Gay marriage : who cares?

[Abu]

Leela
In my view, bestiality is immoral because it simply cannot be consenual. See? I’ve given a reason for my moral view rather than just saying that it is immoral because it is immoral. Now, why is homosexuality immoral?

The perennially confused Leela now promotes that anything consensual is moral – so no one is subject to a higher power and we are all just animals, and the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure – no permanent moral principles which transcend the practical and technical order.

“There is significant convergence in philosophy toward the view that the human spirit is a self-creative process which fashions itself out of its relations to the world.” (Dewart, Religion, Language and Truth, p. 121). It is the selfist doctrine of subjective self-morality and self-worship.

The exposure here of the chaos which is known as “process thought” or “process theology” is reminiscent of Nietzsche’s “death of God” and the remaking of reductionist values for man and for religion, in order to sanitize sodomy. Since there is no such thing as absolute truth, everything is allowable.

The lack of fidelity and abuse characteristic of homosexual relationships is symptomatic of the lack of those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons – another fact against the fantasy of “marriage” apart from the inability to have and form children with a mother and a father.

But the natural moral law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton), 2001, p 169).

Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason.

The inability to procreate and form children with a mother and father, the lack of fidelity and the abuse have no counter in the myopia of homomania.

 

[ERose]

Ill try to stay out of the religious/moral debate, as the only question that interests me is why this applies to the legal status of gay marriage. There is a reason none of this discussion was brought up in the Prop 8 case, and that is because the court could care less if someone thinks it is “moral relativism”. Prop 8 is the biggest test yet, and they avoid this line of thinking like plague ridden corpse. Do you ever wonder why?

Don’t understand what you are asking here.

As to some of your other points: California is NOT a liberal state. It is no Wyoming (or Louisiana for that matter), but there is a VERY large conservative and military population. San Diego and Orange County being two of the larger concentrations, with of course the San Francisco and Berkley areas to balance. I would call CA a moderate state with some large populations on both the far left and far right. (I live in CA for last 15 years) And it was a very tight vote on Prop 8 BTW, a percent or two within 50-50.

California IS a liberal state. You may not like to believe it but it is. The Dems have owned that state for years and the only way a republican can get elected in this state is by being moderate with liberal leanings as the current Governor is. I hope it is changing and starting to swing the other way and maybe it will eventually. I have also lived in CA and I also know many people personally that live there. I also go there to work occasionally and it doesn’t take a alot of discernment to know that CA is ate up with liberalism. I am not saying that there are not conservatives that live in CA but there is a larger percentage of people leaning left than there are leaning right. If this wasn’t true then there would be such a thing as a “conservative” CA politian on the national level and right now there isn’t.

Also, I was born and raised in Iowa, where gay marriage is law. Is that a liberal state too?

As far as I know the people haven’t had a chance to vote on gay marriage. It is legal there because of the judical system.

For your 10-15% support argument. Well, its just wrong, I don’t know what else to say. CA is as close to 50-50 as you can get. Some states are swing more towards yes, others towards no. If you are somehow diluting yourself into thinking that only 10-15% of the population (roughly speaking) would support gay marriage, you really are in a dream world. Doesnt make it right or wrong, but the US as a whole is much closer to 50-50 in any legit poll you wish to use. I agree, we are likely still below the 50% threshold. Have you looked at the stats on the populations opinion on gay rights (gay marriage included)? If you look at the age trend, it is staggering. It is almost a straight line. If you graphed age on the bottom, and support for hetero only marriage on the sides, it is almost a straight line, with 18 year olds with something like less than 10% support, all the way up to the 80 years and older group with over 90% support. Statistically speaking, demographics will take care of getting “over the hump” so to speak in a matter of a few years. Again, these are just the facts of US demographics at this point.

Why don’t you go back and read my post. Then maybe it will make some sense to you and then you can understand why this rebuttal doesn’t rebut. The numbers I have used for the most part run the lines of conservative, liberal and moderates. In the US about 20% of the population are liberals, about 42% are conservative, and the rest are moderates. For the most part in this country liberals and conservatives are pretty much set in their belief systems while the moderates can be swayed one way or the other. That is the reason why politicans go primarily after these moderates because they know for the most part they have their based rapped up. That is what I was referring to.

