kind/nice" aspect of "gentle" arose, and the same nuances ("kind/nice") did NOT come to apply to "gentile." So being a gentile has nothing to do with being gentle, even though the words come from the same place (not that you can't be a gentle gentile of course). So I'm afraid the way in which you intended to use "gentile" does not work.
Nicely done rsg007, you've convinced me that I was in error and you did it with class. No rudeness or venom whatsoever. Thank you for that, I really do appreciate sharp and refined people such as yourself.

reply from: Banned Member

Perhaps the high suicide rate among young homosexuals simply reflects a general state of mental unwellness to begin with.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/whatabouththechildren.htm
Should people involved in homosexual or lesbian relationships be allowed to adopt children?
The High Court is presently considering whether homosexual and lesbian couples should be allowed to co-adopt children. Are children who grow up in single-sex parented homes advantaged or disadvantaged?
These statistics show the tragic consequences of fatherless and single parent homes in the United States:
· 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
· 85% of all children that exhibit behavioural disorders come from fatherless homes.
· 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
· 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
· 75% of all adolescent patients in drug abuse centres come from fatherless homes.
· 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
While this applies to children who grow up in fatherless homes, mothers are equally important in the lives of children and the results of 'motherless' homes are equally tragic. Children who grow up with two mothers and no father, and those who grow up with two fathers and no mother, will be horribly handicapped in life.
Children of homosexuals less sociable and achieve lower grades
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender).
It is not fair of our society, our government and our courts to establish public policy that encourages this social engineering and pretends that homosexual "families" are normal, healthy and desirable. Instead, public policy should work toward mitigating the harmful effects of divorce and single parenting that results in motherless and fatherless homes - not promoting it!
Former lesbian says having children was a cruel mistake
Former lesbian Cherie Tayler had three children by artificial insemination. Her lesbian partner shared the parenting. After the break-up of their 16-year relationship, Cherie admitted that her life as a lesbian has been spurred on by her unloving mother and sexually abusive father. She said that having children had been a cruel mistake. She reported on a 60 Minutes TV documentary that she saw the hurt in her children's faces every day. Her 11-year-old son wanted to know about his father's job, what he looked like, the colour of his eyes - and Cherie was unable to answer. She said, "I (now) believe that children should have the best opportunities in life. The best way they can have a balanced view of what is normal is with heterosexual parents."
It does not matter whether we think homosexuality (the act of "mating" with a member of the same sex) is normal or deviant, emotionally healthy or not, the fact is that we should do what is best for the children. People who live homosexual lives say that they have a right to do what they want in their bedrooms and private lives. But adopting children is not about their "private" lives as it intrudes into the life of children who will not have a choice, and are not old enough to make a mature and informed choice. Special privileges, like adoption, for men or women who engage in homosexuality, are hotly debated worldwide, with the vast majority of countries, and the vast majority of people across the world, saying 'No, let's stick to what is best for the children.'
Children raised homosexuals more likely to explore homosexuality themselves.
A study by two pro-homosexual sociologists from the University of Southern California, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, showed that these children "seem to grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations (getting involved in homosexuality)." Stacey said that in the past "sympathetic researchers" have defensively stressed an absence of difference, but a re-evaluation of past studies showed that there are significant differences. Homosexual activists were pleased about this. Aimee Gelnaw, director of Family Pride Coalition (a pro-homosexual organisation) responded to the research, "Of course our kids are going to be different. They are growing up in a different social context." Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Centre for Lesbian Rights said homosexuals should be elated by the study which shows that "our kids are somewhat more likely to identify as lesbian and gay."
But is this best for children? British MP Julian Brazier says, "This sort of social experiment may be exciting for the people who take part in it but they should ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the child."
Cornelia Oddie of the U.K. based Family and Youth Concern think tank says, "It must be extra confusing for the children. With homosexual couples the majority of their friends would be presumably part of the homosexual culture, so the children grow up with a skewed idea of relationships. This is bound to give children an unbalanced view of social and sexual relationships."
The implications are severe. With the acceptance of two homosexuals as joint parents, the family is torn from its traditional and God-inspired balance of a mother and a father both giving of their commitment, love and essence to the children. What kinds of homes can homosexuals and lesbians offer children?
Homosexual relationships are short-lived and less faithful
Even in those homosexual relationships, which the partners consider 'committed', the meaning of 'committed' typically means something radically different from marriage.
· In the Triangle Project study of homosexual men in Cape Town, 47% of respondents said that they were currently in a relationship, yet only 13.3% of respondents had had only one partner in the past year. 60% of the men who were currently 'in a relationship' admitted to having had "sex" with people other than their partners in the past year.
· In the book, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, the authors, two homosexual lecturers, report a study of 156 men in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years. Only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship and of these, the men had all been together for less than five years. In other words, all the so-called 'couples' with a relationship lasting more than five years had incorporated some outside sexual activity into their relationships.
Homosexual relationships are more violent than traditional marriage
While homosexuals, particularly lesbians, propagate the idea of the lesbian or homosexual home as one of peace and equality, the truth is that homosexual relationships are far more violent than heterosexual marriages. The U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that married women in normal families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships. Consider these studies of homosexual relationships:
· The Journal of Interpersonal Violence published an article entitled "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships". Researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study. 31% of women in lesbian relationships reported one or more incidents of physical abuse.
· A survey of 1,099 lesbians found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequent forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."
Homosexuality and crime
A study of 4340 adults in five metropolitan areas of the USA showed that bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) compared to heterosexuals:
· exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (more frequently admitting to participating in orgies and reported larger numbers of sexual partners);
· more frequently participated in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls);
· more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating); and
· more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g. fisting, bestiality, ingestion of faeces and sadomasochism).
Homosexuality and substance abuse
· A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women. The study found that: Like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%)." In addition, "46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."
· The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.
· A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."
· The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, reports that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight."
Live hard, die fast
Note also that homosexuals have shorter life spans than other people. A study in the United States found that the median age of death of married men was 75 and unmarried heterosexual men, 71. By comparison, homosexual men who died of non-AIDS causes, had a median age of death of 42 (41 years for those men who had a long-term sexual partner and 43 for those who did not). Homosexuals who had long-term partners lived shorter than those who do not. The study also found that homosexuals were 24 times more likely to commit suicide and had a traffic-accident death rate 18 times the rate of comparably aged white males. The 140 lesbians surveyed had a median age of death of 45 and exhibited high rates of violent death and cancer as compared to women in general. The study showed that 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide or accident - a rate 512 times higher than that of white females of similar age.

reply from: leftsfoil

You obviously have no clue as to what anyone is thinking. How did you come up with such a foul notion as that. Please try to keep your hateful imaginings to yourself thank you. I'm trying to learn things and enjoy this forum but reading that kind of off-the-wall stuff diminishes the entire experience.

reply from: 4given

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5466526/
Lombard, who is gay, is accused of inviting an undercover officer to have sex with this adopted 5-year-old son. In a search warrant for his home, investigators released a transcript of a Web chat between Lombard and Det. Timothy Palchak of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department. In it, Lombard invited Palchak, who he did not realize was a police detective, to fly to Durham to have sexual contact with the child.
Lombard told Palchak that he shared his home at 24 Indigo Creek Trail in Durham with a homosexual partner, but that partner did not know about his activities. Authorities have not arrested the partner, and do not suspect he was involved in any crimes.
When officers arrested Lombard Wednesday at his home, two children were present, the FBI said. Both were taken into protective custody by the North Carolina Department of Social Services.
Under North Carolina law, an unmarried couple - whether gay or straight -- can not adopt a child together. For an unmarried couple to adopt, one person must adopt the child as a single parent, then the second person can also adopt the child. It is not clear whether Lombard's partner had adopted the child at the heart of this case.

reply from: leftsfoil

Originally posted by: Augustine
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/whatabouththechildren.htm
WOW! What a post Augustine. Kudos to you.
The study that I read concerning sexual addiction, (one of the main points of the post that started this thread), also drew a correlation between sexual addiction and other forms of addictive/compulsive behaviors. Gays are statistically more likely to suffer from other forms of addiction due to the hard wiring in their brains. Gays reject this notion because it comes close to identifying gay behavior as a mental defect.
I don't think it's a defect so much as an artifact of natural selection. Wanting to have lots of orgasms is a characteristic that leads to procreation and therefore is a positive trait from the standpoint of the survival of the species. If a little pollen ends up on another stamen from time to time, it neither enhances or defeats the process of fertilization and renewal.
P.S. I believe that God created the process of natural selection.

reply from: rsg007

Yes, the words "gentile" and "gentle" derive from the same Latin root but that does not mean "gentile" has anything to do with the way we use the word "gentle" today. Originally, "gentle," as in "gentleman," was clearly linked to the definition of the Latin root ("of or belonging to the same clan, stock, or race"): that's what a "gentleman" was--a member of a certain clan, stock, etc. Being a gentleman had nothing to do with being kind or gentle. It's only over time that the "kind/nice" aspect of "gentle" arose, and the same nuances ("kind/nice") did NOT come to apply to "gentile." So being a gentile has nothing to do with being gentle, even though the words come from the same place (not that you can't be a gentle gentile of course). So I'm afraid the way in which you intended to use "gentile" does not work.
Nicely done rsg007, you've convinced me that I was in error and you did it with class. No rudeness or venom whatsoever. Thank you for that, I really do appreciate sharp and refined people such as yourself.
You're welcome.
I'm a bit confused about you're saying here. What study is it that says gays are more likely to suffer from addiction due to hard wiring in their brains? And are you saying that being gay is a sexual addiction but being straight is not? Because in your first post you say that we all have it to some degree. If we do all have it, then shouldn't it follow that we all are susceptible to other addictive behaviors?
Also, what proof do you have that a god created the process of natural selection?

reply from: kd78

You obviously have no clue as to what anyone is thinking. How did you come up with such a foul notion as that. Please try to keep your hateful imaginings to yourself thank you. I'm trying to learn things and enjoy this forum but reading that kind of off-the-wall stuff diminishes the entire experience.
what a minute! i'm the hateful one? i'm not the one saying glbt people are abnormal, a scourge on society, sexual devients, etc. i'm not the one saying they shouldn't be parents because they're "abnormal" and they teach kids it's ok to be glbt, and you shouldn't do that to kids. i'm not the one talking about finding the "gay gene" to get rid of homosexuality. but i'm the hateful one?
why am i not entitled to express anger against people spouting hatred? i said the homophobes, not everyone. and there are people here that don't think gays should be allowed to be part of society. someone compared gay parents to blind drivers. ummm not the same thing! blind people cannot drive because they can't see the traffic or anything, and therefore would cause accidents. also people on here are comparing pedophilia with gayness. again, not the same! pedophilia is different from two consenting people in a loving relationship. people are saying that gays can't have a normal, monogamous relationship. most of the glbt people i know can. i actually know more straight people that f'd around that glbt's. but i'm hateful. sorry you think that. i try not to be. i'm just pissed that in 2009 people are still discriminated against and treated as subhuman.

