The gay agenda

[cobra2411]

I would like some help understanding the issue sometimes referred to as "the gay agenda". 

 

I was raised as tolerant and even when I personally disagree with someone's life choices I view them as their choices and if they don't affect me personally I see no reason to waste time worrying about them. 

Then this surfaced on my radar: http://askthebigot.com/2015/07/23/the-story-of-moira-greyland-guest-post/

 

 

My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited.  Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.”  If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish.  As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur.  As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

I'm still a little in shock at the graphic nature of this and the pieces I recently saw about female pedopheliacs, the cult of god, etc. 

 

Now of course this is blamed on the gay agenda. Let them marry and more importantly raise children, and it is implied that they will abuse these children with the goal of turning them gay, etc. The claim is is that homosexuals are significantly more likely to be abusers than straight people. 

 

Biologically homosexuality is a defect. Survival is universal and reproduction is seen in all life. Without medical advancements, homosexuality leads to no offspring and the decline of the species. Add to that Bruce Jenner and all the transgender, etc and you have a host of people with biological defects. 

 

I guess I'm looking for some traction - some direction to head in. My first question is: Are homosextuals more likely to abuse children than straight people. I discount the claims of abuse leading to homosexuality although I suspect it can happen. Just that it's not the leading cause. Also are homosexuals more likely to have been abused as a child? 

I'm also curious if there is any valid work on child sexual abuse and abnormal sexual preference later in life. Is any of it "normal" in terms of role playing, BDSM, multiple partners, etc. Is there a line or just a wide gray area?

And lastly, should we be worried about the push in acceptance of gays, transgenders, etc? Will ageism be next or is there no point in all this that child abuse is ok? I know there's still heated debates about how spanking teaches respect and if more kids got beaten by their father's we'd have less problems. That's certainly a false statement, but all too often you hear "I was beat and I turned out ok!" as the sole defense. Will the slippery slope argument become valid? 

So anyway, before I start rambling, does anyone have any insite? Or am I the troubled one because I believe that one penis and one vagina are the correct number of sexual organs in an intimate relationship?   
 

[AynRand]

To the best of my knowledge the "gay agenda" is just something that right wing conservatives, and proselytizing christians say whenever social change occurs that they don't like. I don't normally hear anarchists bring up the "gay agenda" because it might as well be a non issue. Similar to saying "should blonde people have equal rights?" Obviously any reasonable person would say yes blonde people should have equal rights similar to gay marriage.

 

Biologically homosexuality is a defect.

Well biologically speaking it wouldn't make any claims on homosexuality.

 

Unfortunately I do believe that homosexuals are just as likely to abuse their children as are straight people. My reasoning for this is just that where you put your reproductive organs has little to do with how you raise your children. However I believe I've read a few articles on how gay couples don't hit their children as often, however I am sure they are just as likely to verbally abuse children so I would consider a wash.

 

I believe it is relatively common for gay people to have been abused as children, however I believe it's instances where the parents tried to beat the gay out of the child, and not the other way around where the beatings turned the child gay.

 

I absolutely support the social acceptance of gay, and transgendered people in our communities.

 

 

I know there's still heated debates about how spanking teaches respect and if more kids got beaten by their father's we'd have less problems. That's certainly a false statement, but all too often you hear "I was beat and I turned out ok!" as the sole defense. Will the slippery slope argument become valid?

I find it deeply disturbing that people can still support the idea of assaulting children. Fortunately it seems to be getting better, however we are far away from social acceptance of peaceful parenting. I've noticed more video's surfacing of people stepping in whenever a parents assaults his child at wal-mart, granted that comments are heavily polarized, I still think this is progress.

[Archimedes]

Biologically homosexuality is a defect. Survival is universal and reproduction is seen in all life. Without medical advancements, homosexuality leads to no offspring and the decline of the species. Add to that Bruce Jenner and all the transgender, etc and you have a host of people with biological defects. 

 

Depending on the species, sex is more than just a tool for reproduction. Many species also use sex for social bonding. Bonobos for example use sex to resolve conflicts. While Gibbons are sexually monogamous and only have sex when the female is in ovulation. So, sex isn't universally just about reproduction. Humans have about 1000 orgasm per reproduction. We obviously don't have sex just to reproduce. It's a viral tool for keeping a relationship healthy. Therefore, I think homosexuals aren't defective. They use sex like heterosexual couples to strengthen their relationship and if they want to reproduce they can go to special agencies. 

[fractional slacker]

No rational person can object to voluntary sexual behavior between adults. But that doesn't serve the interests of political parasites and their obsession with identity politics.
IMO the gay agenda is a branch of Cultural Marxism. Their agenda is more govt. power via propaganda and violence if necessary.