Oh, and i would not be so sure Obama does not support gay marriage. He straddled the issue, as it is the only thing he can say as a presidential candidate. It is the same thing I would say, or at least advise him to say as well! If 50-60% of the population is going to get up in arms for showing support, he is better off giving a non-answer. Doubly so for an issue the president does not really have any control over. (Not an Obama supporter BTW, just reality as I see it)

He has come out on this subject and if you google first you would have known this. But here is a link for you so you don’t have to:

mediaite.com/tv/david-axelrod-defends-obamas-opposition-to-gay-marriage-on-daily-rundown/

Next time understand the post first and the line of argument before posting. It will keep you from looking silly which you did accomplish quite well. But if you want to get into this debate feel free. The pro-gay marriage group on this thread is struggling mightily and need all the help they can get.

 

[ERose]

Ehhh, no. Based on your group of friends, you are asserting that the non-religious population as a whole does not support gay marriage? You will have to excuse me if I dismiss your statement. Feel free to google some stats on recent gay marriage exit polls. Among those that consider themselves actively religious, I fully expect a very strong showing against gay marriage as you propose.

Your contact list is NOT a reputable source, sorry. Plus it makes no sense, logically.

Maybe I went too far on the last sentence of my post. But there are many non-religious and atheist/agnostics that are against gay marriage. It is not universally accepted even among those who believe themselves to be enlightened and we Christians still living in the dark ages. Below is a link to a poll that shows that around 15% of atheist/agnostics are against gay marriage. About 32% of those who don’t claim to be anything are against gay marriage. That is alot of non-religious people that are against gay marriage.

pewresearch.org/pubs/1755/poll-gay-marriage-gains-acceptance-gays-in-the-military

 

[hosemonkey]

The people on this forum who advocate “gay marriage” or see no immorality in bestiality. the “moral relativists” who basically advocate “if it feels good, do it” are the same ones who have no problem with the slaughter of the pre-born and whose same line of reasoning filled the concentration camps and crematoria of the Third Reich. I do not care how they try to dress up and justify their twisted thinking, the facts remain the same. God has given us a blueprint for decent behaviour and successful living, the Church stands in defense of that blueprint and speaks out against the desires of the World in seeking to be free of those rules, to it’s own destruction. Certain things are ALWAYS WRONG and certain things are ALWAYS RIGHT, win , lose or draw. Full stop. Homosexuality is always WRONG, “gay marriage” IS ALWAYS an oxymoron. Call it what you will, it is not, nor will it ever be “marriage” in the sense that we understand it.
“Gays” simply want to have their disgusting perversion recognized as normal by the straight world and they hate the Catholic Church for declining to cave in to their demands. We will always be fighting this battle, the issue will never be resolved to the satisfaction of these pathetic, stunted people, because Satan never ceases to seek the destruction of souls and he delights in their sickness. Harsh? I call it tough love. It is the fondest hope of atheists and their ilk that neither God nor Satan exist, that there be no consequences for their actions. Repent or face a very nasty surprise.

 

[Abu]

How to show we do care
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100708.html
Addressing Homosexuality with “Love in Truth”
By Hilary White
ROME, October 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com’s editor-in-chief, told an audience of the world’s pro-life and pro-family leaders at a conference in Italy this week that the only way is “caritas in veritate;” to speak the truth in love.

The 1986 CDF document entitled *Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons *states: “But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

Westen stated:
“The rampant practice of contraception has inevitably led to the abortion holocaust. Unchecked immodesty and total lack of custody of the eyes has brought us to the near universal addiction to pornography. In vitro fertilization gave us embryonic stem cell research. Homosexual acts by their acceptance have led to homosexual ‘marriage’ and even restrictions on the freedom of religious practice in various nations.”
Westen said that homosexualist activists, in seeking to create “gay marriage,” had little interest in committed, permanent unions, but were rather focused on attaining marriage “as a societal stamp of approval to homosexual behaviour.”
Societal approval of their behaviour, he said, is sought as a means of quelling the voice of conscience. “For practicing homosexuals as with all those engaged in aberrant sexual behaviour, the conscience speaks uncomfortably.”

Westen received a standing ovation after his talk with numerous conference participants personally thanking him for the talk throughout the day. A European bishop even invited John-Henry to come to his diocese to give the talk to his priests and seminarians.

 

[CradleCath]

Well, at least you were straight with that answer. Most direct one yet. Thank you for being honest.

Yikes.

Double points to you for rightly talking about unjustified Catholic persecutions of the past and immediately following up with a new one for today! Grand Prize Winner.

