I really dont think that you should really make statements like this, they are not really something that you can back up.
I think that you should provide evidence to support this, preferably impartial evidence.
I went to the site and read her background speil, I feel sorry for her over the life that she had and I think that she probably should have been taken off her father. Because he was a bad parent that put himself first rather than because he was homosexual.
None of them are well adjusted. You cannot be well adjusted and accept deviant sexual behavior as “normal” or good.
Goes back to my point about definitions. Just because we can desensitize people, especially children, does not make bad acts into good acts.
Again, you base this on a religious belief…you base your assumptions on a bias already made…any evidence to the contrary, say real life people such as myself or the reports and studies by the APA which simply does not bear out your assertions, then the only defense is we are “indoctrinated by the advocates for homosexuality”…the contrary is also true, to those who will not accept clinical studies and life portraits of well adjusted children and stable loving “alternative families” is buying into their own brand of 'indoctrination." There is no evidence whatsoever through real life case studies or “anecdotal evidence” to prove that children raised in same sex “marriages” (again ""out of deference to you) have any issues OTHER than the stigma that they must deal with by their peers who mirror the attitudes and behavior of their biased parents.
Because asking us to “accept” homosexuality is just like asking us to accept adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. We see *all *of these sexual desires as intrinsically disordered.
You *don’t *see a connection between “If you hate homosexuality, you hate all homosexuals” and “If you hate pedophilia, you hate all pedophiles”?
Well, think about it logically. If the marital relationshiop was a horrible evil and a blight on society, I don’t think our civilization would have lasted more than a century or two, given how many there have been in the last several thousand years.
I challenge you to find ANY “impartial” evidence on *either *side of this debate. As for my sources, see Dawn Stefanowicz’s site (linked earlier; she has complied pages and pages of statistics and scientific studies about this topic) as well as NARTH.com.
And how, by your definition, did he “put himself first”? He was just doing what “made him happy,” as defined by other posters on this thread.
The bias is with those, including professional groups, that start from an erroneous position. They reject the natural moral law and use subjectivity and plastic definitions to claim bad is good.
In a committed stable gay relationship where mutual love and concern is lived out…just as in straight relationships, there is no more violence in these relationships than in their committed, stable, loving straight counterparts. One can find violent relationship in straight unions as well…the battered womens shelter in your local area will bear this out.
So what you are trying to suggest is that they are all the same and deserve the same treatment, is that right?
well that is why I made the statement.
I guess that I dont see the acts as the same thing.What’s difficult to understand about it?
Yes…they reject the religious premise which must be protected at all costs to truth, honesty and fact.
They reject objective truth, yes. They start from a position that is relativistic.
It is only “relativism”, to use your word, when not based in your religious belief. Objective truth, which they can see and measure does not bear your religious belief out when it comes to your belief that homosexuality is disordered…it is a religious belief you hold…that is the starting point of your assertion not fact.
No - the fact is two men or two women cannot naturally have a baby. That is the starting point.
Actually that isnt logical, that is pretty much extremism (is that a word?).
Again you are being extreme.
Im sorry but NARTH is hardly a source, much less a reliable or impartial source. You would be better off looking elsewhere.
Lets settle down a bit, there isnt any need for this.
Some “staight” couples also cannot “naturally” have a baby. They can be “open to life” until they’re blue in the face but it won’t change the fact that some straight people are not fertile in any way shape or form…so being “open to life” for them isn’t really…“open”. I thought in such cases sex was “unitive” and permissible? Those men and women who are in same sex relaionships also use sex as “unitive”, true, they cannot “naturally” have a baby…except for many women who chose to use artificial methods, which again, I understand Catholics have religious prohibitions against it, but that too is a religious belief.
By design they cannot have babies. Because of original sin and corruption some are sterile. The design and original intent are still the starting point.
Coming from a psychological background there is not enough evidence either way to support either claim. So our views have to be based on beliefs. Otherwise what would they be based upon???
Besides, even if we had evidence to support that children raised in homosexual families were well adjusted perfect children, it would not chance my beliefs that gay marriage is still invalid.