Ask Alec Baldwin or Hulk Hogan what happens if you say bad word and run up against the gay agenda enforcers.
 

[GA_Freeman]

http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/dawntest.htm

 

Here is another woman affected by gay parents.  

 

I don't care about the the individual choices people make.  I have always had gay friends and I don't judge someone based on their sexual preference.

 

I lived with a lesbian and she dated many women and tended to prefer lipstick lesbians who liked to flirt with me.  I found it titillating and confusing but it did not give me the impression that they were strictly gay.   What does this prove? Nothing, but I did not get the impression they were strictly gay.  I have no proof but they acted like they wanted me to sleep with them.  I did not try as I did not want to lose my roomate as we got along well and I did not want to end my rooming over cheating with her girlfriend.

 

This is neither here nor their but I have known a lot of gay men and I have never seen a long term gay relationship except for clean/sober gay men.  Why do i state this, well, I only care about the protection of children, really my children, but all children. According to http://www.naasca.org/2012-Resources/010812-StaisticsOfChildAbuse.htm90% of child sexual victims are victimized by someone they know or trust.  What proof do we have that children are safe with "gay families"?  Why do they want children?  Is it like religion, get to them young?

 

I don't know, I don't have answers but I don't like any political agenda or activism to try and force anything on me, especially opinions.

 

I don't know what to say, I really feel angry about the abuse that these survivors of child abuse endured.  

[st434u]

I discount the claims of abuse leading to homosexuality although I suspect it can happen. Just that it's not the leading cause. Also are homosexuals more likely to have been abused as a child?

 

Why do you discount it? I think it is way more common than most people suspect, and pretending it doesn't exist can lead to huge problems. Besides, if such a thing exists, and is grossly overlooked, obscured and obfuscated by the media and politically correct speech, there may be sinister reasons why.

 

One example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10346616/Belgian-killed-by-euthanasia-after-a-botched-sex-change-operation.html

[PatrickC]

"It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.”  If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish."

 

It has been said that there is a darker leftist agenda out to destroy the family. And what could be more destructive than having multiple sex partners of either sex and with children too. The nuclear family of course has been the major linchpin to helping us into the industrial age. So the charge of cultural Marxism is a reasonable one I think.

 

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with being gay. There are radical leftist homosexuals for sure. Some of whom might hold the delusion that all straight men and women are secretly gay. I know when I became the object of desire for some homosexual men, they would often attempt to insist that I was gay myself. Kind of bonkers of them, when I look back on it now.

[fractional slacker]

The gay agenda, like Patrick pointed out, is about destroying the nuclear family and traditional values in general. The agenda is carried out largely by attacking western culture in general, and Christianity specifically.

Now cultural Marxists have stepped up their game by targeting the non-religious eg Richard Dawkins.
They also absolutely hate Adam Carolla.
http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2015/03/06/homophobic-racist-adam-carolla-done-apologizing

 

[Torero]

To the best of my knowledge the "gay agenda" is just something that right wing conservatives, and proselytizing christians say whenever social change occurs that they don't like. I don't normally hear anarchists bring up the "gay agenda" because it might as well be a non issue. Similar to saying "should blonde people have equal rights?" Obviously any reasonable person would say yes blonde people should have equal rights similar to gay marriage.

I agree very much with this.

 

And I am wondering what is the "agenda"?

 

What and how does one identify that there's an agenda? What's the goal?

 

How could gay acceptance (which I think is key to any anarchist/libertarian; i.e. respecting the differences between us (the similarities will find their way by themselves)) ever "destroy" the family?

 

The vast majority of people are not gay, yet heterosexual. They may or may not choose to have children. How are these families bothered or influenced by the fact that other couples are of the same sex?

 

Or do people see the agenda as "making people gay/more gay"? I also wonder what the biological basis for that reasoning is, as far as I know hetero/homosexuality is a product of nature, not nurture. In extreme situations where horrible abuse by one sex is inflicted upon an individual he or she could turn to the same gender for love and intimacy, but I wouldn't call that "making someone gay", it's more of a personal trauma which could be solved with good therapy.

 

On the "traditional family"; I agree that two parents (preferably of different sexes as they both have their unique input in educating children) is the best situation for children. But there are examples of polygamy where children are well off as well. If a collection of people (multiple wives or husbands) have a good system of educating the offspring (of some or all of them), what's the big deal?

 

Shouldn't we respect others' choices like they should respect ours instead of forcing others to have a "traditional family"?