Thanks, I think.
Now, maybe you can tell me what a Lutheran (ish) person is all about?

 

[kenofken]

The people on this forum who advocate “gay marriage” or see no immorality in bestiality. the “moral relativists” who basically advocate “if it feels good, do it” are the same ones who have no problem with the slaughter of the pre-born and whose same line of reasoning filled the concentration camps and crematoria of the Third Reich. I do not care how they try to dress up and justify their twisted thinking, the facts remain the same. God has given us a blueprint for decent behaviour and successful living, the Church stands in defense of that blueprint and speaks out against the desires of the World in seeking to be free of those rules, to it’s own destruction. Certain things are ALWAYS WRONG and certain things are ALWAYS RIGHT, win , lose or draw. Full stop. Homosexuality is always WRONG, “gay marriage” IS ALWAYS an oxymoron. Call it what you will, it is not, nor will it ever be “marriage” in the sense that we understand it.
“Gays” simply want to have their disgusting perversion recognized as normal by the straight world and they hate the Catholic Church for declining to cave in to their demands. We will always be fighting this battle, the issue will never be resolved to the satisfaction of these pathetic, stunted people, because Satan never ceases to seek the destruction of souls and he delights in their sickness. Harsh? I call it tough love. It is the fondest hope of atheists and their ilk that neither God nor Satan exist, that there be no consequences for their actions. Repent or face a very nasty surprise.

Your version of “tough love” carries about as much reflection of Christ’s love as a gang of skinheads with tire irons. If you are right about judgement day and I do repent, I face the prospect of spending eternity with guys like you . I’m bound to find better company in Hell.

 

[kenofken]

The emboldened sentence is a lie. In one of my previous posts, I told you that I’d been a volunteer for Right To Life for 30 years. I also mentioned the great number of Catholics killed for trying to oppose divorce & remarriage under Henry VIII. In one of his late letters, Thomas Moore refers to the **death of 4000 Catholics in the small port town of Chelsea, just ONE SMALL TOWN. ** Monasteries were burned, as were Catholics of the time. If you have a strong stomach read Peter Ackroyd’s “The Life of Thomas More”.

How DARE you come onto a Catholic message board & question whether we have done enough to protect Natural Law.

Yes, we’ve lost some…the multiple marriage thing led to a massacre that defies the imagination. Various laws barred Catholics from entering London, traveling more than 10 miles (16 kilometers) from home or owning horses worth more than 10 pounds. Catholics who refused to sign Henry’s “oath” were burned at the stake. ** For nearly three centuries **after the reign of the adulterous King, Catholics in England were outlaws.

I really didn’t think there was one person left in this nation that is unaware of our 5 decade fight against Abortion. However, in this thread I’ve come to realize how much ignorance exists about my Church.

And guess what, this battle over gay “marriage” is one that we just might win. Why?? Because this brand of sexual activity is repugnant to other faiths. We won’t be fighting this one alone.

I never said you or anyone else here was slacking on the abortion issue. I never mentioned it at all in any context. All I ever said was that no one appeared willing to even state in principal that they would be willing to take any serious steps toward a legislative restriction of easy divorce or other hetero violations of natural law comparable to those you propose to force on gays. For nearly all of this long exhange, no has even been willing to say that we should hold hetero people to natural laws in the SAME way we want to do so for gays.

You and others have said they are personally opposed to the bad things hetero folks do. People have said they pray the rosary, do their bit to speak about it in a private capacity, but no one was willing to step a millimeter toward what I suggested. No one even said "yes, we ought to press for similar laws for straight folks, EVEN if they have little chance of success and are unpopular politically. Instead, people ridiculed the very idea of doing so, for reasons I still don’t understand. I had figured a bunch of conservative Catholics would have welcomed the chance to show that they’re willing to do the right thing on principle, even if it teed off society at large. But no one did. Instead, they gave me a lot of noise for even suggesting the concept.

I’m not sure where Henry VIII figures into it either. I’m not his defender or attorney or golfing buddy. I don’t approve of what he did. It does illustrate that Catholics, in the past had the backbone to give their lives for their belief in natural law. But their sacrifice doesn’t cover you for all time on the matter. I have as much right to question the consistency of your words and actions as anyone else. As Catholics, you propose to hold the whole world to a rather exacting moral standard. I think it’s entirely fair game to shine a light on whether you also hold yourselves to that standard in word AND deed. And when you do, I give credit where it is due. And on this particular issue, I’ve set the bar pretty low. You don’t have to risk execution in Henry’s dungeons. If you do pretty much anything of substance to lift a finger against hetero natural law violators in the legal and policy arena, you’re being consistent when you move to do the same with gays.

