Gays Far More Likely To Engage In Criminal Activities

[AuntMartha]

soulspeak23:

First of all, I am a female and not only a homosexual apologist, but a homosexual. I live a wonderful and happy life with my partner and have every intention of starting my own wonderful family.

Whoopsy, wrong board! I think you meant to post on an Episcopalian message forum. This one is a Catholic forum.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

Lisa, I don’t doubt the statistics that you’ve quoted nor the damage that might be caused by having homosexual “parents.” I was only recounting my personal knowledge of two couples. I don’t know any others, and for all I know every other couple other than the two I’m personally acquainted with are total perverts vis-a-vis the children’s upbringing…

Look I have some very dear friends who are homosexual. I even have a homosexual cousin. They are all nice people, responsible, caring, honest and just all around nice guys. But that doesn’t mean they can be both mother and father to a child. “Nice” is only part of the equation.

I grew up in an era (bet you did too) when the mores changed completely about non-traditional parenting much to the detriment of CHILDREN. Single parents, group parenting, same sex parenting does not substitute. We’ve learned that sad lesson from ignoring the reality that there really WAS a reason for the stigma against having children in other than a traditional two parent/opposite sex married couple household. While your friends might think they are good parents in spite of the non-traditional situation, the reality is that there is no substitute for the real deal.

Quite honestly this is my biggest source of anguish about homosexual activists. I frankly do not care if they live together, visit each other in hospital or leave their worldly goods to their homosexual lover. But in wanting “marriage” and societal recognition on par with real married couples they further the acceptance that it’s just fine for two men or two women to procure a child and raise him or her. And I feel the EXACT same way about a single woman who gets pregnant and thinks she can raise a child without benefit of a husband and father for the child. It’s just not the same and the statistics prove it.

Richardols:

But, mea culpa. I’ve often chided some right-wingers for substituting their personal experience for broadbased statistics, and it looks as though I’ve done the same. I should have noted that two good couples don’t equate to all couples being good.

Let’s face it, we’re all influenced by our own experiences. I do the same thing. As I said the homosexuals I know are really great guys so my opinion about homosexuality is different than someone who may either not know any homosexuals or whose experience was with an abusive or predatory homoesxual. And for a long time I really believed the “we’re born this way” spiel. I also believed that it didn’t take two parents to raise kids. Having been involved in a number of social services organizations I’ve seen firsthand and read all the statistics and no longer believe that society should EVER encourage, support or advocate for non-traditional parenting. I don’t mean make it illegal since that’s a ridiculous approach. But heavens, let’s not celebrate or promote what is clearly damaging to children.

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

Isidore_AK:

I’d have to point out that there is no way a same sex couple raising a child could be considered ‘good’. Its simply a form of child abuse. It can only cause harm to the child.

I agree with Lisa about the inappropriateness of children being raised in a fatherless home. But, I also have known widows and widowers who raised their children well (though not easily) without a spouse. And, in some cases, the two homosexual women might be seen by the adopted child as the mother and the aunt. So, it is not a rule that a child is harmed by being so raised, but I agree that exceptions don’t make good law, and such adoptions ought to be discouraged if not flatly outlawed.

But, what do you do if one of the homosexual women is the child’s own mother? Separate the family and put the kid into foster care?

 

[oat_soda]

And I don’t understand why the vast majority of you keep insisting that the only aspect of a homosexual relationship is sex.

are you that blind? the difference between friendship and homosexuality is disordered genital contact. it really can’t be called sex because it contradicts what your body is for. disordered because your parts don’t fit, think about how a nut is made for a bolt, two nuts don’t work!!

i love my friends and care about them as much as you do. but the difference is that i don’t use them or objectify them and treat them as a masterbation machine. the way you use and abuse your friend is not the way God loves you.

God freely gives himself to us. he created us and the universe out of love and doesn’t ask for anything in return. when a man loves his wife the way God loves, he gives himself totally to his wife, she receives and gives herself totally to her husband, both freely consenting and open to life. ultimately, this union results in life as God love resulted in life and creation.

this is the fundamental difference between lust and love. love is fully giving yourself fully to another person, lust is sexual pleasure isolated from it’s unitive and procreative purposes.

the homo-union can never be equated with marital love, it closes in on itself and shuts itself off from procreation.

here are facts how fathers are needed in a family.