reply from: leftsfoil

I'm a bit confused about you're saying here. What study is it that says gays are more likely to suffer from addiction due to hard wiring in their brains? And are you saying that being gay is a sexual addiction but being straight is not? Because in your first post you say that we all have it to some degree. If we do all have it, then shouldn't it follow that we all are susceptible to other addictive behaviors?
Also, what proof do you have that a god created the process of natural selection?
You ask what study I'm getting my info from... you could start with the ones sighted in Augustine's post;
Homosexuality and substance abuse
· A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women. The study found that: Like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%)." In addition, "46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."
· The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.
· A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."
· The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, reports that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include
higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight."
...or, you could google (homosexuality/drug addiction) and find a bunch on your own.
This isn't as complicated as you think. Everyone's brain is hardwired to respond to orgasm reward chemistry. These chemical are made in the brain and given to itself when triggered by orgasmic stimuli. This same set of chemical receptors can be falsely rewarded by drugs that mimic genuine brain chemicals.
And yes, we are all subject to other additive behaviors and because of the normal variances in the genome, some of us are more susceptible than others. Have you heard of the diagnosis of "additive personality type". Please google that if you haven't.
Finally.. you ask; "What proof do I have that a God created the process of natural selection?" Can you imagine how it sounds to my ears when someone tasks me to give PROOF of something that is a matter of faith. There is no way to prove or disprove matters of God and faith.

reply from: sander

That anything could possibly make you think twice about supporting and protecting innocent life in the womb says alot about YOU.
With that kind of wishy washy support, go take it someplace else...you couldn't possibly help their cause.

reply from: leftsfoil

You obviously have no clue as to what anyone is thinking. How did you come up with such a foul notion as that. Please try to keep your hateful imaginings to yourself thank you. I'm trying to learn things and enjoy this forum but reading that kind of off-the-wall stuff diminishes the entire experience.
what a minute! i'm the hateful one? i'm not the one saying glbt people are abnormal, a scourge on society, sexual devients, etc. i'm not the one saying they shouldn't be parents because they're "abnormal" and they teach kids it's ok to be glbt, and you shouldn't do that to kids. i'm not the one talking about finding the "gay gene" to get rid of homosexuality. but i'm the hateful one?
why am i not entitled to express anger against people spouting hatred? i said the homophobes, not everyone. and there are people here that don't think gays should be allowed to be part of society. someone compared gay parents to blind drivers. ummm not the same thing! blind people cannot drive because they can't see the traffic or anything, and therefore would cause accidents. also people on here are comparing pedophilia with gayness. again, not the same! pedophilia is different from two consenting people in a loving relationship. people are saying that gays can't have a normal, monogamous relationship. most of the glbt people i know can. i actually know more straight people that f'd around that glbt's. but i'm hateful. sorry you think that. i try not to be. i'm just pissed that in 2009 people are still discriminated against and treated as subhuman.
Calling people "homophobes", who take offense at being labeled homophobic is offensive. You use this term because it empowers you to hurt and discredit others but you have no proof of what is inside other people's hearts and minds. Additionally, I've never said one mean thing in this forum or have been intentionally disrespectful. Your perception of people with differing opinions make you feel like you are being attacked.. and this is normal. This is a very personal subject and who is not sensitive to personal issues? Please know this, not everyone who disagrees with you is a hater.

reply from: rsg007

I'm a bit confused about you're saying here. What study is it that says gays are more likely to suffer from addiction due to hard wiring in their brains? And are you saying that being gay is a sexual addiction but being straight is not? Because in your first post you say that we all have it to some degree. If we do all have it, then shouldn't it follow that we all are susceptible to other addictive behaviors?
Also, what proof do you have that a god created the process of natural selection?
You ask what study I'm getting my info from... you could start with the ones sighted in Augustine's post;
Homosexuality and substance abuse
· A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women. The study found that: Like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%)." In addition, "46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."
· The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.
· A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."
· The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, reports that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include
higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight."
...or, you could google (homosexuality/drug addiction) and find a bunch on your own.
This isn't as complicated as you think. Everyone's brain is hardwired to respond to orgasm reward chemistry. These chemical are made in the brain and given to itself when triggered by orgasmic stimuli. This same set of chemical receptors can be falsely rewarded by drugs that mimic genuine brain chemicals.
And yes, we are all subject to other additive behaviors and because of the normal variances in the genome, some of us are more susceptible than others. Have you heard of the diagnosis of "additive personality type". Please google that if you haven't.
Yes, I am fully aware of studies showing lesbians, gay and bisexual people are perhaps more susceptible to drug addiction than straight people, but where is the study that attributes this to "hard wiring" in the brain? The one quoted above does not. In fact, it doesn't attribute it to anything. Isn't it possible that high rates of drug addiction in the gay community can be attributed to issues of low self esteem brought on by the negative attitudes some people have toward the gay community? And I'm still not clear on what you think causes homosexuality. Can you restate that?
So you are OK with having no idea whether what you believe is correct or not?

reply from: Banned Member

We know that most people who support abortion and homosexual rights are also the same people who want evolution taught in schools.
How could if you believe in evolution and the process of natural selection also believe that homosexuality is something that "you are born with" or "something you are born as"? Homosexuality is something which it's carriers cannot pass on because they would not naturally reproduce. Homosexuality could not be the result of natural selection because by the very nature of the homosexuality trait it is not selected every single time.

reply from: faithman

Well in this case selection plays a part. Peter puffers select to puff peters.

reply from: rsg007

But homosexuals have, do and will continue to reproduce--many people who are homosexual have biological children, for one reason or another. This is especially true up to about 40 years ago when many, if not most, homosexuals got married and had kids, as society expected them to. In addition, we know that many people who are straight have gay children, so the gene, if there is one, must not always result in the expression of homosexuality, which would certainly mean it can be passed on.
My question is: Why does it really matter whether one is born gay or chooses it? There are many, many choices a person makes during a lifetime and nobody should judge them for it unless those choices harm someone else. I fail to see how homosexuality (between consenting adults) harms anyone.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/whatabouththechildren.htm
Should people involved in homosexual or lesbian relationships be allowed to adopt children?
The High Court is presently considering whether homosexual and lesbian couples should be allowed to co-adopt children. Are children who grow up in single-sex parented homes advantaged or disadvantaged?
These statistics show the tragic consequences of fatherless and single parent homes in the United States:
· 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
· 85% of all children that exhibit behavioural disorders come from fatherless homes.
· 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
· 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
· 75% of all adolescent patients in drug abuse centres come from fatherless homes.
· 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
While this applies to children who grow up in fatherless homes, mothers are equally important in the lives of children and the results of 'motherless' homes are equally tragic. Children who grow up with two mothers and no father, and those who grow up with two fathers and no mother, will be horribly handicapped in life.
Children of homosexuals less sociable and achieve lower grades
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender).
It is not fair of our society, our government and our courts to establish public policy that encourages this social engineering and pretends that homosexual "families" are normal, healthy and desirable. Instead, public policy should work toward mitigating the harmful effects of divorce and single parenting that results in motherless and fatherless homes - not promoting it!
Former lesbian says having children was a cruel mistake
Former lesbian Cherie Tayler had three children by artificial insemination. Her lesbian partner shared the parenting. After the break-up of their 16-year relationship, Cherie admitted that her life as a lesbian has been spurred on by her unloving mother and sexually abusive father. She said that having children had been a cruel mistake. She reported on a 60 Minutes TV documentary that she saw the hurt in her children's faces every day. Her 11-year-old son wanted to know about his father's job, what he looked like, the colour of his eyes - and Cherie was unable to answer. She said, "I (now) believe that children should have the best opportunities in life. The best way they can have a balanced view of what is normal is with heterosexual parents."
It does not matter whether we think homosexuality (the act of "mating" with a member of the same sex) is normal or deviant, emotionally healthy or not, the fact is that we should do what is best for the children. People who live homosexual lives say that they have a right to do what they want in their bedrooms and private lives. But adopting children is not about their "private" lives as it intrudes into the life of children who will not have a choice, and are not old enough to make a mature and informed choice. Special privileges, like adoption, for men or women who engage in homosexuality, are hotly debated worldwide, with the vast majority of countries, and the vast majority of people across the world, saying 'No, let's stick to what is best for the children.'
Children raised homosexuals more likely to explore homosexuality themselves.
A study by two pro-homosexual sociologists from the University of Southern California, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, showed that these children "seem to grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations (getting involved in homosexuality)." Stacey said that in the past "sympathetic researchers" have defensively stressed an absence of difference, but a re-evaluation of past studies showed that there are significant differences. Homosexual activists were pleased about this. Aimee Gelnaw, director of Family Pride Coalition (a pro-homosexual organisation) responded to the research, "Of course our kids are going to be different. They are growing up in a different social context." Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Centre for Lesbian Rights said homosexuals should be elated by the study which shows that "our kids are somewhat more likely to identify as lesbian and gay."
But is this best for children? British MP Julian Brazier says, "This sort of social experiment may be exciting for the people who take part in it but they should ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the child."
Cornelia Oddie of the U.K. based Family and Youth Concern think tank says, "It must be extra confusing for the children. With homosexual couples the majority of their friends would be presumably part of the homosexual culture, so the children grow up with a skewed idea of relationships. This is bound to give children an unbalanced view of social and sexual relationships."
The implications are severe. With the acceptance of two homosexuals as joint parents, the family is torn from its traditional and God-inspired balance of a mother and a father both giving of their commitment, love and essence to the children. What kinds of homes can homosexuals and lesbians offer children?
Homosexual relationships are short-lived and less faithful
Even in those homosexual relationships, which the partners consider 'committed', the meaning of 'committed' typically means something radically different from marriage.
· In the Triangle Project study of homosexual men in Cape Town, 47% of respondents said that they were currently in a relationship, yet only 13.3% of respondents had had only one partner in the past year. 60% of the men who were currently 'in a relationship' admitted to having had "sex" with people other than their partners in the past year.
· In the book, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, the authors, two homosexual lecturers, report a study of 156 men in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years. Only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship and of these, the men had all been together for less than five years. In other words, all the so-called 'couples' with a relationship lasting more than five years had incorporated some outside sexual activity into their relationships.
Homosexual relationships are more violent than traditional marriage
While homosexuals, particularly lesbians, propagate the idea of the lesbian or homosexual home as one of peace and equality, the truth is that homosexual relationships are far more violent than heterosexual marriages. The U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that married women in normal families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships. Consider these studies of homosexual relationships:
· The Journal of Interpersonal Violence published an article entitled "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships". Researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study. 31% of women in lesbian relationships reported one or more incidents of physical abuse.
· A survey of 1,099 lesbians found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequent forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."
Homosexuality and crime
A study of 4340 adults in five metropolitan areas of the USA showed that bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) compared to heterosexuals:
· exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (more frequently admitting to participating in orgies and reported larger numbers of sexual partners);
· more frequently participated in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls);
· more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating); and
· more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g. fisting, bestiality, ingestion of faeces and sadomasochism).
Homosexuality and substance abuse
· A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women. The study found that: Like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%)." In addition, "46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."
· The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.
· A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."
· The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, reports that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight."
Live hard, die fast
Note also that homosexuals have shorter life spans than other people. A study in the United States found that the median age of death of married men was 75 and unmarried heterosexual men, 71. By comparison, homosexual men who died of non-AIDS causes, had a median age of death of 42 (41 years for those men who had a long-term sexual partner and 43 for those who did not). Homosexuals who had long-term partners lived shorter than those who do not. The study also found that homosexuals were 24 times more likely to commit suicide and had a traffic-accident death rate 18 times the rate of comparably aged white males. The 140 lesbians surveyed had a median age of death of 45 and exhibited high rates of violent death and cancer as compared to women in general. The study showed that 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide or accident - a rate 512 times higher than that of white females of similar age.

