If you could change the world?

[tropical_fishy]

ok, then i bow to ya'lls superior wisdom. Dam you are an indignant cynical bunch.

We're having a discussion. Neither of us has attacked you, we're just debating. It's good for the brains.

[slade]

ok, then i bow to ya'lls superior wisdom. Dam you are an indignant cynical bunch.

at first i misread "bunch" as a derogratory term you were applying to fishy.

[warbeak2099]

You guys do realize that only one signer of the Declaration of Independence was Christian and that our founding fathers were primarily Deists who believed in secular morals. So our nation is pretty much built on secularism. Otherwise we would be a theocracy.

Secular morality in a nutshell: Don't piss in the watering hole and you won't get punished by the herd. If you harm others in your actions, they are wrong. Otherwise they are not wrong. The way the American government was designed, it is not to be led by religion. Instead, it is to be crafted in the best interests of society.

Example. Homosexual parents have been shown to be fully functional. The contributions of homosexual people to society have been numerous and of high quality. The development of a child raised by gay parents has been shown to be normal and healthy. Homosexuality has actually never been shown to be dangerous to society. Therefore, there should be no laws against homosexuality in our country. We are not operating on Abrahamic morals (or at least we aren't supposed to bed), and therefore do not need to conform our laws or government to them.

This is a truth and it is part of what America is. You cannot disagree with that. However, you are certainly entitled to the opinion that we should be a theocracy. I disagree, but it's your right to that opinion. You cannot however say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian morality. That is simply an uneducated, untruth.

Also, just because our current president is trying to make decisions based on Christian morality, it does not mean he is doing things the way he is supposed to be doing them. Far from it. He is completely breaking from the tradition and system of the founding fathers.

[edweird]

well stated warbeak2099...

Might I add the mention of the Treaty of Tripoli(1796)? It has long been a standard in the arguement about the meaning behind the "separation of church and state".

Article 11:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

[bornl33t]

You guys do realize that only one signer of the Declaration of Independence was Christian and that our founding fathers were primarily Deists who believed in secular morals. So our nation is pretty much built on secularism. Otherwise we would be a theocracy.

Secular morality in a nutshell: Don't piss in the watering hole and you won't get punished by the herd. If you harm others in your actions, they are wrong. Otherwise they are not wrong. The way the American government was designed, it is not to be led by religion. Instead, it is to be crafted in the best interests of society.

Example. Homosexual parents have been shown to be fully functional. The contributions of homosexual people to society have been numerous and of high quality. The development of a child raised by gay parents has been shown to be normal and healthy. Homosexuality has actually never been shown to be dangerous to society. Therefore, there should be no laws against homosexuality in our country. We are not operating on Abrahamic morals (or at least we aren't supposed to bed), and therefore do not need to conform our laws or government to them.

This is a truth and it is part of what America is. You cannot disagree with that. However, you are certainly entitled to the opinion that we should be a theocracy. I disagree, but it's your right to that opinion. You cannot however say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian morality. That is simply an uneducated, untruth.

Also, just because our current president is trying to make decisions based on Christian morality, it does not mean he is doing things the way he is supposed to be doing them. Far from it. He is completely breaking from the tradition and system of the founding fathers.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

do a search on google for "research on homosexual parenting" the evidence supports overwhelmingly the oposite of what you claim.

[edweird]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3

http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

do a search on google for "research on homosexual parenting" the evidence supports overwhelmingly the oposite of what you claim.

Oh common lets consider your sources:

FRC.org "defending family, faith and freedom"
heck just read the wiki on this "Christian conservative non-profit think tank and lobbying organization." @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

Its a christian funded lobbying organization, need I bring up trust issues with political lobbys? Or can we just consider this a dead horse right from the gate?

Narth.com study link:

Right of the top... damn dude read this stuff before you hang your arguement with it...
Editorial Note:
Most of this research review of empirical evidence applies to public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting of children, even though it was specifically prepared to defend the Arkansas regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior. The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regarding the higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case. So Kathy Hall instructed Professor Rekers not to review research in those areas.

So its skewed right from the get-go... Another dead horse?

American College of Pediatricians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America..._Pediatricians states that ACPeds.org is a social conservative organization as well... [rule of thumb... rigid agenda = bad science]
the wiki also states:

ACPeds has spoken out on a number political issues. These statements include, but are not limited too, condemnation of :

* Same-Sex Marriage
* LGBT Parenting
* Contraception other than sexual abstinence (including Emergency contraception)
* Reproductive rights

As a general guideline, do not accept anything issued from organizations with rigid agendas as "gospel". They are funded by organizations that are only intersted in promoting their ideas, and deviation from that idea (even due to overwealming fact) will lead to the end of said funding. The golden rule when you see studies like this, is consider the source of the studies funding; only then can you get to the truth of the matter.

