Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

The remark “if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children rather than just scoring debating points” remains an ad hominem.

I have found no research with relevant statistics about the well-being of children. Have you? If so please specify the article(s).

Here’s a couple, it took seconds.

people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html
heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/djglp2&div=15&id=&page=

In any case it would be discriminatory to require that to be placed with homosexuals children must be “more content, more developed and more fulfilled” than with heterosexuals.
tonyrey;10775758:

Would you claim to be an adequate substitute for a child’s mother? Or is it necessary to be homosexual to fulfil that role?

Non sequitur.

You are assuming that none of the individuals who work in adoption agencies are homosexuals and/or fail to recognise that children are at greater risk and that the basic unit of family life will be destroyed by encouraging gay marriage .

I am stunned that you think adoption workers are so unprofessional, and you keep ignoring the fact that gay marriage won’t change the number of children placed with homosexuals by adoption agencies, and that those agencies wouldn’t place them if there was a higher level of risk.

The higher incidence of HIV and other venereal diseases among homosexuals is incontrovertible evidence that children are put at greater risk.

You’re the one who claimed that “children are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals than by the vast majority of heterosexuals” and you’ve still not provided any evidence whatsoever.

*Does the function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child vary by culture?

The fact that there is homophobic discrimination is irrelevant to the reality of paternal and maternal instincts, the physical and psychological needs of adolescents and the evolution of male and female characteristics.*

You’re the one hesitating to meet my request to provide evidence for your claim that (a) there are universal differences in the way that men and women think and behave, and (b) those differences are biological and don’t vary by culture.

How does your question square with your claim that two men are as good as a man and a woman at caring for children?

You’re not allowed to answer a question with a question , it’s against forum rules. So again, how does that square with your claim that two women are never as good as a man and a woman at caring for children?

*To be precise, two men or two women cannot be - or fulfil the same functions as - the father and mother. *

That’s your opinion, you have never given any evidence.

The onus is on you to produce evidence that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned about love and that the teaching of Jesus was not original - a fact recognised by Richard Dawkins but clearly not by everyone who claims to be a Christian.

You appear to have forgotten that the point was not about the teaching of Jesus but specifically about the golden rule. And I have many other examples of the golden rule in other cultures, for instance, in Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, “by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.”

Your belief that gay marriage is a moral issue merely signifies that it is determined by passing fashions, the laws of the country and the way people behave…

What an extraordinary thing to say. So all morals, to you, are passing fashions?

*You also need to produce evidence that two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man and the evolution of the two sexes occurred as without difference between them or between their roles regarding the needs, interests and development of their children. *

As I already said, evasion just forces me to repeat the point (and it’s a serious point, not a debating game), so again:

The reason I asked for a supporting argument / evidence is I don’t know whether these traits are biological, i.e. exactly the same in all cultures, or if they vary by culture.

If they vary by culture then changing the culture will change the traits. For example, the survey I linked indicates that homophobic discrimination varies quite widely between different EU states, which is strong evidence that the discrimination is cultural and not natural.

Also, for instance what if the two men are the girl’s long-time parents while the woman is a childless stranger? In other words you cannot treat people as if they are machines, you cannot wave your hand and choose one trait while ignoring all other factors.

 

[inocente]

Would you agree that marriage has been no more than the “archaic notion” of “a socioeconomic contract to legally bind a breeding pair” which should be extended to those who wish practise polyamory and other expressions of “free” love? If not why not?

It’s the opponents of gay marriage who have been trying to redefine marriage to be about breeding, I’ve been rock solid that marriage is about the vows.

*Article 16 of the UDHR upholds the family as the *natural and fundamental unit in society. How do you interpret that use of the term "natural"? Do you regard every sexual relationship as natural? If not why not?

Heh, so now not only do you want to redefine marriage to be about sex, you’re reducing family to sex. Find me a dictionary which defines family as being about sex.

Do you believe children have any rights regarding the choice of the persons who will adopt them?