reply from: rsg007

Nice try, but you got anything from a non-biased (i.e., non-Christian) source?

reply from: CDC700

Wouldn't a NON-Christian source be biased as well?

reply from: BossMomma

Wouldn't a NON-Christian source be biased as well?
No, because it is based on fact, not just your religious preference. Children die or have their lives destroyed in heterosexual homes every day and you bigots don't say a thing about it. Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Scott Peterson..all straight, all baby killers. I can't find a single story in which a child has been brutalized, killed or, abused by homosexual parents.

reply from: faithman

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/pedophilia-in-the-homosexual-world/

reply from: faithman

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/are-over-a-third-of-foster-parent-molestations-homosexual/

reply from: faithman

http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php?articlenum=2

reply from: faithman

http://http:/http://cupofjoe.goodfight.org/?p=209/

reply from: Banned Member

Frank Lombard, Associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy, and his despicable molestation of a 5-year old boy he adopted.
According to RPV Network, Lombard
was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old African American son for sex to an undercover cop. Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son to the undercover officer in an online chat room under the user name "Perv Dad for Fun". He invited the under cover officer to travel to North Carolina to rape his already-molested adopted son. Lombard faces 20 years in prison if convicted but is not eligible for the death penalty.

reply from: rsg007

Wouldn't a NON-Christian source be biased as well?
I would argue that a study done by a medical or mental health organization (for example) would have no particular agenda to push, other than the health and mental well-being of the children in question. Such organizations (unless funded by a private or religious source) are not Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Atheist or liberal or conservative.

reply from: rsg007

Frank Lombard, Associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy, and his despicable molestation of a 5-year old boy he adopted.
According to RPV Network, Lombard
was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old African American son for sex to an undercover cop. Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son to the undercover officer in an online chat room under the user name "Perv Dad for Fun". He invited the under cover officer to travel to North Carolina to rape his already-molested adopted son. Lombard faces 20 years in prison if convicted but is not eligible for the death penalty.
This guy is not homosexual. He's a pedophile. Pedophiles are not sexually satisfied by adults, be they the same or different sex. That's why pedophiles abuse children--it's the only way for them to get sexual gratification. Homosexuality is something that adults practice--ever seen a definition of homosexuality that involves sex with children? Young boys, especially prepubescent ones, are about as different from grown men as grown women are from grown men.
By the way, I wouldn't call a man who molested a little girl heterosexual either. He's also a pedophile.

reply from: Banned Member

Have any of you ever met any homosexuals? By and large homosexuals are the most sexually minded people that I ever encountered. Virtually every conversation takes upon a sexual aspect or some component of their effiminate same sex minded view of the world and the people in it. This is especially true of young homosexuals. They don't seem to see people, they see bodies. The don't see relationships with people, they see sex acts. They don't see genders, they see bodily organs and genitalia. Homosexuality is a disgusting perversion which some people struggle greatly with while others take to the lifestyle like intoxicated pigs in heat.

reply from: BossMomma

Really? So how many gays have you spoken to?

reply from: rsg007

I've met more homosexuals than I can count (hundreds and hundreds) and more than you have I'm sure. I find male homosexuals to be as obsessed with sex as male heterosexuals and female homosexuals to be as obsessed with sex as female heterosexuals (both less so than their male counterparts, with exceptions of course). When you say "effiminate" I assume you mean "effeminate" and also that you are referring to male homosexuals, or are you accusing lesbians of being too effeminate? I think it is not entirely inaccurate to say that gay people frequently talk about their world and worldview (which of course includes sex), but I haven't met too many heterosexuals who don't spend a lot of time talking about their (heterosexual) world and worldview (and yes, sex). It's also likely that homosexuals feel a greater need to talk about their world precisely because it is so marginalized and denigrated. As for young people, have you ever met a straight teenage boy? They spend practically every waking minute thinking about sex with girls (so I'm told), and if they didn't you'd probably accuse them of being gay.

reply from: BossMomma

I think he's a closet queer lashing out because of his fear of coming out. It's ok Auggie, embrace who you are and join us over the rainbow!

reply from: Banned Member

You can spend eternity in hell with you and your beast of burden lover. There are no pleasures of the flesh in hells eternal flames.

reply from: Banned Member

I have not met a woman who I would marry who is of a suitable moral mindset. There are more than plenty of women to shack-up with and more still who are currently shacked-up. Some who are married are open minded too. If all a person wants is sex the bars are always open and the price of a few drinks is still within reach of the working man.
I want a woman to share my life with, not some cheap beer prostitute.

reply from: BossMomma

Quite frankly Auggie, you're a sinner same as anyone else here. You're just as likely to burn in hell as I.

reply from: leftsfoil

But homosexuals have, do and will continue to reproduce--many people who are homosexual have biological children, for one reason or another. This is especially true up to about 40 years ago when many, if not most, homosexuals got married and had kids, as society expected them to. In addition, we know that many people who are straight have gay children, so the gene, if there is one, must not always result in the expression of homosexuality, which would certainly mean it can be passed on.
My question is: Why does it really matter whether one is born gay or chooses it? There are many, many choices a person makes during a lifetime and nobody should judge them for it unless those choices harm someone else. I fail to see how homosexuality (between consenting adults) harms anyone.
Do you deny the gay populations part in the rapid global spread of AIDS?

reply from: leftsfoil

The following is in reference to Augustine's post: FAMILY: What about the Children? (homosexual adoption)
That was a lot more than a nice try. I can only imagine what you are thinking.. OH BOY, you better watch out for those lying Christians.. better not to trust those nasty Bible thumpers.. those closed minded bigots will say anything to mess you up.. black-hearted bastids.
If you actually took time to read his post, which I know you didn't, then you would have found (gay researchers) opinions in it as well.

reply from: leftsfoil

Personal attacks are vulgar and a typical small minded tactic to discredit your opponent personally rather than to bring a valid argument against his/her opinion/s.

reply from: leftsfoil

Personal attacks are vulgar and a typical small minded tactic to discredit your opponent personally rather than to bring a valid argument against his/her opinion/s

reply from: leftsfoil

Perhaps you have you not read or studied brain chemistry e.g. neurochemicals such as norepinephrine, dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, neurotransmitters, neural receptors and such? This is the hardwiring I'm referring to. This is very interesting stuff.
Is it possible that having a low self esteem brought on by the negative attitudes some people have toward the gay community a justified reaction? I am a white, Christian, conservative, Republican, heterosexual male and that combination brings negative reactions from the liberal community, but it does not steal my self esteem. On the contrary, I'm proud of who I am because I know in my heart of hearts that there is nothing wrong with being the way I am. If a person has doubts about their own behavior then I would expect that person to be uncomfortable in their own skin.
Once you've studied this brain chemistry thing you will be able to better understand my take on the causes of homosexuality being an orgasm addition. Additionally, I suspect there is a strong auto erotic aspect to it as well. In addition to the brain/sex/chemical thing, I have also heard/read about genetic problems that cause, for example, a woman to be born with a man's brain and vise versa. I've also read something about stress during pregnancy causing some sort of malfunction in the gestating brain of male fetuses. These last two examples are things I've noted in my mind but I have no proof or references for. Perhaps someone else could enlighten us about these.
So you are OK with having no idea whether what you believe is correct or not?
Well.. let's just say that I'm hopeful that the things I take on faith are correct but more importantly, righteous.
Do you realize that you drawing me out to sharing and having admitted to my comfortability with the process of natural selection puts me in peril of scorn from the Christian lobby in this forum?