[MagnumPI]

Before I get into any debate or concern over whether something is or isn't, I first ask "Is the state pushing it?" If the answer is yes, I'm immediately on red alert. And they are pushing the gay thing. That makes it suspect and before anyone wants to talk to me about what it is, they need to tell me why and with what end the state thinks gays need more 'rights' or preferential treatment. As far as I can tell, best case, it's a distraction from something that actually matters. Worst case, and usually the case, they're fucking up society and civilization to keep the cattle in the pen.

[Troubador]

I must admit sexualisation of children is to my mind bonkers and abusive not by any stretch of the imgagination likely to lead to a utopia. Exploring one's own sexuality is a personal affair, some don't feel comfortable doing so until well into adulthood.

 

The goal here is to let people figure out where they are, free from pressure and coercion of any kind. Because it is an outlier homosexuality can lead to major isolation in the teenage years where a lot of people are often starting to work all this out, whilst there is a simultaneous pressure to fit in and conform.

 

We have a collective responsibility to create a society where our children can figure this all out for themselves. Furthermore throwing gay people under the bus in the name of 'family' isn't going to create the sorts of nurturing environments families ultimately need to be.

[Mister Mister]

my impression is that gays, just like blacks and women, are just the lastest props being used to push cultural marxism.  there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, but unfortunately, much of the community has been co-opted by insane people on a power-grab-trip

[snapdragon]

f

[Donnadogsoth]

Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution
http://henrymakow.com/playboy-and-the-homosexual_re.html

Henry Makow has some interesting stuff on the "Gay agenda".  The focus on Gay marriage is really missing the point of the pathological nature of most Gay relationships, highlighting the "Playboy" era's sexual revolution's promotion of a hedonic paradise of pansexuality--teachable to recruitable children.  This plugs into the Marxist binary paradigm, where "proletariat" and "bourgeosie" are replaced by deviant sexualities and the heterosexual establishment respectively.

"Kinsey's agenda, in Reisman's words, was "to supplant what he saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous "anything goes" bi/gay pedophile paradise.""

Creating "Gay" Children
http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf

[snapdragon]

k

[Donnadogsoth]

Who does not have an agenda?  You are being silly.  If you are actually interested in an alternate viewpoint to the Gay=100%positive movement which squats upon the body of contemporary Western politic, you will be able to muster the small amount of filtering effort needed to look through the Creating Gay Children report and find the relevant stats and quotes by the original sources.

for real? honestly all of the gay people I know have regular adult partners, work regular jobs, pay off regular mortgages and live the same sort of mundane lives that the rest of us lead.... lol hedonistic paradise of pansexuality suuuuuuuure

 

What is next to legalise, snapdragon?  Incest, or polygamy?

[Donnadogsoth]

I thought it was you who was trying to make a point by posting those sources. I was interested. I clicked on them. I tried to find something valid. I let you know it was not getting through to me. But thanks for calling names.

 

What is your agenda, mellomama, to shield yourself from criticism of the Gay agenda?

[Donnadogsoth]

My agenda is understanding, rationality, and personal meaning. What is yours?

 

So why not read Crafting Gay Children and consider that on the issue of Gays you might have been sold a bill of goods.

 

A: The survival of Western civilisation

[Torero]

...an alternate viewpoint to the Gay=100%positive movement ...

 

What is negative about gays? Do they bother you? Are you saying that two adults who love eachother, have free will to choose a partner just like you, me and everyone else, but are of the same sex is negative? What is your rational basis to call that negative?

 

No, I am not going to read any links; the idea of a forum is that you discuss with eachother and that you argument your points. And on a forum where -finally!- philosophy is the core value you do this rationally, so based on principles and ethics.

 

And see my earlier post; what is the biological basis for the claim that "children can be made/crafted gay"?

[Donnadogsoth]

What is negative about gays? Do they bother you? Are you saying that two adults who love eachother, have free will to choose a partner just like you, me and everyone else, but are of the same sex is negative? What is your rational basis to call that negative?

 

No, I am not going to read any links; the idea of a forum is that you discuss with eachother and that you argument your points. And on a forum where -finally!- philosophy is the core value you do this rationally, so based on principles and ethics.

 

And see my earlier post; what is the biological basis for the claim that "children can be made/crafted gay"?

 

Do you really think the mass media, which created the current Gay-positive cultural environment, is going to stop?  A hundred years ago, if you told someone there would soon be a word--"homophobia"--that would be used to silence, tar, and marginalise anyone who disagreed with the promotion and proselytisation of buggery, that would come into popular usage, they would look at you as if you were a candidate for the lunatic asylum.