Next time read your links first... this round was as easier to club to death than a baby seal.

[tropical_fishy]

Oh common lets consider your sources:

FRC.org "defending family, faith and freedom"
heck just read the wiki on this "Christian conservative non-profit think tank and lobbying organization." @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

Its a christian funded lobbying organization, need I bring up trust issues with political lobbys? Or can we just consider this a dead horse right from the gate?

Narth.com study link:

Right of the top... damn dude read this stuff before you hang your arguement with it...
Editorial Note:
Most of this research review of empirical evidence applies to public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting of children, even though it was specifically prepared to defend the Arkansas regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior. The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regarding the higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case. So Kathy Hall instructed Professor Rekers not to review research in those areas.

So its skewed right from the get-go... Another dead horse?

American College of Pediatricians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America..._Pediatricians states that ACPeds.org is a social conservative organization as well... [rule of thumb... rigid agenda = bad science]
the wiki also states:

ACPeds has spoken out on a number political issues. These statements include, but are not limited too, condemnation of :

* Same-Sex Marriage
* LGBT Parenting
* Contraception other than sexual abstinence (including Emergency contraception)
* Reproductive rights

As a general guideline, do not accept anything issued from organizations with rigid agendas as "gospel". They are funded by organizations that are only intersted in promoting their ideas, and deviation from that idea (even due to overwealming fact) will lead to the end of said funding. The golden rule when you see studies like this, is consider the source of the studies funding; only then can you get to the truth of the matter.

Next time read your links first... this round was as easier to club to death than a baby seal.

It is obvious, since straight, Christian parents will only raise white bread, WASPy, properly masculine and feminine, straight children, that gay people will only raise flambuoyant, athiestic, closed-minded GLBT children, who are bent on destroying and corrupting the United States and its theological roots.

PS: bornl33t-- In the world of up-to-date medical, sociological, and psychological research, google is not your friend. Try peer-reviewed journals, or textbooks.

[billybob_81067]

Oh common lets consider your sources:

At least he has sources... I don't see anyone putting up sources for your side of the argument, (although I'm sure there will be here shortly). Ha-ha I'm making you do research!

[warbeak2099]

bornl33t, you're sources are not scientific nor are they objective. They are therefore not valid. Only empirical research can provide objective and truthful findings. Your incredibly biased sources do not use the empirical method to come to their findings. Instead they draw them from thin air, relying on emotion and opinion. Hardly accurate.

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

That is written by a doctor. A person who has done research and applied the scientific study to his work. Not someone who is bringing religion into a matter in which it has no place. We are simply trying to find out whether or not homosexuality has ever had a negative effect on society. It has not. It has never been scientifically proven. As I said before, children raised by homosexuals have been proven to grow up no less functional or well off than children raised by straight parents.

I have read through countless journal articles that would bore you to death since it appears you like to just read about fantastical ideas that have never been tested instead of actually doing the work to find something out. That is lazy and ignorant. Not one of the anti-gay, biased organizations that you cited have ever done a credible, empirical study, nor do they know what the word "empirical" means.

EDIT: Also read this. This is the kind of person who does "studies" that find homosexuality as a threat to society:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...s_cameron.html

I also doubt you will read through Dr. Berggren's entire article. Therefore, here is the single most important part of it:

Argument #3: "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"

"I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation." - Pat Robertson, May 24, 1994 letter

This argument is based on several misunderstandings: that homosexuals are more prone to molest children and that it is possible to recruit children into homosexuality and that homosexuals carry out such acts of recruitment.

On the issue of molestation, this is what Dr. Gregory M. Herek at the Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis has to say: "The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to suggest that molestations of children by adult homosexual men never occur. They do. But molesting children has nothing to do with whether a man is heterosexual or homosexual." For more on what Dr. Herek has to say, including an exposition of the false claims of right-wing favorite Paul Cameron (ousted from the APA), click here.

On the issue of recruitment, this idea entails two theories: (i) that homosexuality can be induced by conscious acts, and (ii) that homosexuals wish to and do recruit. As for the first theory, this is clearly at odds with almost all expertise. Let me offer two arguments as to why it is false. First, almost all the research in psychology and biology indicate that homosexuality is a part of a person's inner personality, just like heterosexuality, which is not the result of conscious acts (see The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the site The Gay Gene, which documents the biological findings of a genetical component to homosexuality). And if this is so, it is not possible to recruit. Second, an overwhelming majority of homosexuals surveyed by The Advocate (over 90 %) a few years ago stated that they did not choose to become homosexuals. I know, for one, that I did not choose to be gay, nor did anyone act consciously to make me gay, and all my gay friends have the same experience.