reply from: Cecilia

homosexuality is not exclusively about sexuality any more than heterosexuality is. i asked, is your relationship with your wife soley a 'sexual addiction'? I doubt it. it is the same for homosexual individuals; it's not only about sex.
Response to the above. Well I hate to beat a dead horse into powder.. but here we go. I agree that, if you exclude sex, then everything else in a relationship, irregardless of gender, would be the same. But how can you exclude the notion of sex from a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship. By definition, both relationships are sexual. Without the sex aspect to it.. you're just friends. Why would you think that I'm so obtuse as to not understand this? On your second point.. I also agree. You are correct. My love relationship with my wife has matured into additional dimensions but the chemistry is still there for me. However, I must say that I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.,
so you agree that homosexuality is not exclusively about sex. good, now we can both go forward recognizing that there are feelings and emotions involved in homosexual relationships other than sexual feelings.
do you really think that relationships with out sex are "just friends"??? I can't believe you really think this. and i dont' think you are obtuse; just haven't thought out that homosexuals have feelings too other than just sex.
I brought up your relationship with your wife because you said you were married, and I feel comparison better brought 'home' if you will by using a real life scenario instead of vague people on the street you don't know. plus, it's the same thing; your feelings for your wife, and a homosexual's felings for their partner. Same thing.
a reasonable person would then ask why you originally stated that "a child would be of legitimate birth", if you think there are no "illegitimate births".
Response to the above. OK.. why do you pretend that there is no difference in the contextual meanings of the word, legitimate, as used in this thread. I used it to mean (legal) in my original post and you used it to mean emotional/spiritual in yours. I then used it in the same context as you did in my reply, and then you try to employ a stratagem of subterfuge to subvert my original point. Further, I am convinced that you knew fully well what I meant in my post and you are just trying to create chaos and perhaps wear me down with your false rhetoric.
you are assuming i used it emotional/spiritual, and that is not correct. i don' tunderstand how a birth is not legally legitimate.
i am not trying to 'get one over' you. you sound paranoid. i am trying to talk to you.
i want you also to know that english is not my first langauge, and i honestly don't understand what people mean sometimes, and if i get a meaning different than you it isn't "subterfuge".
You didn't insinuate, you flat out stated: "A perfect world would look like"..."The child would be raised in the Christian faith in order to educate him/her in the ways and value of civil behavior and honesty."
Response to the above. OK.. so this proves that you can read.
you did not answer see fit to answer, did you?
i think you should research "gentile" and etiology of that. gentile is latin for 'not something' , particulary not a jew, and it has nothing to do with the english word "gentle".
Response to the above. I did, in fact, research the word gentile and the second meaning listed in Websters is: Christian, as distinguished from Jewish. The latin root of the English word gentle is: gentilis. Which means: of family. The word gentle is a direct derivative of the Latin word gentilis as is gentile. You seem very focused on discrediting me. I'll admit that I make mistakes but not this time.
you seem really insecure, i am not trying to discredit you. if someone disagree with you you take it like its a conspiracy. why is that?
i don't really care, but no, you are wrong. gentile in latin is meaning "not of" something, such as biblical times, not Jewish. and again, has nothing to do with 'gentle'. christians are called "gentiles" because they are Not Jewish, not because they are "gentle" people, or more "gentle" than anyone else.
so you have sex with your wife and that is all where your feelings derive from? does she know that?
Response to the above. First of all, your repeated references to my wife in this discussion are indecorous at minimum and frankly none of your business. Your rudeness is revealing and your ire disappointing and from the standpoint of reasoned debate, counterproductive.
you brought her up originally, i am using this as an example to help you better understand that everyone, not just heteroesexuals, have feelings. personal analogies usually go better, if people can get over their insecurities.
don't take everything so personally. some people are not 'out for blood'.

reply from: Cecilia

You obviously have no clue as to what anyone is thinking. How did you come up with such a foul notion as that. Please try to keep your hateful imaginings to yourself thank you. I'm trying to learn things and enjoy this forum but reading that kind of off-the-wall stuff diminishes the entire experience.
i think she has a clue what people are thinking from their various comments. they are very hateful. the shepard killers no doubt had similar thoughts about how vile and disgusting gays are. look at some of the comments, you have to admit they are pretty harsh.
There is no "gay gene" It is a social/mental disorder. And the reason they shouldn't be raising kids is simple, they are openly mentally incompetent and perverse.
If you don't understand the revulsion felt by straight people at the sight of gays gaying it up in public.. then I'm afraid that no-one will be able to explain it to you.

reply from: Cecilia

Yes, the words "gentile" and "gentle" derive from the same Latin root but that does not mean "gentile" has anything to do with the way we use the word "gentle" today. Originally, "gentle," as in "gentleman," was clearly linked to the definition of the Latin root ("of or belonging to the same clan, stock, or race"): that's what a "gentleman" was--a member of a certain clan, stock, etc. Being a gentleman had nothing to do with being kind or gentle. It's only over time that the "kind/nice" aspect of "gentle" arose, and the same nuances ("kind/nice") did NOT come to apply to "gentile." So being a gentile has nothing to do with being gentle, even though the words come from the same place (not that you can't be a gentle gentile of course). So I'm afraid the way in which you intended to use "gentile" does not work.
Nicely done rsg007, you've convinced me that I was in error and you did it with class. No rudeness or venom whatsoever. Thank you for that, I really do appreciate sharp and refined people such as yourself.
yes, because here was my rude and venom filled response:
i think you should research "gentile" and etiology of that. gentile is latin for 'not something' , particulary not a jew, and it has nothing to do with the english word "gentle".

reply from: Cecilia

as a therapist, this is a very incorrect uneducated opinion.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Globally speaking, AIDS is almost exclusively a heterosexual disease, and freakishly skewed towards Christians.
Indeed, it is epidemic among hetero's in Africa. Lesbians are rather unlikely to pass AIDS as very little of what we do ruptures membranes and causes bleeding.

reply from: BossMomma

Perhaps you have you not read or studied brain chemistry e.g. neurochemicals such as norepinephrine, dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, neurotransmitters, neural receptors and such? This is the hardwiring I'm referring to. This is very interesting stuff.
Is it possible that having a low self esteem brought on by the negative attitudes some people have toward the gay community a justified reaction? I am a white, Christian, conservative, Republican, heterosexual male and that combination brings negative reactions from the liberal community, but it does not steal my self esteem. On the contrary, I'm proud of who I am because I know in my heart of hearts that there is nothing wrong with being the way I am. If a person has doubts about their own behavior then I would expect that person to be uncomfortable in their own skin.
Once you've studied this brain chemistry thing you will be able to better understand my take on the causes of homosexuality being an orgasm addition. Additionally, I suspect there is a strong auto erotic aspect to it as well. In addition to the brain/sex/chemical thing, I have also heard/read about genetic problems that cause, for example, a woman to be born with a man's brain and vise versa. I've also read something about stress during pregnancy causing some sort of malfunction in the gestating brain of male fetuses. These last two examples are things I've noted in my mind but I have no proof or references for. Perhaps someone else could enlighten us about these.
So you are OK with having no idea whether what you believe is correct or not?
Well.. let's just say that I'm hopeful that the things I take on faith are correct but more importantly, righteous.
Do you realize that you drawing me out to sharing and having admitted to my comfortability with the process of natural selection puts me in peril of scorn from the Christian lobby in this forum?
So what about a non-sexual lesbian? Where is that hardwired lust that should have me foaming at the mouth to muff dive? Could it possibly be that you're as wrong as you are ignorant and that gays have just as much if not more self control than straights?

reply from: rsg007

But homosexuals have, do and will continue to reproduce--many people who are homosexual have biological children, for one reason or another. This is especially true up to about 40 years ago when many, if not most, homosexuals got married and had kids, as society expected them to. In addition, we know that many people who are straight have gay children, so the gene, if there is one, must not always result in the expression of homosexuality, which would certainly mean it can be passed on.
My question is: Why does it really matter whether one is born gay or chooses it? There are many, many choices a person makes during a lifetime and nobody should judge them for it unless those choices harm someone else. I fail to see how homosexuality (between consenting adults) harms anyone.
Do you deny the gay populations part in the rapid global spread of AIDS?
No. Do you deny heterosexuals' and drug addicts' part in the spread of AIDS?

reply from: rsg007

That was a lot more than a nice try. I can only imagine what you are thinking.. OH BOY, you better watch out for those lying Christians.. better not to trust those nasty Bible thumpers.. those closed minded bigots will say anything to mess you up.. black-hearted bastids.
If you actually took time to read his post, which I know you didn't, then you would have found (gay researchers) opinions in it as well.
I read the post completely but did not see any gay researchers' opinions. Please point them out to me. And that is absolutely not what I was thinking. Are you a mind reader? I was in fact thinking that it would be nice to look at evidence from a non-biased (in any way) source, exactly like I said.

reply from: rsg007

Perhaps you have you not read or studied brain chemistry e.g. neurochemicals such as norepinephrine, dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, neurotransmitters, neural receptors and such? This is the hardwiring I'm referring to. This is very interesting stuff.
I have indeed read about brain chemistry and am aware of the subjects you list above, but you have not answered my question: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT GAY PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT BRAIN CHEMISTRY FROM STRAIGHT PEOPLE WHICH CAUSES THEM TO BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DRUG ADDICTION? I am specifically asking for the proof that links the two claims together.
Also, if there is such proof, doesn't it indicate (according to your views) that people are in fact born gay? Or does this hard wiring occur later somehow?
I doubt that the negative reactions you have received from the liberal community are anything like those that homosexuals have received from the homophobic community. The idea is quite laughable, actually.
Only when you have provided evidence of a link between brain chemistry and drug addiction UNIQUE TO GAY PEOPLE will I understand your point, otherwise you don't have one. And "suspecting" there is an auto-erotic aspect to it and "hearing/reading" about other problems that may contribute hardly constitutes conclusive evidence. I suggest you do a lot more research (yes, from non-biased sources) if you want to be taken seriously about this.
So you are OK with having no idea whether what you believe is correct or not?
You brought up your views on natural selection before I did. I only asked a question once you had already brought it up.

reply from: kd78

sander- i'm still pro-life. i'm constantly reminding people that i am supportive of gay people, anti-war, anti death penalty, politically pacifist, etc. we don't all condemn gays or call all single mothers whores and *****s!

reply from: kd78

but not matter what anyone says here unless they're right wing anti-gay then they're label a death whore and a stupid liberal! that's what i find difficult. the focus should be on babies and people's lives. people's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to parent or help make the world a better place for children born or unborn.

reply from: faithman

as a therapist, this is a very incorrect uneducated opinion.
Being a therapist only makes you an educated fool, and a mouth piece for the godless religion of secular humanism. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and deviant behavior. It was considered such until homosexual politics perverted the medical profession just like it perverts everything else it touches.

reply from: kd78

leftsfoil- i'm not talking about people screwing on their front lawns front of a bus full of preschoolers! i want to know what's so "sexual deviant" about two people who might happen to be male/male or female/female or even one pre-op transexual with an opposite gender partner holding hands, hugging, or giving a peck on the cheek in public? how is that "deviant?" they are normal displays of affection that heterosexual couples enjoy daily.

reply from: faithman

Who is calling ALL single mothers such things? Mind linking us to the post?

reply from: leftsfoil

I am sorry, but I simply do not have the time or energy to answer this avalanche of responses to my most recent posts. I wish that I could sit and discuss this issue (and others) with this cast of interesting characters. If there are some particularly important concerns that you feel I haven't fully addressed to your satisfaction, then please feel free to ask me to respond to those.
There are some core questions that have developed in my mind during the course of these exchanges. I would like see some discussion on these and would appreciate any input from either camp. I know it's fuel to the fire but that's what we live for isn't it.... Isn't it?
Here they are:
What existed first.. the heterosexual or the homosexual? (I'm not being sarcastic here, I swear)
What would a world, made up exclusively of homosexuals, look like?
Is there a purpose to homosexuality and how is it useful?
Can you be in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship with someone that you don't have sex with?
Would the term (heterosexuality) even exist if it were not for the existence of (homosexuality)?
Are men and women somehow sexually miss-matched?