 

So it will go with paedophilia.  They'll talk about "love" and "freedom" and "equality" and "kids' rights".  They'll coin words like "paedophobia" and "ageism".  They'll hoark up extra phlegm to spit on "tradition".  And they'll point to all the other freedom struggles we've had to have in order to make everything fair and good.  They'll come up with a flag, they'll have marches, they'll make strange bedfellows (no pun intended):  like with the cousin-marrying Muslims, for example.  There will be movies and tv shows and videogames and a cause celebre as a sympathetic paedophile is killed by wicked, retarded paedophobes.

 

Think it can't happen?  Why, because YOU are against it?  What do you matter?  The analogue of you that lived a hundred years ago and was aghast at the prospect of the legalisation of buggery couldn't stop "progress," so what makes you think YOU could stop it?

 

You won't stop it, because you don't see the process.

[Torero]

Do you really think the mass media, which created the current Gay-positive cultural environment, is going to stop?  A hundred years ago, if you told someone there would soon be a word--"homophobia"--that would be used to silence, tar, and marginalise anyone who disagreed with the promotion and proselytisation of buggery, that would come into popular usage, they would look at you as if you were a candidate for the lunatic asylum.

 

So it will go with paedophilia.  They'll talk about "love" and "freedom" and "equality" and "kids' rights".  They'll coin words like "paedophobia" and "ageism".  They'll hoark up extra phlegm to spit on "tradition".  And they'll point to all the other freedom struggles we've had to have in order to make everything fair and good.  They'll come up with a flag, they'll have marches, they'll make strange bedfellows (no pun intended):  like with the cousin-marrying Muslims, for example.  There will be movies and tv shows and videogames and a cause celebre as a sympathetic paedophile is killed by wicked, retarded paedophobes.

 

Think it can't happen?  Why, because YOU are against it?  What do you matter?  The analogue of you that lived a hundred years ago and was aghast at the prospect of the legalisation of buggery couldn't stop "progress," so what makes you think YOU could stop it?

 

You won't stop it, because you don't see the process.

 

I see not a single rational argument here.

 

You start off about the past (which we cannot change) and the word homophobic. I'd define homophobia as an irrational fear of gays. And yes, based on what I read from you, you fall in that category; you stated you object to "that gays are 100% positive", hence my question without taking a position; what is negative about gays? No answer.

 

Then you digress to pedophilia?! WTF? How does that come into mind/play?

 

There is no relation between homosexuality and pedosexuality (the sexual part of pedophilia) at all.

 

Homosexuals are adult males or females that simply have affection and love for the same gender. With mutual consent.

Pedophiles are adult males or females that have an affection for and interest in children (who cannot have the same level of consent that adults have and on top of that are far less strong to resist unwanted behaviour). Children as in people who have not yet developed any sexual organs.

Efebophiles are adults who like adolescents, so people with some sexual development, yet not completed.

 

The 16/18 year limit may be a rather arbitrary (someone 1 day before his/her 18th/16th birthday would be considered a child and suddenly 1 day later it's an adult), but that does not mean there's no science (biology) or reason behind this.

 

You seem to live from fears or so, first of homosexuals and then you jump to a foolish position that pedosexuals will "in the not so very far future" in the same box.

 

There however is no historical basis (pedophilia/efebophilia was more accepted in the past, in the Netherlands in the 70s it was even openly advocated by parliamentary political parties) nor any logical basis (the consent part) nor any biological basis (the adult vs not fully grown people part) for those fears.

 

So, in absence of any rational reasoning, ethics, moral and philosophy I really cannot see what you're doing in this topic. I specifically asked you for reasonable debate, yet you divert to pedophiles when we were talking about "the gay agenda".

 

If the gay agenda is to get worldwide acceptance of gay people as just as valid as heterosexual people, then I see not a single problem in that. Because biologically that IS the case. Even if you consider homosexuality a biological "distortion" (not inclined to reproduce), there's still nothing wrong with that, just like people with 6 fingers on one hand or lactose intolerance have a biologically different characteristic from other people, that does not make them abnormal and less that they should be treated like abnormal.

[neeeel]

Do you really think the mass media, which created the current Gay-positive cultural environment, is going to stop?  A hundred years ago, if you told someone there would soon be a word--"homophobia"--that would be used to silence, tar, and marginalise anyone who disagreed with the promotion and proselytisation of buggery, that would come into popular usage, they would look at you as if you were a candidate for the lunatic asylum.

 

So it will go with paedophilia.  They'll talk about "love" and "freedom" and "equality" and "kids' rights".  They'll coin words like "paedophobia" and "ageism".  They'll hoark up extra phlegm to spit on "tradition".  And they'll point to all the other freedom struggles we've had to have in order to make everything fair and good.  They'll come up with a flag, they'll have marches, they'll make strange bedfellows (no pun intended):  like with the cousin-marrying Muslims, for example.  There will be movies and tv shows and videogames and a cause celebre as a sympathetic paedophile is killed by wicked, retarded paedophobes.