 

[hosemonkey]

Your version of “tough love” carries about as much reflection of Christ’s love as a gang of skinheads with tire irons. If you are right about judgement day and I do repent, I face the prospect of spending eternity with guys like you . I’m bound to find better company in Hell.

Christ was no wimp, He forgave the adulterous woman, He did not confirm her in her sin. We are encouraged to admonish the sinner and sometimes that requires speaking directly to the point. If that makes you uncomfortable, sorry. I am right about Judgement Day, and If you do not repent, I’m sure that all your friends will give you a warm welcome.

 

[ERose]

I never said you or anyone else here was slacking on the abortion issue. I never mentioned it at all in any context. All I ever said was that no one appeared willing to even state in principal that they would be willing to take any serious steps toward a legislative restriction of easy divorce or other hetero violations of natural law comparable to those you propose to force on gays. For nearly all of this long exhange, no has even been willing to say that we should hold hetero people to natural laws in the SAME way we want to do so for gays.

This is a lie and you know it. I have posted time and time again that I am for laws that would make it harder to get a divorce; and increased punishments for adultery. Yet you put your blinders on so that you can continue to feel justified that we Catholics are all hypocrites. I will even go further than that and say it should be harder for people to get married (6-months to a year of counselling required).

You and others have said they are personally opposed to the bad things hetero folks do. People have said they pray the rosary, do their bit to speak about it in a private capacity, but no one was willing to step a millimeter toward what I suggested. No one even said "yes, we ought to press for similar laws for straight folks, EVEN if they have little chance of success and are unpopular politically. Instead, people ridiculed the very idea of doing so, for reasons I still don’t understand. I had figured a bunch of conservative Catholics would have welcomed the chance to show that they’re willing to do the right thing on principle, even if it teed off society at large. But no one did. Instead, they gave me a lot of noise for even suggesting the concept.

This paragraph is an outright lie as well. The only thing you will accept in your mind maybe is for us to go up to the Whitehouse break in and hold the president hostage until these liberalized laws are changed or something crazy like that.

We can only do what we can. I cannot write bills nor vote on them. I am not a Representative or Senator. All I can do is the same that I do for defending marriage and that is fight at my level. By these and similar forums, by speaking when I have the opportunity to those I meet about these issues, by voting for like minded people, by living the life I preach, and so on. This is what we all can do. This is called grass roots. We know that at this time we cannot get the laws changed on abortion, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc. But what we can do is change peoples minds on these subjects by debates and witnessing. And after a while either the laws want be needed or there will be enough change in opinions that it would make it possible to change the laws on the books.

What the Catholic church can do is lobby which it does and hold true to its teachings. The progressive agenda won’t last and all we have to do is minimize the damage caused by it until the majority of people wake up and start fighting against it, which I believe is happening now and will cost the dems a good number of seats in Congress and Senate. This has all happened before and hopefully it doesn’t take a bloody third World War to end it this time.

I’m not sure where Henry VIII figures into it either. I’m not his defender or attorney or golfing buddy. I don’t approve of what he did. It does illustrate that Catholics, in the past had the backbone to give their lives for their belief in natural law. But their sacrifice doesn’t cover you for all time on the matter. I have as much right to question the consistency of your words and actions as anyone else. As Catholics, you propose to hold the whole world to a rather exacting moral standard. I think it’s entirely fair game to shine a light on whether you also hold yourselves to that standard in word AND deed. And when you do, I give credit where it is due. And on this particular issue, I’ve set the bar pretty low. You don’t have to risk execution in Henry’s dungeons. If you do pretty much anything of substance to lift a finger against hetero natural law violators in the legal and policy arena, you’re being consistent when you move to do the same with gays.

Then we are in the good then I guess and now you can try another argument. Unless you want to keep shifting the bar around to keep yourself justified in calling Catholics hypocrites.

 

[Leela]

The perennially confused Leela now promotes that anything consensual is moral

Since I never said that it is you who is obviously confused.

 

[Leela]

You using the phrase “I think” speaks volumes.