Of course.

 

[inocente]

I think you’re just being semantic for the sake of arguing. If it’s off-topic, why bring it up in the first place?

I didn’t.

 

[inocente]

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional, scientific organization

As the thread is almost over, I looked them up and can say beyond doubt that they are a gift to supporters of gay marriage.

NARTH tried to give a prize to Robert L. Spitzer for claiming to “cure” homosexuals, but he recanted and apologized for being wrong.

They also awarded a prize to George Rekers, a board member, who later had to resign after he was photographed with a male escort from a gay escort service.

They published a paper by Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of their Science Advisory Committee in which he claimed that “Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… . Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off”.

Another prize was awarded to Warren Throckmorton, but he broke with them over perceived racism and is now a strong critic of them.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

 

[CandideWest]

The Church uses the word disorder in its common meaning.
dis·or·der
/disˈôrdər/
Noun
A state of confusion.
Verb
Disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.
Synonyms
noun. confusion - mess - disturbance - disarray - muddle
verb. disarrange - disturb - derange - mess - confuse

Ok, but there seems to be more to it than that given the context in the catechism just “a state of confusion” doesn’t seem to be adequate.

You can only get a shadow of the meaning from a secular view.

Yes, this appears to be true,

The ideal of equality comes from the Christian understanding that we are all equal in dignity. The ideal of marriage comes from the Christian understanding that God made man and woman and the two will become one.

I think you mean that

“In Christianity the ideal of equality comes from the understanding that we are all equal in dignity”

and

“In Christianity the ideal of marriage comes from the understanding that God made man and woman and the two will become one”

Since both marriage and the principle of equality predate Christianity substantially.

 

[CandideWest]

Could you please give me an example of what sexual acts with consent you see as immoral?

Sure, a man cheating on his wife.

Well, with moral subjectivism, how do you get a secular argument on morality?

Er, we already covered that. Starting from axioms which come from our nature.

True, but it’s about the sexual act.

Right… and both types under discussion are infertile. I fear we are starting to go around in circles here.

Sure, my apologies, I am very interested though.

Thank you for entertaining such replies, could you please provide me with a link to another thread where we can discuss it?

Theistic evolution I would caution you against discussing because evolution in general is a banned topic.

The most relevant thread on the first cause argument which is ongoing at the moment is probably “Why does the first cause have to be God?”. I’m afraid I don’t know how to link to threads, but it’s on the front page on the philosophy forum so should be easy to find.

My apologies, yes I agree.

I’ll try and answer your previous question again below.

Ok,

Immoral, more than b)
Immoral, but less than a)

Immoral, equally as immoral as b)
Immoral, equally immoral as a)

Ok, I thought that might be the case. So can you tell me why it is morally better for a heterosexual couple to be married if they are to perform an infertile sex act. But it is not better for a homosexual couple to be married if they to perform an infertile sex act?

Your moral system was the “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good” right? how does that relate when one mans suffering is another mans happiness?

Suffering is still bad, whoever’s suffering that is. Happiness is still good, whoever’s happiness it is.

So the two need to be balanced against each other. Generally suffering is a more intense experience than happiness, so generally preventing suffering weighs more heavily on the scales. The more severe the suffering the greater the differential.

Could you give me an example in a link to another thread please? I am quite interested on your world views.

I’m not sure that there are any running threads currently related to problems with the bible. I’m not actually sure that the philosophy forum would be the place for such discussions. Sounds more like something that belongs on the “sacred scripture” section of the forum to be honest.

The atheists I know or have heard of all suppress the big questions or they find half answers in order to reject God. Mainly because I think if we proved Gods existance to them, they would harbour hate, anger or resentment towards God.

Well all I can say is that I am not them. As I said, I was Christian for decades. It was asking a lot of “big questions” etc that led me to become an atheist.

Thats why I said, there is no such thing as secular morality, wouldn’t you agree?

Nope, I’ve already given a practical system of secular morality. There are others, but the “practicably objective” one I use works very well.