 

Think it can't happen?  Why, because YOU are against it?  What do you matter?  The analogue of you that lived a hundred years ago and was aghast at the prospect of the legalisation of buggery couldn't stop "progress," so what makes you think YOU could stop it?

 

You won't stop it, because you don't see the process.

 

I may have misunderstood, but it sounds like you think theres something wrong with being gay, that it is somehow innately bad, or , I dont know exactly what it is you are saying.

if its not bad, what is wrong with the media saying theres nothing wrong with it

if it is bad, please can you explain what it is that is bad about it?

 

I am assuming that the links you posted cover at least some of the things you think is wrong with homosexuals/homosexuality. Is it just the "conversion" of children to homosexuality that you dont like about it? Or is there more?

[Donnadogsoth]

I may have misunderstood, but it sounds like you think theres something wrong with being gay, that it is somehow innately bad, or , I dont know exactly what it is you are saying.

if its not bad, what is wrong with the media saying theres nothing wrong with it

if it is bad, please can you explain what it is that is bad about it?

 

I am assuming that the links you posted cover at least some of the things you think is wrong with homosexuals/homosexuality. Is it just the "conversion" of children to homosexuality that you dont like about it? Or is there more?

 

Natural law.  Homosexuality violates natural law.  It is not the most egregious possible violation, but it does do so.  As such its promotion is deleterious to society, by displacing the traditional heterosexual family unit with the "anything goes" model.

 

Also:  the hypersexuality/promiscuity, the recruitment of vulnerable heterosexuals, the disease and health problems, and the fascistic elements it welcomes (like this conversation being banned in many places online and off, hate speech laws in many countries), and the progress towards paedophilic pansexuality.

 

My turn:  do you acknowledge that if buggery can go from the worst thing in the world in 1915 to being celebrated in the streets in 2015, that, sexuo-socially speaking, anything is possible?

[neeeel]

Natural law.  Homosexuality violates natural law.  It is not the most egregious possible violation, but it does do so.  As such its promotion is deleterious to society, by displacing the traditional heterosexual family unit with the "anything goes" model.

 

 

 

How does it violate natural law? What is the natural law that it violates? How do you know that this law is a law, and a natural one?

 

 

Also:  the hypersexuality/promiscuity, the recruitment of vulnerable heterosexuals, the disease and health problems, and the fascistic elements it welcomes (like this conversation being banned in many places online and off, hate speech laws in many countries), and the progress towards paedophilic pansexuality.

 

 

 

So you are saying that its possible for heterosexuals to become homosexuals, ie people who are attracted to the opposite sex, to become attracted to the same sex? Or pretend to themselves that they are homosexuals? Or what?

 

 

My turn:  do you acknowledge that if buggery can go from the worst thing in the world in 1915 to being celebrated in the streets in 2015, that, sexuo-socially speaking, anything is possible?

 

 

I am not sure that buggery was the worst thing in the world in 1915.

What you seem to be doing is the slippery slope fallacy. So, no, homosexuality being seen as a good thing, does not automatically, or necessarily mean that other things will become seen as a good thing.

[Donnadogsoth]

How does it violate natural law? What is the natural law that it violates? How do you know that this law is a law, and a natural one?

 

 

 

 

So you are saying that its possible for heterosexuals to become homosexuals, ie people who are attracted to the opposite sex, to become attracted to the same sex? Or pretend to themselves that they are homosexuals? Or what?

 

 

 

I am not sure that buggery was the worst thing in the world in 1915.

What you seem to be doing is the slippery slope fallacy. So, no, homosexuality being seen as a good thing, does not automatically, or necessarily mean that other things will become seen as a good thing.

 

It violates natural law by contravening the heterosexual family unit, as I've said.  The guardian of natural law is the Church.

 

Heterosexuals are already homosexual with regards to masturbation, in a manner of thinking.  To make the jump to homosexual coupling one simply substitutes the hands of someone of the same sex as oneself, for one's own.  A man's skin isn't always all that different from a woman's.  A man's lips are very similar to a woman's.  A man's eyes can be beautiful like a woman's.  So what's the big deal in making love to such a person, instead of to a woman, or being made love to by such a person, instead of a women?  Vice versa for heterosexual women.  Given enough brainwashing, virtually the entire population could feel compelled to identify as at least fashionably bisexual.

 

Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't directly cause "other things" to be accepted, but the fact that something as dramatic as homosexuality has been accepted indicates that the social clay is malleable indeed.

[Torero]

 

 

The guardian of natural law is the Church.

 

Ok, this closes the door. And wouldn't you call it Church Law then? The guardian of Natural Law would be Nature (not the magazine).

 

I really wonder how you ended up on a rational philosophy board. The "Church" has no right of law whatsoever apart from maybe inside their buildings.

 

Forcing homosexuals to follow your church laws, while they don't even believe in your religion, why??

 

Well, not that I expect a rational answer; you don't seem to care about rationality. Instead, indeed, your speech can be considered hate speech, as you hate people for what they naturally (by natural laws) are.

[Guest Gee]

Intering topic!

 

After a quick reading was interesting in looking at the emphirical evidence produced by examination of parental sexual orientation vs child life outcome. I'm still looking, but I did find this paper which started alarm bells ringing.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

 

Title:

Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes:  A closer examination of the American psychological associations brief on lesbian and gay parenting

 

Abstract:

In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”. The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address:

1. homogeneous sampling
2. absence of comparison groups
3. comparison group characteristics
4. contradictory data
5. the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied
6. paucity of long-term outcome data
7. lack of APA-urged statistical power.

The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

 

Highlights:

• A 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.
• In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group.
• No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size.
• Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies.

 

I would have to dig deeper into the papers, especilly the comparison studies in which single mothers represent the hetro group but given this paper and given what we known about the expected outcomes of children of single mother households? Dosn't look good.

 

Maybe this would be a good truth about presentation?

[Guest Gee]

Hello again,

 

Just had a quick scan through of the paper:

 

With regard to comparison groups:

• 26 of 59 contained no comparison.
• 13 of 59 contained comparisons to single mothers.
• The reamining 20 of 59 studies held insufficient information to determine the partential status! In the words of the author;

"Given that at least 13 of the 33 comparison studies listed in the APA Brief’s list of ‘‘Empirical Studies’’ (pp. 23–45) used
single-parent families as heterosexual comparison groups, what group(s) did the remaining 20 studies use as heterosexual
representatives? In closely examining the 20 remaining published comparison group studies, it is difficult to formulate precise
reports of the comparison group characteristics, because in many of these studies, the heterosexual comparison groups
are referred to as ‘‘mothers’’ or ‘‘couples’’ without appropriate specificity."

 

With regard to the homogenity of same-sex sample groups:

 

The author evidences the sampling of same-sex couples as non representative of the LGBT community, in words of the author;

 

 

Lack of representativeness often entails lack of diversity as well.17 A closer examination of the APA-cited literature from the
‘‘Empirical Studies’’ (pp. 23–45) section of the APA Brief reveals a tendency towards not only non-representative but racially
homogeneous samples. For example:

 

1. ‘‘All of [the fathers in the sample] were Caucasian’’ (Bozett, 1980, p. 173).
2. ‘‘Sixty parents, all of whom were White’’ comprised the sample (Flaks et al., 1995, p. 107).
3. ‘‘[All 40] mothers. . .were white’’ (Hoeffer, 1981, p. 537).
4. ‘‘All the children, mothers, and fathers in the sample were Caucasian’’ (Huggins, 1989, p. 126).
5. ‘‘The 25 women were all white’’ (Rand et al., 1982, p. 29).
6. ‘‘All of the women. . .[were] Caucasian’’ (Siegenthaler and Bigner, 2000, p. 82).
7. ‘‘All of the birth mothers and co-mothers were white’’ (Tasker and Golombok, 1998, p. 52).
8. ‘‘All [48] parents were Caucasian’’ (Vanfraussen et al., 2003, p. 81).

 

Many of the other studies do not explicitly acknowledge all-White samples, but also do not mention or identify a single
minority participant—while a dozen others report ‘‘almost’’ all-white samples.

 

Or in the words of Patterson, an author of a paper sighted within this paper:

 

 

Patterson (2000) reported the continuing tendency of same-sex parenting researchers to select privileged lesbian samples. Specifically, she summarized, ‘‘Much of the research [still] involved small samples that are predominantly White, well-educated [and] middle-class’’ (p. 1064).

 

Patterson, C.J., 2000. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 1052–1069.

 

Alarm bells are closer to air raid sirens at this point.

 

If anyone wants to look at the paper they should definetly not pm me and instead pay $40 to science direct

[utopian]

 

I kinda don't wanna get all into this so ima just drop my two cents here. 

 

If you consider the agendas of feminism, corporatism, transgenderism, government, and yes the "gay agenda" you will begin to notice a goal common to all of them. They want to get us to stop breeding. Although they want us to be sure to spend lots of money on products while we go die lonely. 

 

Feminism has it easy, as women have an easy time being satisfied loving each other, even if it is without lesbian experiences. The tougher nut to crack, is how to get more men to confuse themselves into homosexuality, whether they are or not. Gays and lesbians do not conceive children (usually) but they do often adopt them, and there are plenty to be had in the orphanage system. 

 

 

It is fairly easy to get women to stop breeding, you just slut shame them while attacking their insecurities and making them chase the hamster wheel of materialism, getting them to believe they will never be good enough without it. But men... men are harder to fool. They are more philosophical, harder to influence. They have this untameable urge to procreate. It would be nice for the agendas if they could get men to love each other and be satisfied with that, like they can with women, but men arent falling for it. So instead, they are beating men over the head with political correct assaults for gayness, transgenderism, feminism and what have you, emasculating them while distracting them with porn and video games. It seems to be working quite well. America is second (or third? it has been a while since I have checked my source on this) in countries who are not breeding, in comparison to Japan. Oh yea, economics has a lot to do with it as well.

[neeeel]

The tougher nut to crack, is how to get more men to confuse themselves into homosexuality, whether they are or not. 

 

I am not sure this is possible to do. Do you have any examples of this? 

It violates natural law by contravening the heterosexual family unit, as I've said.  The guardian of natural law is the Church.

 

Heterosexuals are already homosexual with regards to masturbation, in a manner of thinking.  To make the jump to homosexual coupling one simply substitutes the hands of someone of the same sex as oneself, for one's own.  A man's skin isn't always all that different from a woman's.  A man's lips are very similar to a woman's.  A man's eyes can be beautiful like a woman's.  So what's the big deal in making love to such a person, instead of to a woman, or being made love to by such a person, instead of a women?  Vice versa for heterosexual women.  Given enough brainwashing, virtually the entire population could feel compelled to identify as at least fashionably bisexual.

 

Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't directly cause "other things" to be accepted, but the fact that something as dramatic as homosexuality has been accepted indicates that the social clay is malleable indeed.

 

you realise that I dont believe that the church is an authority that I should pay much or any regard to, so citing the church to support your position does nothing to support it. 

What do you actually have that supports your position of there being a natural law, and that homosexuality breaks that natural law?

[Donnadogsoth]

Ok, this closes the door. And wouldn't you call it Church Law then? The guardian of Natural Law would be Nature (not the magazine).

 

I really wonder how you ended up on a rational philosophy board. The "Church" has no right of law whatsoever apart from maybe inside their buildings.

 

Forcing homosexuals to follow your church laws, while they don't even believe in your religion, why??

 

Well, not that I expect a rational answer; you don't seem to care about rationality. Instead, indeed, your speech can be considered hate speech, as you hate people for what they naturally (by natural laws) are.

 

I ended up here because I'm interested in truth and the defense of the West. Why are you here?

 

There's no need to clutter the debate by interposing alternate definitions of natural law from the one I am referring to. Natural law here is man's method of intersecting with the eternal law of God. It is contained in every heart but is cloudy without revelation to clear it up. Eg, Spartans loved their children, but had no authority to tell them not to leave the weaklings on the mountainside.

 

Nor is there reason to attempt to club me into submission to your will by using mindless liberal phrases like “hate speech.” Without the Church you'd still be speaking Latin, thinking concrete was the height of technology and cheering the flambe of cultists in the Coliseum. As Rodney Stark put it, “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honour God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, that handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover those principles...These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”

 

You can break a physical law and pay the consequence (eg walking off a precipice). So with natural (moral) law breaking it has consequences. Consider the plague of venereal diseases caused by adultery and promiscuity. Or the incipient plague of sexual impotence caused by pornography. Homosexuality is similar, as noted, and is the harbinger of even worse consequences to come, also as noted.

[dayna j.]

As Rodney Stark put it, “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honour God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, that handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover those principles...These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”

 

Cool story, but until you can prove that such a thing as "God" exists, it is meaningless.

[Torero]

I ended up here because I'm interested in truth and the defense of the West. Why are you here?

 

....

 

I am here because I finally found a place where reason rules. Not "church fantasies" or political propaganda, there are many places where those "values" are spread.

 

I am not against anyone believing their religion has all morality that they need, on the contrary: I see much more danger in believing in statism and corrupted science than in people believing in gods.

 

The problem is that you project your ideas on people who are not religious. And that you claim "natural law" (which I see as very important, being a natural scientist) as "church law". Natural laws are defined by nature, church laws are defined by churches (religion in a broad sense). Hence they can never be (set) equal.

 

I will leave the other fallacies in your last post aside.