reply from: sander

You've got one thing right....good for you.
And who exactly calls ALL single mothers such names? Be specific.
I certainly do not condemn homosexual people, I believe their sexual behavior is deviant, but they are still human beings worthy of understanding and compassion.
War has never solved anything, except fascisim, communisim, put a solid halt to the rise of nazis and ended salvery. Your world of anti-war is dangerous beyond measure. In your world we'd all be run by brutal dictator tyrants.
The death peanlty should only be reserved for those who have committed the most heinous crimes, been tried, convicted by a jury of their peers, withstood countless years of appeals so they will never repeat those acts against humanity again and serve as a deterrent to others.
Wake up....your make believe world doesn't exist and shouldn't.

reply from: leftsfoil

Thank you for your compliment on my intelligence. Your lack of tact bores me. If you only knew. If one doesn't engage in sex with other people.. then they are neither homosexual or heretrosexual. The only possible categories for a person such as this are asexual or non-sexual. However, I think perhaps you've earned your own new category = Huffysexual.

reply from: leftsfoil

Dear Celia, regardless of my time constraints I will take the time to respond to this post.
First of all I would like to know how it feels to be the smartest person in the world? Your education and job as a counselor come up quite often in your posts and you spend them like they were intellectual capital. Yawn.
Anyway, if you recall, the point I was trying to make was that persons who emulate the life of Jesus and embrace the teaching of Jesus are more thoroughly civilized than those who don't. This is the point that irked you in the first place so don't let my misunderstanding of the word "gentile" throw or distract you. Nor does my misunderstanding of any particular word undermine the truth to my statement/s or the strength of my convictions. It only proves that I'm not as perfect as you are.

reply from: leftsfoil

That was a lot more than a nice try. I can only imagine what you are thinking.. OH BOY, you better watch out for those lying Christians.. better not to trust those nasty Bible thumpers.. those closed minded bigots will say anything to mess you up.. black-hearted bastids.
If you actually took time to read his post, which I know you didn't, then you would have found (gay researchers) opinions in it as well.
I read the post completely but did not see any gay researchers' opinions. Please point them out to me. And that is absolutely not what I was thinking. Are you a mind reader? I was in fact thinking that it would be nice to look at evidence from a non-biased (in any way) source, exactly like I said.
Please click on the hypertext link and read the sources list at the end of the article.

reply from: leftsfoil

I've been inspired to write a song, it's called: (Goofy Toofy, How She Makes Me Laugh) Now she's created an alter ego, is that the right word Celia? She's clever, I'll give her that.

reply from: leftsfoil

Have you noticed that homosexuals don't feel revulsion at the sight of heterosexuals holding hands, kissing, etc. This should indicate to you that there is something fundamentally wrong with homosexual behavior. Humans are repulsed by unnatural things. It's just the way we are. If we see a person who is severely deformed it bothers us. If we see a person swallow a sword it bothers us. If we see someone eating live worms it bothers us. Anything that is off or out of the norm bothers us. I don't know why exactly, it's just the way we are. I maintain that it is just a natural reaction to weirdness that makes heteros recoil at the sight of gays gaying it up.

reply from: leftsfoil

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Globally speaking, AIDS is almost exclusively a heterosexual disease, and freakishly skewed towards Christians.
Boy.. it sure is easy for some people to say things as if they were true. How convenient.. AIDS, the scourge of the gay community, is now suddenly a Christian community problem. Go ahead and tell me another one.

reply from: leftsfoil

For Celia, rsg007, and all other gay supporters in this forum, the following is an attempt to explain homosexual behavior in a way that no one can misinterpret.

In this version I will be blunt and tend to overstate my position in an attempt to drive home my key points. I deduce and proclaim that most homosexuals are sex addicts. Gays cannot stand having one day go by without an orgasm or three. Male homos cannot stand the romance dance leading up to sexual gratification. They want hot sex now without a lot of foreplay and lolly gagging. Gay women want multiple orgasms and who better to know the drill than another woman?
One of the root causes of homosexuality has to do with the fact that most men and women are sexually miss-matched. If you assume, as I do, that ancient hominid behavior reflects modern chimp behavior and vise versa, studying modern chimp sexual behavior can be very instructive. All the mature male chimpanzees in a troop will mount a female in estrous. They do so in the order of dominance and prestige they have achieved within their troop. The female/s allows this. After the first dominant male chimp scratches her itch a bit.. she eagerly awaits the rest of the boys to finish the job off thoroughly. This practice almost certainly guarantees a pregnancy and therefore succeeds in passing on the genes that support this behavior. This hominid behavior still exists today in the human genome and explains much. This is why men are so eager for their one quick shot and why women are capable of multiple orgasms. A woman, after having sex with a man, is merely waiting for the rest of the troop to stop in for a brief visit. Our modern social morays generally don't permit this, but it also explains the phenomenon of woman's willingness to pull the occasional train.
I don't subscribe to the notion that gays are gay because they are morally corrupt, but rather that, as is the case with many, many heteros, their moral center is located somewhere below their waistline.
In my previous post I was trying to lay the groundwork for understanding the addictive nature of orgasmic brain chemistry. I believe that gayness is connected to heredity only in that, due to the variability in the human genome, some of us are more prone to self indulgence due to higher than average sensitivity to brain chemical candy. This is the reason that gays are statistically more prone to other forms of chemical addition. Their brains are packed with red hot neural receptors.
I love to solve puzzles and this whole gay thing is quite a puzzle. This is the best I've been able to make of it as I cannot accept the notion that gay people are evil and can't accept the notion that gayness is great either.

reply from: leftsfoil

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Globally speaking, AIDS is almost exlusively a heterosexual disease, and IS disproportionally Christian:
Here are the 10 most Christian countries in Africa (according to Operation World) and their adult HIV/AIDS infection rate:
Christians (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)
Congo (Dem. Rep.) 95.3 4.9
Equatorial Guinea 95.1 3.4
Angola 94.1 5.5
Congo 91.3 7.2
Burundi 90.1 8.3
Uganda 88.7 5.0
Zambia 85.0 21.5
Swaziland 82.7 33.4
Rwanda 80.8 8.9
Malawi 80.0 15.0
But where the figures get really depressing (for an evangelical Christian) is when you realise that in general the HIV/AIDS rate is highest in those countries where Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians predominate.
Here are the 20 most non-Catholic Christian countries in Africa and their adult HIV/AIDS infection rate:
Non-Catholic Christians (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)
Swaziland 78.0 33.4
South Africa 65.2 20.1
Ethiopia 64.4 6.4
Namibia 64.0 22.5
wana 63.2 38.8
Zimbabwe 63.0 33.7
Malawi 57.1 15.0
Kenya 56.0 15.0
Ghana 53.2 3.0
Central Af. Rep. 51.7 12.9
Zambia 51.6 21.5
Congo (Dem. Rep.) 50.8 4.9
Uganda 46.7 5.0
Eritrea 43.7 2.8
Cameroon 42.5 11.8
Congo 42.0 7.2
Nigeria 39.2 5.8
Rwanda 38.2 8.9
Mozambique 36.8 13.0
Lesotho 35.8 31.0
If you are not already sufficiently depressed, look at a table for the 10 most Muslim countries in Africa:
Muslims (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)
Somalia 100.0 1.0
Morocco 99.9 0.1
Algeria 96.7 0.1
Libya 96.5 0.2
Senegal 92.1 0.5
Gambia 88.8 1.6
Mali 87.0 1.7
Egypt 86.5 0.1
Sierra Leone 70.0 7.0
Sudan 65.0 2.6
In church we are told that one of the reasons we should support Christian missionary activity in Africa is to stop the spread of Islam. In the words of Operation World: "African Christians as well as mission agencies need to make Muslims a priority for demonstrations of the love of Christ and culturally sensitive approaches must be developed for planting churches among them."
Yet as AIDS rips at the heart of the continent - devastating families, gutting townships, wrecking national economies, creating millions of orphans - it looks to be Islamic culture that has solutions of a sort.
You kill me sinwiddy.. you start out to statistically prove that the globe has more Christians with AIDS than any other group and then you produce statistics from Africa only. Your science is junk and unless you can provide me a link verifying this info I refuse to even consider this African dogma.

reply from: sk1bianca

the idea was that the rate of HIV infections is much higher among homosexuals, as in x% from the total number. like, for example, 20% of heterosexuals have AIDS and 50% of homosexuals have AIDS. and 50 is bigger than 20.... get it?
by the way... africa is FULL of AIDS and it has been getting WORSE since the UN started throwing condoms at them... is it because people behave like animals and can't keep their pants on, or because condoms are not really as efficient as producers say? or maybe both...?
and it doesn't matter if someone says he's "christian" but has reckless sex with all kinds of people and gets AIDS. such a person doesn't count as a christian.

reply from: leftsfoil

Ideally, one should present first the facts, then the conclusions. Conclusions can not be taken seriously without factual basis. One can not simply claim to "deduce" and expect intelligent persons to take you seriously without sharing the facts supporting the alleged "deductions."
See above.... I won't bother pointing out the fact that the rest of your admitted assumptions seem to be equally lacking in documented support leading to logical predictions, much less scientifically tested with controls. In short, you appear to be pulling most of this out of your @ss. If my observation is incorrect, prove me wrong by providing the aforementioned supporting documentation....
I'll state my conclusions any place I feel like it. Stop being so bossy. It's none of your business as to how I choose to arrange my posts. It sure got your attention right off the bat though, didn't it?
You refuse to accept what I say because I haven't provided you with research references. I assure you that none of these observations are originally mine. These are an amalgam of scientific information that I have gleaned over the course of my life, from books, magazines, TV documentaries, news items, etc., and therefore, unless I was writing a book, which I'm not, then it would take way too much effort to dig up all this related research references for the sole purpose of making you happy. Additionally, this is not my master's thesis and you are not my professor. I am not a scientist looking for research funding. If you don't believe what I've posted and you have a problem with it.. then why not research it yourself? Afraid of what you may find? Real nice with that, "pulling most of this out of your a$$", comment. Real classy.. and a little weird considering the subject of this thread. I believe you were a bit shaken by this post because of it's logical nature. There's power in the truth and I think it bothers you. It assaults your current paradigm and world view. I'd feel for you but I can't reach you.