It depends what you classify as detrimental to a childs development. What evidence have you seen and what did it take into account?

Different research takes into account all kinds of different measures of children’s development. There is an array of useful research material on the APA website, here’s a link to a search which comes up with some useful stuff

search.apa.org/search?query=gay parenting

Alternatively there’s this paper (also from the APA) which as a one off is pretty useful.

apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

A good literature review produced for the Australian Psychological Society is here

psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

All of the above will give you other papers you can follow up on to get further detail and evidence if you’re happy to do the leg work.

What about homosexuals having children with IVF through the use of a third party? do you see a problem with that? and do you know if this can already happen or is already happening or not?

I’m not sure, I assume it is happening yes. And no I don’t see anything immoral in it.

Yes, but it isn’t advocated.

?

I’m not sure how you can take that passage from Luke as anything other than advocating slavery, it’s even saying how much a slave should be beaten for failing his masters will, it even instructs that slaves should be beaten for failing his masters will, EVEN if he didn’t know what that will was.

Some more examples include

Ephesians 6:5:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

1 Timothy 6:1-2
“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect…”

As I said, people now try to argue that these verses don’t in fact support slavery. But back when the debate about slavery was ongoing a lot of people believed and argued that they supported slavery.

Now, currently the debate about gay marriage is ongoing and a lot of people believe and argue that certain verses in the bible are against gay marriage. maybe in 200 years people will be arguing that they aren’t in fact against slavery.

To be honest Josh, we are debating about a future event. You don’t believe that resistance to gay marriage is ever going to die down. I suspect it will in time. Neither of us can really support our position as it’s a question of waiting and seeing.

Likewise, thank you for your replies.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Cheers

 

[CandideWest]

Okay, I have to set aside my pride and admit that your point just now became clear to me. I assumed you were trying to defeat Peter Plato’s analogy by suggesting that chewing gum doesn’t fit the paradigm. You were offering your own argument against the idea that homosexuality is disordered. So, with humility, I apologize for misunderstanding your point.

No problem, and well done on writing the above. It shows admirable intellectual integrity

Now, with regard to your argument… a couple of points:

1. Some things are immoral but not necessarily disordered, e.g., adultery (I’m sure it works the other way around, too, but I can’t think of any examples at the moment).
2. Gum is a consumable product.
3. Gum contains sugars or sweeteners that are broken down by teeth/saliva and swallowed.
4. Though gum lacks nutritional value, it is generally not harmful and will simply pass through your digestive system like roughage.
5. Because gum is partially broken down in the mouth while being chewed, the act of chewing gum is not disordered.

Imagine swallowing a gum ball whole, versus chewing it first and then swallowing it. By chewing it first you are able to swallow it more easily and break down any sugars or artificial flavors.

Your argument seems to be that if we chew gum and swallow it then it is not disordered even though it lacks nutritional value. Now, firstly this still fails the “purpose” of chewing as you defined it - to obtain sustenance. So the argument still seems to work as it was originally posited.

And secondly of course this is not what most people do with chewing gum. Generally it is chewed and then thrown away. Indeed while **usually **swallowing gum does us no harm there are some cases where gum has built up in the intestines causing blockages after being eaten. So it is definitely not something I would recommend.

 

[PRmerger]

Since both marriage and the principle of equality predate Christianity substantially.

Yes, marriage predates Christianity, and the idea of “equality” comes from Judaism.

We all have inherent dignity as human persons because we are created in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, I’m afraid it seems to be you who is confused. Firstly as I have already said, I am not offering an analogy, I’m simply applying a logical argument (one which is used to argue that homosexuality is disordered and as such immoral) to a different act.

Secondly the argument I have presented is quoted below. If you would like to answer it then go ahead, but please don’t pretend we’re talking about something else, that’s just disingenuous.

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of sex is reproduction.
2. Therefore the act of sex is “ordered towards” reproduction.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Homosexual sex does not result in reproduction and is therefore not “ordered towards” reproduction.
5. Therefore homosexual sex is disordered and immoral.