• Half of the mother-only families live below the poverty line.
• The income of mothers in single-parent families one year after divorce is 67% of what it was prior to divorce, while income of divorced men falls to around 90% of pre-divorce income.
• Mother-only families move more frequently than two-parent families, subjecting the family to more adjustment stress and less stability in neighborhood relationships.
• Adolescents from mother-only families are more likely to be sexually active, and daughters are more likely to become single-parent mothers.
• Adolescents report receiving less help with homework and make decisions under less parental supervision in general than do adolescents from two-parent families.
• Adolescents in mother-only families report being more susceptible to peer pressure than adolescents in two-parent families.
• Adolescents in mother-only families are more likely to commit delinquent acts.
• Children from mother-only families did less well on standardized tests of cognitive development. Their difference in comparison to children from two-parent families was even greater on teacher evaluations such as grade-point averages and reports of behavioral problems in schools and with peers.
• Absence from school was higher for children from mother-only families.
• Girls from mother-only families are more likely to become depressed during adolescence and also express more aggression than other girls.
• Young adults who grew up in mother-only families were more likely to drop out of high school.
• Young adults who grew up in mother-only families have lower earnings; girls are more likely to receive welfare.
• Young adults from mother-only families are more likely to divorce.
• Young adults from mother-only families are more likely to commit delinquent acts and to engage in drug and alcohol use than offspring from two-parent families.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

I agree with Lisa about the inappropriateness of children being raised in a fatherless home. But, I also have known widows and widowers who raised their children well (though not easily) without a spouse. ?

But Richardols, that is the point. Widows and widowers can and do raise great kids, but it wasn’t intentional that they became single parents. Further that child doesn’t wonder why he doesn’t have a daddy or a mommy. He doesn’t wonder why his real daddy or mommy doesn’t want to be involved with his life. With a homosexual or frankly with a single woman, it is DELIBERATE and using a child for your own purposes. It is certainly not unselfish to deliberately deprive your child of a mother or a father, something that homosexuals advocate.

Futher as homosexual partnerships become acceptable as appropriate parents, we will see, frankly we HAVE seen a complete perversion of having a child. You may have read about the homosexual men who are paying women for eggs and paying women to ‘incubate’ their biological child. Two who were profiled in the NYT (where else?) were gleefully stating they mixed their semen together so they wouldn’t know which was the sperm donor. I will not dignify this enough to call them a father. As a farm kid I believe they are producing human beings in the same fashion as I bred cattle and horses. It is beyond disgusting and objectifies human beings as posessions to be bought and sold. What makes this any different than selling a child on the street?

Richardols:

And, in some cases, the two homosexual women might be seen by the adopted child as the mother and the aunt. So, it is not a rule that a child is harmed by being so raised, but I agree that exceptions don’t make good law, and such adoptions ought to be discouraged if not flatly outlawed.?

There isn’t enough research to determine that a child is NOT harmed by two homosexual parents. We DO know that a child is damaged by not having a two parent mommy and daddy type arrangement. Since the majority of homosexuals who are buying or breeding children are females, they are depriving their children of a father. We KNOW depriving children of a father is damaging. What else do we need to know?

Richardols:

But, what do you do if one of the homosexual women is the child’s own mother? Separate the family and put the kid into foster care?

We have laws preventing removal of a child for anything but the most egregious neglect or abuse. Take it from me, there will never come a time they remove children from homosexuals by virtue of their professed sexual pleasures. OTOH could we at least DISCOURAGE breeding human beings for the self satisfaction of people who are not thinking of the child’s best interest?

Lisa N

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“Those who engaged in homosexuality were similar to those who used illegal drugs, participated in prostitution, or regularly smoked in disturbances of public health and social order. That is, similar patterns in the differences were evident in criminality, dangerousness, use of illegal substances, problems with substance use, mental health, and health costs.”

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061307.html

Substitute “Roman Catholic” for “homosexual”, and you have one of the old Protestant accusations against Catholicism.​

Sounds to me as though someone - drat, I can’t say that.

I wonder which came first - that accusation as a means of demonising persons who were not good old right whitey- boys; or that accusation as a means of demonising Catholics ?

Some, as one might be expected, see little difference between the sins of Catholicism and homosexuality - so heterosexual Catholics are in no better position, from that POV, than members of the Rainbow Sash movement.

The trouble with casting any one group as uniquely toxic, is that we set ourselves up to be destroyed by whoever despises what every Catholic stands for by virtue of his baptism. The lack of communion between Catholics & Protestants, or Catholics & Orthodox, didn’t help the Catholic Church in Rumania - the Communists simply played on their mutual animosities and persecuted the lot of them. Catholics who wax eloquent about the threat posed to the Church by those oh-so-foul and abominable homosexuals are making the same catastrophic blunder. As well as forgetting CCC 2358 - though “forgetting” may be less accurate than “having not yet read”.

“Physician, heal thyself” is the proper response to attacks on homosexuals (or any other group); and to those who attack the attackers. IOW - we are all in the same boat. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Richardols:

What crimes? Burglary? Assault? Robbery? Murder? It would help a lot to know what crimes are favored by the homosexual community.

That would make it possible for the non-perverts to chose homosexual-free crimes.​

Is a two-homosexual crime one crime, or two ? I think we should be told. One assumes that beating the living daylights out of homosexuals is not included - or does not matter; maybe it’s an exciting new form of charity work.

Are there trends in homosexual criminality ? Presumably sodomising altar-boys is a year-round occupation, varied only, perhaps, by the liturgical season and colour - but what about spying, murder, car theft, treason, fraud, bank robbery, and so on ? Or are we confining ourselves to the extra-curricular activities of those who are not clerics ?

And how do we know that the stats aren’t massaged by homosexuals ? Or invented by them ? America is the land of conspiracy theories, so there’s bound to be one here, somewhere. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

sweetchuck:

True, Jesus never specifically mentioned gays. But he DID mention Sodom.

Lk. 17:26-30: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all. So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed.”

And we all know why Lot left Sodom before it was destroyed.

Gen. 19:4-5: Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old - all the people to the last man - closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.”

That’s as likely to be gang rape for the purposes of humiliation as same-sex coitus of any other kind. In “The Contendings of Horus & Seth”, the older god sodomises the younger to prevent him becoming successor to his father Osiris. Same-sex coitus in 4th-century Sparta had a very different purpose - it was a means of male bonding, for military purposes. Not all SSC is of the “modern” type - some is meant to humiliate, and nothing more.​

It is an assumption - and no more - that SSC as such is intended. The similar incident in Judges 19 was a gang-rape; which lends some support to this interpretation. ##

I doubt that God considers homosexual relations “natural,” patg, no different than being “left-handed.”

That used to be regarded as “unnatural” too.​

Is being a pederast “natural?” What about being a sociopath? Is that “natural?”

Exactly what is a sociopath ?​

To quote Leviticus 18:22:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”

Translation: These things are hateful to God. They are against the natural order.

So what about all those things, in the same book, which are described in the same way ? There are more issues here than are sometimes realised.​

For reasons no one has yet explained, these verses are still binding - but all the other passages,which prohibit other things as abominable, are simply ignored. Why is this ? It looks very much as if the Christians who quote these verses, alone of the whole book, are more concerned to skewer homosexuality than to understand what the passages mean in their context. That is back to front, though, because one has decided what the verse means before asking what it means in its context. And to do that, is not listening to the Bible ; it is reading one’s own ideas into the Bible, so that one can seem to justify one’s position from the Bible without really doing so. What one has to do, is explain why those verses in that book are still valid - and not the rest that are like them, and occur so close to them. ##

In fact, that’s the only place in the entire Levitical law that that particular word is used, with regard to sexual immorality in the 18th chapter of Leviticus.

That has nothing to do with the force of the passage for the Christian today, though. Only with its meaning in its context then. Its original meaning is only a part of its meaning - knowing that “four-score and seven years ago” means “87 years ago”, does not of itself tell us that that expression is or is not good English today, nor does it tell us that that phrase was spoken in 1863; nor why 1776 was deemed important by the speaker. All are important, together, for understanding the Gettysburg Address in its setting, so that it can be properly beneficial for today​

Matt. 5:18: Jesus does address homosexual sex in this way, “Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”

Then I take it that you observe the entire Law of Moses (That’s contrary to the teaching of the Apostles, but never mind). That verse would be final only if Jesus were just another Jewish holy man - He is not​