It just means that I recognize that you may not agree with me. I doesn’t mean that I think I am wrong, but of course it is always possible that I could be wrong.

These are the complaints of someone that does not like the Church and its beliefs because they set a standard you cannot meet and you know it.

As I understand Catholic theology, the moral law is a standard that no human being can meet. We are all sinners, right? Aren’t you a sinner just like me?

You obviously “think” it is morally wrong not to have sex and the church’s teachings on restraining and controlling the sexual urge instead of letting it control you is something that is alien to you.

???

Since I am married to a member of the opposite sex, I have no trouble at all conforming to the Catholic teachings about sex. But my personal life is beside the point.

Can you please refrain from making personal attacks in the future?

 

[PassingThru]

Thanks, I think.
Now, maybe you can tell me what a Lutheran (ish) person is all about?

No, I think it is better I don’t. It is not relevant regardless.

And my comment was sarcasm. I guess you missed the irony.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you have in fact sent emails to legislators asking for legal remedies to limit/end easy divorce or to otherwise deal with opposite sex abuses of natural law, then I commend you for your consistency. Likewise for the Chileans. The reason I’ve had such a saddle sore about this issue is that essentially no one, on this forum, has, until now, been willing to go even this far. Virtually all of them have offered fairly lame excuses as to why nothing could, or should be done in policy about non-gay abuses of natural law. In other words, many folks do wear the Catholic (or perhaps more generally, the Christian) uniform only when it suits their personal agendas. ANYONE who walks the walk and is willing to take the same medicine they propose for gay people, has a measure of respect in my book. People whose moral absolutism only gets exercised on a situational basis…not so much.

You don’t know what the Catholics here are doing. Many times I refuse to say what I do because it would appear as boasting and it is somewhat personal. Please don’t assume that Catholics do nothing because they may be doing quite a lot.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Your version of “tough love” carries about as much reflection of Christ’s love as a gang of skinheads with tire irons. If you are right about judgement day and I do repent, I face the prospect of spending eternity with guys like you . I’m bound to find better company in Hell.

If you think the company you keep in heaven is more important than the love of God I’m sure you will be given your choice. You will be able to keep company with murderers, rapists, and all sorts of really nasty people who have no love for their Creator or for YOU.

God gave us all free will. If you want to go to hell He will let you, with sorrow.

We want what is best for you. You may not see it but we want you to have eternal joy with God. If you would rather spend eternity with people who hate you than with people who love you and want what’s best for you, it’s your choice.

 

[kenofken]

If you think the company you keep in heaven is more important than the love of God I’m sure you will be given your choice. You will be able to keep company with murderers, rapists, and all sorts of really nasty people who have no love for their Creator or for YOU.

God gave us all free will. If you want to go to hell He will let you, with sorrow.

We want what is best for you. You may not see it but we want you to have eternal joy with God. If you would rather spend eternity with people who hate you than with people who love you and want what’s best for you, it’s your choice.

If it means sharing space with fundamentalists of any stripe, I’ll gladly forgo my slot in heaven to avoid that, even if I somehow qualify for one.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If it means sharing space with fundamentalists of any stripe, I’ll gladly forgo my slot in heaven to avoid that, even if I somehow qualify for one.

First of all, Catholics are not fundamentalists. Second of all, it’s up to you. I never thought I would meet someone who actually wants to go to hell. If you think hell is a place where you’ll have pseudo-intellectual discussions with sages I think you will be surprised. Hell is where people suffer enormous torment. You won’t be any different.

I don’t believe you are thinking clearly. I think you are posting what you are posting out of spite. Your eternal soul is the most important part of you and is so precious. I can’t believe you are willing to exchange a life of intense joy and happiness with a life of torture just because you don’t like fundamentalists. Aren’t you worth more than that? Do you think it’s fair and just that you go to hell while some of the people you dislike intensely go to heaven?

What purpose would that serve? What good would it do?

One more thing: Where do you think the skinheads who promote neo-Naziism and violence are going?

 

[LittleSoldier]

That post is better than gold. It’s like the train of thought I had the other night when my nightly Ambien pill got the best of me and my leather jacket started talking to me If masturbation made guys gay, I’d be King of the Castro! I’d be queerer than Freddie Mercury at his peak! Alas, my application to join Gay America was torn up before my eyes when the admissions committee saw how I dress! My voracious appetite for women also cost me some votes.

The fact that this guy thinks gay sex is easier to get then hetero sex tells me he doesn’t know much about either. Gay men, on average, are MUCH higher maintenance creatures than most women. And getting sex from women is easier than falling off a log these days, if you know how to treat them…

The end of your post is really quite insulting. You seem to think women are swooning into your arms “if you know how to treat them…” That is only true for some women and that type of woman has existed since people have existed (and that is a very long time).

There are women who won’t fall for your “treatment.” There are women who care enough about themselves to not jump into bed with a man until marriage. There are more who at least wait until a relationship is serious before taking that step.

So, although this is off-topic, you took it there and I will respond. Is your goal in “treating” women in your way a means for getting them into your bed? If so you are using them for your own selfish purpose and that is pathetic. Actually though it does much to explain your posts along with your boast of the numerous times you have masturbated. Is that really something to boast about?

 

[LittleSoldier]

That article is codswallop to end all codswallop.

Gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage, and as a result, our entire country? Do tell how? It’s certainly true that if we awoke tomorrow to find that every man, woman, and child in the country had turned gay that we’d have a problem, for future child bearing rates would dive off a cliff. But unless you’re prepared to argue that allowing gay marriage will cause homosexuality itself to SPREAD, that’s irrelevant.

People are already what they are. Gay, bi, or straight. Allowing those who are gay to wed will not change that. If you’re arguing that couples who are consensually non-monogamous should not be allowed to marry based on that condition, you’re also arguing against millions of existing heterosexual marriages, as there are millions of folks who do not practice physical monogamy. I know because I am one of them.

As for whether or not that’s ‘a good environment for kids’, why do you assume that kids are even aware of it?

“Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children.”

drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html

“Children born to and raised by homosexuals tend to play, dress and behave differently than children reared in heterosexual households, a USC study on gay parenting has found.”

usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html

“The author reports on 37 children who are being raised by female homosexuals or by parents who have changed sex (transsexuals): 21 by female homosexuals, 7 by male-to-female transsexuals, and 9 by female- to-male transsexuals. The children range in age from 3 to 20 years (mean = 9.3) and have lived in the sexually atypical households for 1- 16 years (mean = 4.9). Thirty-six of the children report or recall childhood toy, game, clothing, and peer group preferences that are typical for their sex. The 13 older children who report erotic fantasies or overt sexual behaviors are all heterosexually oriented.”

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/6/692

“Dozens of studies about kids raised by gay parents were mischaracterized for political reasons so as not to draw the ire of homosexual activists or encourage anti-gay rhetoric, a new report suggests.”

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html

I’m not going to post any more research findings. It seems that children raised in households with homosexual parents are more likely to become homosexual, are likely to become homosexual at the same rate as the general population, and the studies are flawed.

I’m signing off for now.

 

[kenofken]

The end of your post is really quite insulting. You seem to think women are swooning into your arms “if you know how to treat them…” That is only true for some women and that type of woman has existed since people have existed (and that is a very long time).

There are women who won’t fall for your “treatment.” There are women who care enough about themselves to not jump into bed with a man until marriage. There are more who at least wait until a relationship is serious before taking that step.

So, although this is off-topic, you took it there and I will respond. Is your goal in “treating” women in your way a means for getting them into your bed? If so you are using them for your own selfish purpose and that is pathetic. Actually though it does much to explain your posts along with your boast of the numerous times you have masturbated. Is that really something to boast about?

It’s certainly not meant to be insulting. It’s a counterpoint to the ludicrous assertion raised by somebody a while ago which said that young men “turn gay” because it’s the only way to get sex on demand. That idea is absurdly misinformed about the state of relations among men and women these days. I’m simply saying that IF promiscuity is one’s motivation, there’s no earthly reason you would have to seek out same sex encounters if you aren’t already inclined in that direction. For better or worse, women, on average, are not all that reserved these days.

Nor do I imply that I’m some Don Juan. Quite the opposite. If a schmo like me can do as well as I do, that’s living proof that nobody “turns gay” just to have more sex. My only “game” is listening to women and treating them all as if they are a true gift to my life. Some of them are platonic friends of mine, many are lovers. I don’t manipulate them to get anything they don’t already want. Are there still plent of women who take a very traditional approach to sex and marriage? Of course, and bully for them. As to the masturbation point, I’m neither proud nor ashamed. I merely note that it didn’t turn me gay, as the one poster suggested it would.