Is that about right? Now lets try the same structure with chewing gum.

1. The primary evolutionary purpose (or designed purpose if you prefer) of the act of chewing is breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
2. Therefore the act of chewing is “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
3. Using an act for a purpose it is not “ordered towards” is disordered and immoral
4. Chewing gum does not break down food in preparation for digestion and is therefore not “ordered towards” breaking down food in preparation for digestion.
5. Therefore chewing gum is disordered and immoral.

You do have this peculiar habit, as does Innocente, of reading your own implications into the arguments of others.

It may have been claimed somewhere in this thread that gay marriage is disordered and that same sex behaviour is immoral, but I don’t believe anyone argued that same sex marriage is immoral because it is disordered (premise 3 in the first argument above).

What was claimed is that same sex unions cannot properly be called marriages because they are disordered, just as chewing gum cannot properly be called “eating” because chewing gum is not ordered towards providing nutrients to the body.

“Eating” is the process of breaking down food to provide the body with essential nutrients. Chewing gum is not eating. It may or may not be immoral depending upon other considerations.

“Marriage” is a union between two opposite sex individuals that is ordered towards reproduction or the creation of new human beings. Same sex unions cannot be properly called marriages because they are not ordered towards reproduction of human life. That does not entail, as you are trying to insist, that same sex unions are immoral because they are disordered. It does mean they cannot be marriages, however.

The question of whether they are moral or not can be determined by other considerations. Chewing gum is not “ordered towards” providing nutrients, so it is not “eating.” If someone were to claim they are eating when chewing gum, they would be mistaken because the process of chewing gum does not fulfill the requirements of what eating is, properly defined.

The activity of same sex unions is to engage in quite a different activity than that required for reproduction, so these are not ordered towards reproduction therefore cannot be marriages. Same sex behaviour is more akin to rubbing food on your body than it is to chewing gum since there is absolutely no connection between the rubbing of body parts together and the proper end (providing nutrients or creating new life.) At least gum may have some potential of containing nutrients and some saliva is swallowed in the process, so it might incidentally achieve the end of eating.

The analogy extended to infertile couples is not similar to chewing gum, but to eating (chewing and swallowing) a food that is completely devoid of nutrients and, therefore, cannot provide any. We would still call this “eating,” however, because it is “ordered towards” providing nutrients even though none are to be had.

Again, just because some have argued that same sex unions are disordered, does not mean that is the reason for claiming them to be immoral. There may be other justifiable reasons for making that claim on other grounds.

Are we clear, now?

 

[PRmerger]

Could you please give me an example of what sexual acts with consent you see as immoral?

Sure, a man cheating on his wife.

So is your paradigm for what is a moral sexual encounter: Consenting adults who aren’t married?

 

[PRmerger]

You do have this peculiar habit, as does Innocente, of reading your own implications into the arguments of others.

It may have been claimed somewhere in this thread that gay marriage is disordered and that same sex behaviour is immoral, but I don’t believe anyone argued that same sex marriage is immoral because it is disordered (premise 3 in the first argument above).

What was claimed is that same sex unions cannot properly be called marriages because they are disordered, just as chewing gum cannot properly be called “eating” because chewing gum is not ordered towards providing nutrients to the body.

“Eating” is the process of breaking down food to provide the body with essential nutrients. Chewing gum is not eating. It may or may not be immoral depending upon other considerations.

“Marriage” is a union between two opposite sex individuals that is ordered towards reproduction or the creation of new human beings. Same sex unions cannot be properly called marriages because they are not ordered towards reproduction of human life. That does not entail, as you are trying to insist, that same sex unions are immoral because they are disordered. It does mean they cannot be marriages, however.

The question of whether they are moral or not can be determined by other considerations. Chewing gum is not “ordered towards” providing nutrients, so it is not “eating.” If someone were to claim they are eating when chewing gum, they would be mistaken because the process of chewing gum does not fulfill the requirements of what eating is, properly defined.