reply from: rsg007

Have you noticed that homosexuals don't feel revulsion at the sight of heterosexuals holding hands, kissing, etc. This should indicate to you that there is something fundamentally wrong with homosexual behavior.
Or perhaps it indicates that homosexuals are generally more open minded and compassionate than homophobic heterosexuals. (Also, I actually do know quite a few gay people who find it "icky" when they see straight people kissing. I think it's just a matter of seeing something different from what one personally likes to do. I just wonder why many heterosexuals take it beyond the "icky" to the hatred.)
Not all heterosexuals "recoil" at the sight of two men or women kissing. Why don't you ask yourself why it makes you do so?
And as for your post on the "origins of homosexuality," I agree with ConcernedParent--a complete load of unsubstantiated codswallop. You don't even seem to understand what a multiple orgasm is.

reply from: leftsfoil

I know you don't believe anything I say but the reason I am not willing to give you the proof of my theories is that I know from experience that no matter how much proof I lay in front of an adversary such as yourself, they will always find some clever way to dismiss it, discredit it, or ignore it. The problem I have with spending energy in convincing you of these ideas is that I know that you can't afford to be wrong. Your views about homosexuality are what validate you. This stuff is way too personal for you to easily deal with objectively.
So I laid out my hypothesis for you to consider and you rejected it out of hand. Am I surprised? Of course not. Am I disappointed? No. Am I mad at you? Not much. You challenge my assertions and that's OK. Can it be that I am flat out wrong about every bit of this? Can it be that everything I've asserted is just,(as you say), pulled out of my a$$? I believe there is a lot of clarity and a ring of truth to my hypothesis and someday it will be published (to your dismay), with references and liner notes but you won't be interested in my views then either. This version of reality not only doesn't serve you well, but worse, it actually threatens you. That is not what I set out to do however, it's just the way it turned out.

reply from: leftsfoil

Gosh.. I don't know.. why don't you explain it to me.
Well lets see.. one orgasm = single, and more than one orgasm = multiple. There.. how'd I do?

reply from: leftsfoil

I assure you I have no intention of "ignoring" any substantiation you might offer. Quite the opposite, actually. I intend to discredit it, just as you fear. Of course, I realized you would not likely let it come to that.
Conjecture hardly represents a "hypothesis." You presented absolutely no factual basis for your claims.
LOL! I assure you I am absolutely giddy with anticipation, but if you really want to try to save face, defend your claims NOW, or at least give it the old "college try." I think we both know there is very little possibility of that, don't we?
So you admit to having an intent to discredit me before seeing any evidence. Not very scientific or open minded for a stickler of such things.
A hypothesis can be asserted as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation.
You're giddy eh? Your personal attacks and aggressive arrogance are both common and telling. I got your goat and now you want mine. Sorry, but you may not have it. Maddening isn't it? Please, let the hatred flow and tell me what you really think.

reply from: Banned Member

Actually, in my own opinion, the person, male or female, who isn't turned off by women kissing each other, is the real perve in society.

reply from: leftsfoil

Imagine my bad luck as to having the misfortune of crossing the only person qualified to declare me an non-intellectual hack. I hate to break this to you Boss, but you are not in charge of determining who's worthy or not. You're not in charge of anything, your royal smugness. Your blatant pomposity is irksome. Even your avatar is pompous. The irony is that you know it's not me making the claim of intellectual prowess.. it's you Einstein. You are a bully and a braggart and you seek to belittle others in a futile and transparent attempt to lift yourself up. Overcompensating from feelings of inadequacy as it were. You can keep your claim to having the biggest brain if that's all the good it does you. Now go and polish your diplomas and think up some other belittling accusations you can post.

reply from: rsg007

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Actually, girl-on-girl porn is FAR AND AWAY the best-selling porn in America.
Actually, in my own opinion, the person, male or female, who isn't turned off by women kissing each other, is the real perve in society.
That was my post, not spinwiddy's.

reply from: faithman

Imagine my bad luck as to having the misfortune of crossing the only person qualified to declare me an non-intellectual hack. I hate to break this to you Boss, but you are not in charge of determining who's worthy or not. You're not in charge of anything, your royal smugness. Your blatant pomposity is irksome. Even your avatar is pompous. The irony is that you know it's not me making the claim of intellectual prowess.. it's you Einstein. You are a bully and a braggart and you seek to belittle others in a futile and transparent attempt to lift yourself up. Overcompensating from feelings of inadequacy as it were. You can keep your claim to having the biggest brain if that's all the good it does you. Now go and polish your diplomas and think up some other belittling accusations you can post.
Self proclamation does not a qualification make. The only thing monkey boy is qualified for, is giving first hand info on being a jail house wife.

reply from: BossMomma

Haha, the majority of American men think Lesbians are hott!

reply from: faithman

Why do the bortheads hate gays so much that they want them made extinct by abortion? Why are they against womb gay rights and PLAGAL?

reply from: leftsfoil

Oops.. I thought you were addressing me.. sorry faithman. Sometimes the only reason I open my mouth is to change feet.

reply from: leftsfoil

Haha, the majority of American men think Lesbians are hott!
Do they now? And there's value in a majority opinion? Hmm? Careful now.. slippery slope..

reply from: faithman

Oops.. I thought you were addressing me.. sorry faithman. Sometimes the only reason I open my mouth is to change feet.
Athletes mouth is a common rash around here. No worries mate. I do not think man came from monkeys, and I do believe the earth is much younger than some scientists suppose. But that has very little to do with the plight of the womb child, except many of the excuses to kill them are fueled by darwinist thought. I have yet to run across a creationist who was for abortion on demand.

reply from: leftsfoil

Oops.. I thought you were addressing me.. sorry faithman. Sometimes the only reason I open my mouth is to change feet.
Athletes mouth is a common rash around here. No worries mate. I do not think man came from monkeys, and I do believe the earth is much younger than some scientists suppose. But that has very little to do with the plight of the womb child, except many of the excuses to kill them are fueled by darwinist thought. I have yet to run across a creationist who was for abortion on demand.
I'm at a loss here. How can natural selection be confused with unnatural selection?
Where and how can I get up to speed on this subject? Suggestions please.

reply from: leftsfoil

How in the world did CP come to earn that title? Is CP a convict or is this just a metaphorical handle Faithman has given him?

reply from: faithman

Oops.. I thought you were addressing me.. sorry faithman. Sometimes the only reason I open my mouth is to change feet.
Athletes mouth is a common rash around here. No worries mate. I do not think man came from monkeys, and I do believe the earth is much younger than some scientists suppose. But that has very little to do with the plight of the womb child, except many of the excuses to kill them are fueled by darwinist thought. I have yet to run across a creationist who was for abortion on demand.
I'm at a loss here. How can natural selection be confused with unnatural selection?
Where and how can I get up to speed on this subject? Suggestions please.
Eugenics, which is the foundation of the abortion movement, is based on darwinism. Get a copy of MAAFA 21. You might try a simple web search, using the words Darwin, abortion, and eugenics. The three are triplets and inseperable.

reply from: BossMomma

Uh, imbecile, there is no prenatal testing for gays. YOU are the one who wants gays eliminated.

reply from: BossMomma

Haha, the majority of American men think Lesbians are hott!
Do they now? And there's value in a majority opinion? Hmm? Careful now.. slippery slope..
I really couldn't care less what the majority opinion is, I'm just stating the facts. You should try it sometime.

reply from: faithman

Uh, imbecile, there is no prenatal testing for gays. YOU are the one who wants gays eliminated.
Show one post where I have stated that.

reply from: leftsfoil

Eugenics, which is the foundation of the abortion movement, is based on darwinism. Get a copy of MAAFA 21. You might try a simple web search, using the words Darwin, abortion, and eugenics. The three are triplets and inseperable.
OK.. I get it. I have no faith in the notion that any race is genetically inferior or superior to any other race. There has been to little time since the formation of the various races to be significantly genetically differentiated. I do, however know that cultures are evolved differently and are nearly impossible to escape from or rise above. We are all trapped inside our own culture and it's real hard to change an entire culture. (Unless you have HBO and the liberal media working on you.)

reply from: leftsfoil

I shalll honor your suggestion in the spirit that it was given. Count on it.

reply from: faithman

Eugenics, which is the foundation of the abortion movement, is based on darwinism. Get a copy of MAAFA 21. You might try a simple web search, using the words Darwin, abortion, and eugenics. The three are triplets and inseperable.
OK.. I get it. I have no faith in the notion that any race is genetically inferior or superior to any other race. There has been to little time since the formation of the various races to be significantly genetically differentiated. I do, however know that cultures are evolved differently and are nearly impossible to escape from or rise above. We are all trapped inside our own culture and it's real hard to change an entire culture. (Unless you have HBO and the liberal media working on you.)
The very word race, is a racist statement, and comes from evolution. There are different ethnic groups, but only one human family. "hybrids" and mutations do not reproduce. Like crossing a horse with a donkey to get a mule. Mules do not reproduce. But when you cross any ethnic group with another, you still get human beings capable of reproduction. Now there is adaptability within ethnic groups. There is micro- evolution if you must use the term evolution. But there is absolutely no evidence anywhere for macro evolution. Yes, environmental condition causes animals and humans to adapt. But it does not cause a whole new species to appear. And crossing one species with another produces one generation of off spring that can not reproduce. So the actual science backs up Genesis, and the command found there to reproduce after your kind. The main purpose for the theory of evolution, was to give justification to white European elitist to rape pillage and plunder other ethnic groups. The primary fuel for the blood bath known as WW2 was evolution. No other doctrine has caused more harm to man kind than Darwin's theory. Including the deadly harm done to 50 million womb children in the United States.

reply from: faithman

I shalll honor your suggestion in the spirit that it was given. Count on it.
This aught to be interesting.... and just how do you intend to channel the spirit of a mean, filthy house keeping, man hating, violent bull dyke? Is there a special crystal for that?

reply from: leftsfoil

I agree that the concept of evolution has been used as a justification to do many horrible things. It is not, however, the only concept that has been co-opted to this end. The concept of serving God has been co-opted by the Muslim faith to justify war, murder, slavery, rape, bestiality, torture, patricide, theft, etc. The very concept of peace itself has been used by tyrants such as Hitler to tranquilize his adversaries long enough for him to build his forces enough to strike at them. I don't believe that the observation based facts presented by Darwin are evil in and of themselves. It is the misuse of this revelation of God's process that has resulted in calamity for so many. I'm not quite sure that I'm ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Please indulge me to shift focus a bit. Ironically, I suggest that it's possible that the general self-centeredness of the left is itself a manifestation of natural selection. Selfishness can be a survival aid under extreme conditions, whereas, selflessness can be terminal under extreme conditions. As humans we are, at birth, of a singular mind and are totally self absorbed and non-civilized. Everything is about our personal needs without exception. Ideally, the process of maturation includes the development of empathy which, of course, is the opposite of self-centeredness. This is the key element of civil behavior.. the golden rule.. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Matthew 7:12, Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.) Surely the pro-aborts do not follow this credo, else they would abandon their quest to kill other humans.
I conclude that it is a general failure to fully mature into a empathetic adult that is the root cause of all the left's uncivil behaviors. True altruism only exists in the minds of the fully mature adult. Lefties are people who never grew up. Every seemingly inexplicable action or untenable position you've ever witnessed from this group can be understood through the lens of this revelation.
As to whether the concept of evolution, with it's "process of natural selection" underpinnings, has been used by the left for the purpose of evil.. is without question.