[Donnadogsoth]

Your last post stated: "Natural law.  Homosexuality violates natural law.  It is not the most egregious possible violation, but it does do so.  As such its promotion is deleterious to society, by displacing the traditional heterosexual family unit with the "anything goes" model."

So... it is against natural law because it contravenes the heterosexual family unit, and it is displacing the traditional heterosexual family unit by violating natural law.

 

Circular reasoning much?

 

And your next point, "the fact that something as dramatic as homosexuality has been accepted," except in the preceding paragraph you explain how easy it is to for one to oscillate between homosexual and heterosexual. Because men and women are really so similar and you're gonna jerk off anyway, so what's the big deal? Well, is it a big deal or is it not? You can't seem to make up your mind.

 

I'd like to offer you a bit of compassion and extend an olive branch. I did read the long and dramatic essay the OP linked to. It is quite heartbreaking. So I can understand your concern that homosexuality will put children at risk. Where I think the breakdown may be occurring (and I could certainly be wrong), is that some very damaged people adopted deviant sexual habits AND molested children. They themselves were confused and not even sure they were gay. They certainly didn't behave as homosexuals, they behaved as confused bisexuals (not saying all bisexuals are confused). Now, please keep in mind, that people of any sexual stripe can be abused as children and go on to abuse the next generation. They may even act like gay people. That does not translate logically to homosexuality leading to abuse. Abuse leads to abuse. And it may lead to confused sexuality and all sorts of other troubles. But it it is not the homosexuality that caused the trouble. IT WAS THE ABUSE. Am I making any sense here?

 

I appreciate the arguing in good faith.  It can be in short supply online.  That said,

 

Natural law prescribes the heterosexual family unit. To violate that is to violate it.  Not every broken window cuts someone, but a neighbourhood of broken windows has deleterious consequences.

 

The fact that a seduction may be easily accomplished doesn't mean seduction is a trivial act.

 

I don't think I ever claimed homosexuality necessarily leads to abuse, but it is related to problems as noted, not the least of which is it engaging in the never-ending sexual revolution which will, in my opinion, inevitably converge on children.

 

An interesting note from the OP link you seem to be overlooking, but which is what I am talking about:

 

"So I have begun to speak out against gay marriage, and in doing so, I have alienated most of even my strongest supporters. After all, they need to see my parents as wacky sex criminals, not as homosexuals following their deeply held ethical positions and trying to create a utopia according to a rather silly fantasy. They do not have the willingness to accept the possibility that homosexuality might actually have the result of destroying children and even destroying the adults who insist on remaining in its thrall.

 

"Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community, I would like to explain why I believe this is so: From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy."

I am here because I finally found a place where reason rules. Not "church fantasies" or political propaganda, there are many places where those "values" are spread.

 

I am not against anyone believing their religion has all morality that they need, on the contrary: I see much more danger in believing in statism and corrupted science than in people believing in gods.

 

The problem is that you project your ideas on people who are not religious. And that you claim "natural law" (which I see as very important, being a natural scientist) as "church law". Natural laws are defined by nature, church laws are defined by churches (religion in a broad sense). Hence they can never be (set) equal.

 

I will leave the other fallacies in your last post aside.

 

Reason is just a tool, it can be used for good or evil.  You, unfortunately, seem to be indifferent to that fact, and have no stated goal beyond an Enlightenment-era worship of Reason for its own sake.  That way lies dragons.

Cool story, but until you can prove that such a thing as "God" exists, it is meaningless.

 

The power of science and classical art prove the natural order ordained by God.  When humanity deviates from it, the universe moves to extinguish us.  God has no need of a human race that violates his law.

I am not sure this is possible to do. Do you have any examples of this? 

 

you realise that I dont believe that the church is an authority that I should pay much or any regard to, so citing the church to support your position does nothing to support it. 

What do you actually have that supports your position of there being a natural law, and that homosexuality breaks that natural law?

 

As I wrote above, science and classical art.  From these we understand there is a physical law and a mental law, a law of the human mind, which applies to the society as a whole.  The principle of heterosexuality can thus be see as an artistic principle.

[neeeel]

 

 

The power of science and classical art prove the natural order ordained by God.  When humanity deviates from it, the universe moves to extinguish us.  God has no need of a human race that violates his law.

 

 

 

No they dont prove anything like that. First, in order to prove that, you would need to show that there is a god, that he has a natural order, and that he has told us ( or you at least) that natural order. Since you cant prove that, then your above statement holds no water.

 

 

 

As I wrote above, science and classical art.  From these we understand there is a physical law and a mental law, a law of the human mind, which applies to the society as a whole.  The principle of heterosexuality can thus be see as an artistic principle.

 

 

I think you misunderstand what laws are in science. And I have no idea what "law of the human mind" means.