The activity of same sex unions is to engage in quite a different activity than that required for reproduction, so these are not ordered towards reproduction therefore cannot be marriages. Same sex behaviour is more akin to rubbing food on your body than it is to chewing gum since there is absolutely no connection between the rubbing of body parts together and the proper end (providing nutrients or creating new life.) At least gum may have some potential of containing nutrients and some saliva is swallowed in the process, so it might incidentally achieve the end of eating.

The analogy extended to infertile couples is not similar to chewing gum, but to eating (chewing and swallowing) a food that is completely devoid of nutrients and, therefore, cannot provide any. We would still call this “eating,” however, because it is “ordered towards” providing nutrients even though none are to be had.

Again, just because some have argued that same sex unions are disordered, does not mean that is the reason for claiming them to be immoral. There may be other justifiable reasons for making that claim on other grounds.

Are we clear, now?

Yeah. What Peter Plato said. :yup:

 

[stewstew03]

No problem, and well done on writing the above. It shows admirable intellectual integrity

Your argument seems to be that if we chew gum and swallow it then it is not disordered even though it lacks nutritional value. Now, firstly this still fails the “purpose” of chewing as you defined it - to obtain sustenance. So the argument still seems to work as it was originally posited.

And secondly of course this is not what most people do with chewing gum. Generally it is chewed and then thrown away. Indeed while **usually **swallowing gum does us no harm there are some cases where gum has built up in the intestines causing blockages after being eaten. So it is definitely not something I would recommend.

The “chewing gum” argument is not my argument - it’s yours. All I’m pointing out is that your conclusion that chewing gum is disordered doesn’t follow from the premise.

 

[stewstew03]

Yeah. What Peter Plato said. :yup:

Ummm… Where’s the gif?? This is a perfect opportunity for a “PR gif post”!

 

[PRmerger]

Ummm… Where’s the gif?? This is a perfect opportunity for a “PR gif post”!

I know right?

But I don’t want to be that annoying poster. You know, the kind that makes you think, “Yeah, that was funny, but enough already.”

 

[stewstew03]

I know right?

But I don’t want to be that annoying poster. You know, the kind that makes you think, “Yeah, that was funny, but enough already.”

 

[PRmerger]

http://media.tumblr.com/42810eaa828a0967a5eb3536de9642e5/tumblr_inline_mkztvqfA4a1qz4rgp.gif

Can.t.

No.

Won’t.

.
.
.
.
.
sigh!

Ok…

Must. Give. In.

Here it is…

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s a couple, it took seconds.

people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
independent.co.uk/life-st…e-8518004.html
heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag…v=15&id=&page=

Your alacrity reveals a lack of attention to detail. The authors of the first research article admitted they are “unlikely to have captured other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age”. It would be presumptuous of others to claim they have done so.

In any case it would be discriminatory to require that to be placed with homosexuals children must be “more content, more developed and more fulfilled” than with heterosexuals.

Then children should be less content, less developed and less fulfilled with homosexuals? The onus is on you to prove they are even equally content, developed and fulfilled given the undeniable physical and psychological differences between the sexes.

Would you claim to be an adequate substitute for a child’s mother? Or is it necessary to be homosexual to fulfil that role?

Non sequitur.

To ignore the ability of homosexuals to replace the mother reveals a total lack of concern for the children’s feelings.

I am stunned that you think adoption workers are so unprofessional, and you keep ignoring the fact that gay marriage won’t change the number of children placed with homosexuals by adoption agencies, and that those agencies wouldn’t place them if there was a higher level of risk.

To think homosexual adoption workers are unbiased and heterosexual adoption workers are uninfluenced by the fashionable - and politically correct - trend is hopelessly unrealistic. There is indeed a higher level of risk - of losing their jobs! They know full well they would be accused of discrimination and taken to court if they dared to step out of line, especially in the UK and other countries where gay marriage has been legalised.

You’re the one who claimed that “children are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals than by the vast majority of heterosexuals” and you’ve still not provided any evidence whatsoever.

It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that children living in very close proximity to homosexuals are undoubtedly exposed to a greater risk of HIV and other venereal diseases given the higher incidence of those diseases among homosexuals.

You’re the one hesitating to meet my request to provide evidence for your claim that (a) there are universal differences in the way that men and women think and behave, and (b) those differences are biological and don’t vary by culture.

The function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child is biological not cultural.

So again, how does that square with your claim that two women are never as good as a man and a woman at caring for children?

Having been a virtually fatherless child I can assure you a man’s role is not as superfluous as you imply.

To be precise, two men or two women cannot be - or fulfil the same functions as - the father and mother.

That’s your opinion, you have never given any evidence.

The function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child is biological and not cultural.

The onus is on you to produce evidence that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned about love and that the teaching of Jesus was not original - a fact recognised by Richard Dawkins but clearly not by everyone who claims to be a Christian.

You appear to have forgotten that the point was not about the teaching of Jesus but specifically about the golden rule. And I have many other examples of the golden rule in other cultures, for instance, in Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, “by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.”

The principle of equality is not identical with the principle of love. It is more akin to an eye for an eye - with no allowance for clemency. A very strange notion of the Golden Rule!

Your belief that gay marriage is a moral issue merely signifies that it is determined by passing fashions, the laws of the country and the way people behave…

What an extraordinary thing to say. So all morals, to you, are passing fashions?

That was the very term you used - as well as “relative”.

The reason I asked for a supporting argument / evidence is I don’t know whether these traits are biological, i.e. exactly the same in all cultures, or if they vary by culture.

The failure to admit that the function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child is biological speaks for itself.

If they vary by culture then changing the culture will change the traits. For example, the survey I linked indicates that homophobic discrimination varies quite widely between different EU states, which is strong evidence that the discrimination is cultural and not natural.

The issue is not discrimination but the distinction between male and female attributes.

Also, for instance what if the two men are the girl’s long-time parents while the woman is a childless stranger? In other words you cannot treat people as if they are machines, you cannot wave your hand and choose one trait while ignoring all other factors.

Extreme cases amount to special pleading. It stands to reason that two men cannot understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman and two women cannot understand an adolescent boy as well as a man. The authors of the research article admitted they are “unlikely to have captured other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age”.

 

[josh987654321]

Sure, a man cheating on his wife.

Thats adultery. I was talking about fornication and promiscuity between persons not married.

Er, we already covered that. Starting from axioms which come from our nature.

So why is the sexual acts of homosexuality being immoral not obvious from axioms which come from our nature? and if two people of the same sex can morally engage in such acts, than why would it be immoral for three or more people to engage in sexual acts together?

Right… and both types under discussion are infertile. I fear we are starting to go around in circles here.

We are I think, surely you understand that we are talking about the sexual acts here right?

If not, don’t worry, I’ll let you debate it out with everyone else on this thread.

Theistic evolution I would caution you against discussing because evolution in general is a banned topic.

The most relevant thread on the first cause argument which is ongoing at the moment is probably “Why does the first cause have to be God?”. I’m afraid I don’t know how to link to threads, but it’s on the front page on the philosophy forum so should be easy to find.

Thank you CandideWest.

Ok, I thought that might be the case. So can you tell me why it is morally better for a heterosexual couple to be married if they are to perform an infertile sex act. But it is not better for a homosexual couple to be married if they to perform an infertile sex act?

Because the sexual act is different for them both. When it comes to the sexual acts of homosexuality, such acts are immoral under any and all circumstances.

Suffering is still bad, whoever’s suffering that is. Happiness is still good, whoever’s happiness it is.

So the two need to be balanced against each other. Generally suffering is a more intense experience than happiness, so generally preventing suffering weighs more heavily on the scales. The more severe the suffering the greater the differential.

Well, that is a conscience my friend, so how do you explain a conscience given that we are just random meaningless beings that will end in nothingness? Real Atheism by it’s very nature is void of any conscience.

I’m not sure that there are any running threads currently related to problems with the bible. I’m not actually sure that the philosophy forum would be the place for such discussions. Sounds more like something that belongs on the “sacred scripture” section of the forum to be honest.

Okay, thank you.

Well all I can say is that I am not them. As I said, I was Christian for decades. It was asking a lot of “big questions” etc that led me to become an atheist.

Please ask us those “big questions” that drove you away from Christianity.

Nope, I’ve already given a practical system of secular morality. There are others, but the “practicably objective” one I use works very well.

Your moral system just looks a bit illogical to atheism. (not trying to offend you in any way)

Different research takes into account all kinds of different measures of children’s development. There is an array of useful research material on the APA website, here’s a link to a search which comes up with some useful stuff

search.apa.org/search?query=gay parenting

Alternatively there’s this paper (also from the APA) which as a one off is pretty useful.

apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

A good literature review produced for the Australian Psychological Society is here

psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

All of the above will give you other papers you can follow up on to get further detail and evidence if you’re happy to do the leg work.

results of projective testing and
related interview procedures have revealed that
development of gender identity among children of
lesbian mothers follows the expected pattern

Thats a whole lot of nothing.

All children in
this study reported that they were happy with their
gender and that they had no wish to be a member
of the opposite sex. There was no evidence in any
of the studies of gender identity of any difficulties
among children of lesbian mothers. No data have
been reported in this area for children of gay fathers.

Thats not what I am concerned about and again alot of lack of data.

A number of studies have
reported that gender-role behavior among children
of lesbian mothers fell within typical limits for conventional
sex roles

haha, Could they be any more vague?

In studies of children ranging in
age from 5 to 14,

So let me get this straight, these studies were primarly conducted before the end of puberty?

Ever heard the saying “those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing?”

My primary concern is, what does an adolecent say to themselves about acting on their sexual desires when the sexual acts of homosexuality are apparently a part of normal moral family life?

When the sexual acts of homosexuality are apparently moral?

What sexual morality advice to parents give who are already acting sexually immoral?

Do you really think homosexual parents have any legs to stand on when discussing sexual morality with thier adolecent kids? what do you think these kids will gleam from sexual morality?

I’m not sure, I assume it is happening yes. And no I don’t see anything immoral in it.

How about the fact of bringing a child into this world with the absolute intention to deprive that child of their biological mother or father, not because they think it will benefit the child in any way, but to selfishly benefit themselves?

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

?

I’m not sure how you can take that passage from Luke as anything other than advocating slavery, it’s even saying how much a slave should be beaten for failing his masters will, it even instructs that slaves should be beaten for failing his masters will, EVEN if he didn’t know what that will was.

Some more examples include

Ephesians 6:5:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

1 Timothy 6:1-2
“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect…”

As I said, people now try to argue that these verses don’t in fact support slavery. But back when the debate about slavery was ongoing a lot of people believed and argued that they supported slavery.

Now, currently the debate about gay marriage is ongoing and a lot of people believe and argue that certain verses in the bible are against gay marriage. maybe in 200 years people will be arguing that they aren’t in fact against slavery.

To be honest Josh, we are debating about a future event. You don’t believe that resistance to gay marriage is ever going to die down. I suspect it will in time. Neither of us can really support our position as it’s a question of waiting and seeing.

True.

But let me give you a quote about divorce and same sex marriage.

Mathew 19:1-11

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’**? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”**

So, I don’t think “no-fault divorce” will be accepted over time, nor will same sex marriage.

Cheers

Likewise

Thank you for your reply candidewest

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

Actually what does an adolecent say to themselves about acting on their own sexual desires, about sexual morality, when people say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral and are accused of “bigotry” “oppressing” and “hate speech”?

Thank you for reading
Josh