reply from: leftsfoil

Do they now? And there's value in a majority opinion? Hmm? Careful now.. slippery slope..
I shalll honor your suggestion in the spirit that it was given. Count on it.
Yes there is a crystal for that.. it's called Alum. Just slip a few crystals of that in your mouth and you instantly turn into a sourpuss.

reply from: faithman

Do they now? And there's value in a majority opinion? Hmm? Careful now.. slippery slope..
I shalll honor your suggestion in the spirit that it was given. Count on it.
Yes there is a crystal for that.. it's called Alum. Just slip a few crystals of that in your mouth and you instantly turn into a sourpuss.
The prodeath scumbags around here must eat that stuff by the truck load!!!

reply from: sander

Whether there's more behind the mindset of the left, I'm not sure...but, your conclusions stated here make perfect sense.

reply from: BossMomma

I shalll honor your suggestion in the spirit that it was given. Count on it.
This aught to be interesting.... and just how do you intend to channel the spirit of a mean, filthy house keeping, man hating, violent bull dyke? Is there a special crystal for that?
No, I could just channel it by bouncing my bull dyke nuts off your chin you worthless hobo terrorist.

reply from: Banned Member

Just some random thoughts....
It is true that not all members of a species need to procreate for the whole to survive. Not every person needs to reproduce to be beneficial to a society. Certainly not every person who is produced is beneficial to society. But homosexuality does not contribute anything to society. If homosexual people contribute anything to society, it is because they are human persons, not homosexual people.
You can be whatever you want to be, but you cannot not be what you cannot be. Homosexual people can do whatever they want to do but they cannot be partners in marriage. Marriage is for people who do procreate, or may procreate or who by the right of their essense and design are permitted to be married people who may produce or raise children in the context of the family.
I have not said that homosexual people cannot be a part of society. I have said that they do not have the right to be married. There is no reason why homosexuals should even expect to be married. Marriage is what it is and simply cannot be what it is not.
Animals do not use sex to express love or affection for one another. Animals use sex for dominance within a species group and/or procreation as is the intent of the design of nature and science within the species. Sex has no emotional content for animals in the animal kingdom. It's only humans that pervert sex for their own emotional needs. Homosexuality is a defect in nature or intended to naturally sterilize or make impotent various members of a species within a group.
Homosexual members of a species do not tow the genetic line, they die and becomes extinct thus removing unbeneficial genetic traits from the species. In some ways, you might say that homosexuality weeds out certains members from a species by not allowing them to reproduce.
Homosexuality is an abnormality in nature. Homosexuality is very foreign to human nature. The conflict between what homosexuals are physically and what they do morally and sexually is obvious to anyone who is intellectually honest. Repreductive organs are given to creatures for procreation. Homosexuals do not procreate. An organism that does not function within the parameters of its sexual design is an organism which is already extinct.
Gay marriage doesn't have to personally impact another persons marriage to be wholly negative for society and culture. The argument against homosexual marriage does not hinge upon the personal impact of individual marriages of other people. The impact on society and culture and most especially children are enough to demonstrate that gay marriage is a very bad idea for America and American culture.
I don't believe that homosexual people should be allowed to adopt children. I believe that when you embrace a sexual practice that is alien to human nature and the natural order, you negate your right to any kind of parenthood. Children need role models and homosexual people are no role models children whose values regarding sex are as yet unformed and uninformed.
People who would never have children would have access to the benefits of marriage. The benefits of marriage are for what marriage produces, children, our posterity. Families with children would be burdened with the financial burdens of people who are not and cannot create families with children. Gay marriage is a fashion statment, an un-defining of culture the destruction of family, and the corruption of the moral foundations of young people minds and consciences.
If anything is marriage, than everything is marriage and anything and everything would be sexually acceptable. If being gay is what you are than why not being a sexual predator who preys on children? Why not anything? Gay marriage is the forcing upon people of foreign values and making of moral equivalency between what it traditional and what is alien and a perversion of nature and moral norms.

reply from: kd78

so then old people or infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, right augustine? after all, they cannot procreate.

reply from: BossMomma

Yup, I have a Lieutenant who lost both of his testicles in vietnam to shrapnal from a hand grenade. Guess he doesn't deserve his wife.

reply from: kd78

ok that just made me wince! ouch!

reply from: BossMomma

Yeah, he jokingly tells people that he has brass prosthetics and when they bang together in stormy weather lightning shoots out of his ass.

reply from: Banned Member

What part of intentionality don't gays understand?
If a heterosexual couples cannot have children through no fault of their own, it is through no fault of their own and does not negate their right to the sacrament of marriage! They still have the right to marry and they alone have the right to marry because they are man and woman.
Homosexuals who want to lick, grope and shove organs into orafices where they do not belong have no right to marriage or any right to whine because they aren't producing offspring. Homosexual sex is nothing other than glorification of the body by hedonistic animals. Gays make sex beastial and hideous. Homosexuality degrades the sacrament of marriage by even claiming the right to marry.

reply from: speck

You gotta wonder what God was thinking when he put the male G-spot in the anus.

reply from: Jesuschristsavedmywife

Is it really anyone's place to decide if homosexuality should be allowed? No, and anyone who is against it is an idiot, and may Jesus ***** you senseless in heaven.

reply from: Jesuschristsavedmywife

Is it really anyone's place to decide if homosexuality should be allowed? No, and anyone who is against it is an idiot, and may Jesus ***** you senseless in heaven.

reply from: Cecilia

Dear Celia, regardless of my time constraints I will take the time to respond to this post.
First of all I would like to know how it feels to be the smartest person in the world? Your education and job as a counselor come up quite often in your posts and you spend them like they were intellectual capital. Yawn.
Anyway, if you recall, the point I was trying to make was that persons who emulate the life of Jesus and embrace the teaching of Jesus are more thoroughly civilized than those who don't. This is the point that irked you in the first place so don't let my misunderstanding of the word "gentile" throw or distract you. Nor does my misunderstanding of any particular word undermine the truth to my statement/s or the strength of my convictions. It only proves that I'm not as perfect as you are.
i'll repeat what i said earlier "don't take everything so personally. some people are not 'out for blood'."
if you want to discuss your opinions you should dissociate yourself from your insecurities so you dont take everything like an attempt to prick you in the side.

reply from: Cecilia

oh, rich, and you made some crack about me saying my profession, and trying to belittle me, and then you go on and on about what a sex addict is and the psychology behind homosexual behaviors?
you talk about your time constraints but i think that is facade. you certainly seem to have plenty time to post 'jockeying for oneupman' comments. and alot of 'fluff' language without alot of content. CP is all over you on this.

reply from: leftsfoil

When you try to prove your point by beginning your spiel with a declaration of your credentials, it doesn't cause me to lend more weight to your uttering. On the contrary, it merely informs me of your arrogance. I have been studying human behavior with intense interest for 57 years so I don't feel as if you, or anyone else for that matter, is any more qualified to make observations on the subject than I. Truth is, I don't give a whit for your professional training.
I really don't have time or inclination to respond to every little item you choose to take issue with. It's just pointless knit picking and not constructive debate. Having never heard the ideas I've presented here before, I can understand how shocked and disturbed you must feel. I fully appreciate the fact that it is quite impossible for you to accept or even considering my postulates as they are too dangerous to your world view. The proof of this is that neither you or your little gang self righteous knit-pickers have found even one point, in all the things I've said, to agree with. That's just ridiculous. I've discussed my ideas with many people in many different circles for many years and you folks are the only ones to see absolutely no value in any of my reasonings. One thing is certain, you folks got real riled up over something you claim to give no credence to. Odd that. Whenever I waste time arguing with people that are totally closed, I can feel my life forces draining out of me and into the abyss of folly. Sometimes when I'm reading these various negative responses I can hear the muted trumpet like voices of Charlie Brown's parents in the back of my mind going; "Wah,wah wah wah.. wah wah.. wah wah wah". I have to admit that I'm not looking forward to any more of that, but something tells me that you're not quite through yet.

reply from: leftsfoil

There's a real classy post. You're busted pretender.

reply from: leftsfoil

Another classy post by the gloriously gay left.

reply from: Banned Member

Moral heterosexuals don't do it that way. Moral heterosexuals do it the way God designed it.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Moral heterosexuals don't engage in oral sex, anal sex, or the occasional hand-job? New to me...
Yes, any sense of morality would be new to you wouldn't it.

reply from: leftsfoil

So what? Why would his wife necessarily even be interested such things? What business is that of yours anyway? Best to focus on you own issues.
Just a suggestion.. if you want to get Augustine's goat, perhaps you shouldn't make yourself look nasty in the process.

reply from: faithman

The Bible says the marriage bed is undefiled. That has a strong implication of privacy. No one is busting in doors to regulate bed rooms. But that isn't enough for the deviant. The want to flaunt their perversion, and force "education" on the young to accept it as normal.

reply from: BossMomma

Moral heterosexuals don't do it that way. Moral heterosexuals do it the way God designed it.
So tell me o sexless wonder, how do heterosexuals do it? Do you honestly think it's missionary man on top all the time? Haha, you seriously need to get laid before you go preaching about sex.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Moral heterosexuals don't engage in oral sex, anal sex, or the occasional hand-job? News to me...
LOL I thought those things were foreplay?

reply from: BossMomma

He probably wouldn't engage in vaginal sex either...such a dirty sinful act..especially if someone gets off on it.

reply from: leftsfoil

Personally, I find women who talk like sailors to be distasteful. Are you a gay Wave?

reply from: BossMomma

Personally, I find women who talk like sailors to be distasteful. Are you a gay Wave?
Gay wave? Not familiar with the term.

reply from: leftsfoil

Personally, I find women who talk like sailors to be distasteful. Are you a gay Wave?
Gay wave? Not familiar with the term.
Wave is an old fashioned term for women who served in the navy during WWII. Not that I am implying that you are old. That would be rude. Unless of course you are old.. in which case.. I suppose it would still be rude. I can't win.