As for the second theory, that homosexuals wish to and do recruit, this is without any basis. First of all, as has just been argued, homosexuals would have to know how to make someone gay, if they were to engage in attempts to recruit. Yet I do not think anyone can safely say that they know how to determine the sexual orientation of someone. Parents, that spend much more time with their kids than anyone else, do not possess such knowledge, presumably, since straight parents often have gay kids. Traits like sexual orientation are very complexly determined, and homosexuals in general do not think that it is possible to change a person's sexual orientation, period, and if so, that no one really knows how to do it. (On the so-called ex-gay movement, see several articles on my homo page under the heading "Is It Possible to Change from Gay to Straight?")

Furthermore, why would homosexuals be interested in recruiting youngsters when, clearly, each new generation brings with it gays and lesbians quite spontaneously? And why is it assumed that gays and lesbians want everyone else to share their sexual orientation?

It is often said that homosexuals wish to portray homosexuality in an attractive manner in the media and in the schools in order to attract young, impressionable children. This accusation is incorrect, for the reason that almost all homosexuals do not think it possible to influence the sexual orientation of a youngster by means of movies, articles, or factual classroom information. Even if that were the case, the heterosexual lifestyle is clearly so predominant in society (which heterosexuals most often do not even reflect upon), that the impressions taken by youngster must be much stronger from that side than from the side of homosexuality. As President Weinberg of The American Psychiatric Association stated in 1977: "A parent's fear that their child will be recruited at school or elsewhere is without scientific foundation".

Rather, the information about homosexuality in media and schools is desired by gays and lesbians solely to help kids who feel attracted to kids of their own sex to accept those unchangeable feelings. The sole purpose is to make these kids feel better about who they are, because most of us who grew up with homosexual feelings felt quite lonely and scared of society's reaction. Good information can help these kids to grow up to be healthy and self-confident. This must be considered especially important, since gay and lesbian teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers and account for up to 30% of all completed suicides among teens - in 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989). It should be obvious that honest information, positive role models, support from well informed teachers, counselors and friends could be immensely helpful to a teenager who is struggling to come to terms with his or her sexual orientation.

And, in addition to this, the argument presupposes that there are solid reasons to think homosexuality harmful in the first place. As we shall see in this essay, there are no such reasons, and hence, even if homosexuals did recruit (which they do not), this could hardly be considered a bad thing, aside, possibly, from the negative attitudes that one has to endure as a homosexuals, not the least from condemning Christians and conservatives.

But what if it were the case that there was a larger proportion of homosexuals than heterosexuals who molested children, for instance (which is not the case)? Of what use is that information? Consider if it was found that the proportion of heterosexuals who molested children was higher than that of homosexuals, what conclusion would be drawn from that information? Should we therefore make life as hard as possible for all heterosexuals (perhaps on the belief that they would become homosexuals, and hence less prone to molest kids, through that type of treatment)? Clearly, such ideas seem bizarre and at odds with basic notions of justice: both because all would be punished for the activities of a minority (the molesters) and because the actions are probably counterproductive (repressed molesters are probably more prone to molest). And we must not forget that underlying this idea is the erroneous theory than one can consciously change the sexual orientation of people.

To conclude, then, the claim that homosexuals pose a threat to children is defaming and without basis. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, generally love and care for children and wish them only to lead good, rewarding, and honest lives.

[edweird]

Ha-ha I'm making you do research!

Nah I think warbeak2099 has this one licked... and LGBT Parenting is not the pulpet that I normally preach from, so I will just handle the lightwork of calling out lobbys and special interest groups when presented them, and let the pros handle the out of feild research.

[SCpoloRicker]

This thread needs more Joseph Campbell.

[Dark Side]

Institute natural selection for the Human race.

[billybob_81067]

I know, for one, that I did not choose to be gay, nor did anyone act consciously to make me gay, and all my gay friends have the same experience.

Nah I think warbeak2099 has this one licked...

Yeah I'd say he's got it licked alright.....

[PumpPlayer]

I'd go back in time and buy myself a Wii so that I could play it instead of reading this thread...

[warbeak2099]

Yeah I'd say he's got it licked alright.....

Hey hey hey lol, that's what I get for not using quotes.