reply from: BossMomma

Personally, I find women who talk like sailors to be distasteful. Are you a gay Wave?
Gay wave? Not familiar with the term.
Wave is an old fashioned term for women who served in the navy during WWII. Not that I am implying that you are old. That would be rude. Unless of course you are old.. in which case.. I suppose it would still be rude. I can't win.
I'm 28 and have not served in the military. I'm a correctional officer.

reply from: Banned Member

I know that I would feel safer with a set of steel bars between us.

reply from: BossMomma

I know that I would feel safer with a set of steel bars between us.
You probably would, coward. I'm sure a 5 ft 2 inch 135 pound woman would scare you to death.

reply from: leftsfoil

I see.. a wise old 28 year old. I suspect that you are being harmed by your exposure to the amoral idiots that you have to deal with every day. Working where you work is like going to a reverse charm school every day. Is this your dream job?

reply from: BossMomma

No, I'm a college student taking a course in medical assisting. I do not intend to work TDCJ all my life. I'm not truly as rough as I sound, I'm actually quiet and rather well spoken but, I see no need to show that type of class with some of the trash on this board, it becomes a matter of when in Rome..

reply from: Cecilia

When you try to prove your point by beginning your spiel with a declaration of your credentials, it doesn't cause me to lend more weight to your uttering. On the contrary, it merely informs me of your arrogance. I have been studying human behavior with intense interest for 57 years so I don't feel as if you, or anyone else for that matter, is any more qualified to make observations on the subject than I. Truth is, I don't give a whit for your professional training.
first of all i said my profession i believe one time in this thread and it wasn't even in response to you so really, quit exaggerating.
second, if you talk about arrogance but then you belittle me, my experiences, and bossmomma:
I can tell your insecurity by your responses trying to belittle others and their experiences.
i bolded section particularly strange. i and other have asked you questions, and you come back with 'you wouldn't believe me anyways' or 'time constraint' so you don't respond. cp did the same. then you accuse others of being closed.
the only thing that would make you happy is zero discussion but big fluffy words saying "i agree, you are ever so right".
it's too bad.

reply from: leftsfoil

When you try to prove your point by beginning your spiel with a declaration of your credentials, it doesn't cause me to lend more weight to your uttering. On the contrary, it merely informs me of your arrogance. I have been studying human behavior with intense interest for 57 years so I don't feel as if you, or anyone else for that matter, is any more qualified to make observations on the subject than I. Truth is, I don't give a whit for your professional training.
first of all i said my profession i believe one time in this thread and it wasn't even in response to you so really, quit exaggerating.
second, if you talk about arrogance but then you belittle me, my experiences, and bossmomma:
I can tell your insecurity by your responses trying to belittle others and their experiences.
i bolded section particularly strange. i and other have asked you questions, and you come back with 'you wouldn't believe me anyways' or 'time constraint' so you don't respond. cp did the same. then you accuse others of being closed.
the only thing that would make you happy is zero discussion but big fluffy words saying "i agree, you are ever so right".
it's too bad.
I swear.. you could be Charlie Brown's Mom. It's uncanny.

reply from: leftsfoil

No, I'm a college student taking a course in medical assisting. I do not intend to work TDCJ all my life. I'm not truly as rough as I sound, I'm actually quiet and rather well spoken but, I see no need to show that type of class with some of the trash on this board, it becomes a matter of when in Rome..
Not that my opinion of you means anything really.. but I find you to be the most honest and unpretentious of all the regular pro-aborti, (that is, if you are a pro-aborter) on this board. You seem like a no nonsense kind of person and for what it's worth, I respect that aspect of your mentality.

reply from: BossMomma

No, I'm a college student taking a course in medical assisting. I do not intend to work TDCJ all my life. I'm not truly as rough as I sound, I'm actually quiet and rather well spoken but, I see no need to show that type of class with some of the trash on this board, it becomes a matter of when in Rome..
Not that my opinion of you means anything really.. but I find you to be the most honest and unpretentious of all the regular pro-aborti, (that is, if you are a pro-aborter) on this board. You seem like a no nonsense kind of person and for what it's worth, I respect that aspect of your mentality.
...sweet heart, I am very much pro-life. I work to prevent abortion and speak out against it in my home town.

reply from: leftsfoil

Not that my opinion of you means anything really.. but I find you to be the most honest and unpretentious of all the regular pro-aborti, (that is, if you are a pro-aborter) on this board. You seem like a no nonsense kind of person and for what it's worth, I respect that aspect of your mentality.
...sweet heart, I am very much pro-life. I work to prevent abortion and speak out against it in my home town.
Horray! My instincts were right about you. A thousand pardons please.

reply from: BossMomma

Not that my opinion of you means anything really.. but I find you to be the most honest and unpretentious of all the regular pro-aborti, (that is, if you are a pro-aborter) on this board. You seem like a no nonsense kind of person and for what it's worth, I respect that aspect of your mentality.
...sweet heart, I am very much pro-life. I work to prevent abortion and speak out against it in my home town.
Horray! My instincts were right about you. A thousand pardons please.
don't mention it.

reply from: Cecilia

When you try to prove your point by beginning your spiel with a declaration of your credentials, it doesn't cause me to lend more weight to your uttering. On the contrary, it merely informs me of your arrogance. I have been studying human behavior with intense interest for 57 years so I don't feel as if you, or anyone else for that matter, is any more qualified to make observations on the subject than I. Truth is, I don't give a whit for your professional training.
first of all i said my profession i believe one time in this thread and it wasn't even in response to you so really, quit exaggerating.
second, if you talk about arrogance but then you belittle me, my experiences, and bossmomma:
I can tell your insecurity by your responses trying to belittle others and their experiences.
i bolded section particularly strange. i and other have asked you questions, and you come back with 'you wouldn't believe me anyways' or 'time constraint' so you don't respond. cp did the same. then you accuse others of being closed.
the only thing that would make you happy is zero discussion but big fluffy words saying "i agree, you are ever so right".
it's too bad.
I swear.. you could be Charlie Brown's Mom. It's uncanny.
i don't know the reference but it's nice of you to prove my point.

reply from: yoda

Ever hear of a PLINO?

reply from: sander

Ever hear of a PLINO?
Are you implying that Carol is prolife in name only? Why not grow some balls and say what you mean rather than posting a constant stream of snide innuendo? I know you will not respond, but I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy in your joining in (however ambiguously) in the bashing of a fellow prolifer while making comments on other threads such as:
I guess the caveat is that YOU and/or your self righteous peers get to decide who is and is not "sincere" and who the real "prolifers" are. Considering your reliance on dictionary definitions (at least when it suits you) to settle such matters, this is quite ironic....
Hey, idiot, nobody but proaborts and PLINO's give a rats hairy, ugly ass what you think. Just thought I'd inform your pompous ass so you could avoid any more embarrassment...you can thank me later.

reply from: yoda

Interesting too that the question was posed in reference to BM, and yet it was CM that "defended". Does that mean they are the same person, perhaps?

reply from: BossMomma

The resident saints have come up with this acronym to represent those they consider "prolife in name only." It is simply a self righteous attempt at elitism, a way to convince themselves of their presumed moral superiority over all who dare to disagree with them on any point, however trivial. Where is Yoda with his dictionary?
Considering the lot of them support taking terroristic measures against abortion providers they are the PLINOs. Someone who supports the murder of any person, born or unborn is not pro-life by any stretch of the imagination.

reply from: BossMomma

Interesting too that the question was posed in reference to BM, and yet it was CM that "defended". Does that mean they are the same person, perhaps?
LOL No idiot, I'm not CM.

reply from: leftsfoil

i bolded section particularly strange. i and other have asked you questions, and you come back with 'you wouldn't believe me anyways' or 'time constraint' so you don't respond. cp did the same. then you accuse others of being closed.
the only thing that would make you happy is zero discussion but big fluffy words saying "i agree, you are ever so right".
it's too bad.
I swear.. you could be Charlie Brown's Mom. It's uncanny.
i don't know the reference but it's nice of you to prove my point.
Cecilia has never seen a Charlie Brown special? How can this be? I'm guessing she's just a big old fibber.

reply from: 4given

NO true interest in this thread.. but to the author: Cecilia is beyond dishonest. She claims a livelihood/profession is counseling the mentally ill. She killed her child. She has alleged to have aborted her and her husband's child due to his alleged rape and abuse. How is it again that a "mental health professional" can guide another to the help and healing they need, when they have yet to acknowledge their own issues? Especially if the trauma of an abortion brings it on? Curious. She promotes death, yet also fertilized the landfill with the corpse of her child. Justified by her of course. I have to wonder if those that hired her are aware of her homicidal tendencies. Shame. I would be agitated to find out that a pro-abortion, death-monger was guiding a loved one or other through their alleged mental illness.

reply from: bozo

Are you suggesting she has killed some of her clients or is likely to do so?
A person who aborts has committed a serious offense against God and man, but are they know to go on and kill others or otherwise have "homicidal tendencies"?
I have not heard of that before.

reply from: 4given

NO Faramir. I was specifically referring to her abortion and her support of other's death via abortion.

reply from: bozo

NO Faramir. I was specifically referring to her abortion and her support of other's death via abortion.
Excuse me?
At any rate, I didn't understand what you meant by her "homicidal tendencies." That to me implies someone is likely to commit a homicide and could be dangerous.
No?

reply from: 4given

NO Faramir. I was specifically referring to her abortion and her support of other's death via abortion.
Excuse me?
At any rate, I didn't understand what you meant by her "homicidal tendencies." That to me implies someone is likely to commit a homicide and could be dangerous.
No?I don't know if you are intentionally trying to distort the point or if it was lost. Perhaps if you took the post in its entirety it may be of some help (haha- right?!) You have to understand that mental health is especially an area where professionals need to be chosen carefully. Many women and men claim to have experienced trauma over their aborted child. To have a woman or man that has aborted their child without acknowledging regret, yet promote abortion on message boards, then try to "heal" (spit) the menatally ill. It is not compatible. She needs to find hope and healing before she will ever be in a postion to guide another to it. She killed her baby. That is HOMICIDE.

reply from: yoda

Poor ole Farty.........

reply from: leftsfoil

Riddle me this:
What is the difference between having Michael Vick babysit your dogs, or having President Clinton instruct your children on the virtues of chastity, or having Charles Manson as a motivational speaker,.. AND.. having Cecilia help you with your mental health issues?

reply from: yoda

But Cecilia could help you become a control freak!

reply from: leftsfoil

Clinician heal thyself.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics